mystakin

The business part of me is skeptical that Microsoft would police harassment too harshly. After all, every banned XBL Gold account is a lost XBL Gold $60 yearly fee. I don't see them banning people on a whim.

@Jams said:

@mystakin said:

@Jams said:

@mystakin said:

@Brodehouse said:

@mystakin the reasons stated are best explored in the shady8x post Jimmi linked to earlier. The redditor in question has done a commendable job of promoting equality over simplistic equivalencies. It is societal, but in a much more natural and self-driven way than the assumed 'oppressive male domination' that is too easily reached for.

I honestly find that post misleading and unrelated to my initial point. Though the articles state the pay gap may be a myth, few deny its existence outright. Many articles still state that women have difficulty breaking into business and that societal constraints may play a role in that. Either way, none of the links address the lack of power that I've been discussing, to my knowledge.

I will admit to personal bias as well. I don't have a lot of faith in a subreddit that rallies against the solution to their own problems.

Men and women aren't just two jugs you can just fill with the equal amounts of water. That's a goal that will never be accomplished. You can't just want equal numbers even if there aren't even enough women in the field to make it even. The USA is equal in almost every way. We have enough people of all types in power to make sure it stays that way. To think otherwise is fooling yourself. You'll find every type of race and gender in every type of seat of importance or wealth. You'll now only find sexism or racism only in individual cases or small time group think. Things like the Presidency are a different story. That's a one person job that one person every 4 years gets to have and we've only just acquired our equality in the recent decades. We do still have holdouts from previous generations who are still holding their predispositions towards race and gender. But that'll change with every new generation born.

Being equal isn't about being a one to one ratio. It's about everything balancing out in the end. Where one man may have worked his way up the ladder with hard work and determination, a woman blackmailed her way there. One woman has to fight twice as hard to get her job while there is a guy who did it with his social status. For every woman that fights for real equality is one that does it for their own twisted agenda. If there are too many women with twisted agenda's then people start pushing back until it all balances out and that's what makes it fair and equal in the end.

I think America and most developed nations have gotten to this point of equality and it's only going to cement or get better while every older generation dies out. The real problem is trying to get the undeveloped nations there too.

This is what I believe.

The US isn't as equal as you think it is. Just as an example, in 2002 there was a study that concluded a 50% lower job application callback rate for African-American sounding names. Simply sounding like you were black meant a lower likelihood of being hired. Maybe this has improved in the past decade, but I doubt it's resolved entirely. The study is only about as old as Halo 1.

I only scanned the article, but I didn't see where they say the ethnicity of the person receiving the applications. How can that be a complete study if there's a chance some of those people rejecting African sounding names were black themselves, or Latino or Asian? You can't make assumptions that they were all white if you want a real scientific study. If the one of the business that rejected the names were black themselves, then what does that mean?

The race of the people receiving the applications doesn't matter; no one is making the assumption that the employers are white. It's not stated -- this might just be a summary of the full study -- but most college studies use random assignment to eliminate participant bias. It's likely that this study did as well. It's standard practice.

Additionally, the results of a single resume is irrelevant. The data is only meaningful in aggregate. Whether or not a black employer rejected a black resume doesn't mean anything (Unless you're that applicant, I suppose). It's only important once it's a trend.

@Jams said:

@mystakin said:

@Brodehouse said:

@mystakin the reasons stated are best explored in the shady8x post Jimmi linked to earlier. The redditor in question has done a commendable job of promoting equality over simplistic equivalencies. It is societal, but in a much more natural and self-driven way than the assumed 'oppressive male domination' that is too easily reached for.

I honestly find that post misleading and unrelated to my initial point. Though the articles state the pay gap may be a myth, few deny its existence outright. Many articles still state that women have difficulty breaking into business and that societal constraints may play a role in that. Either way, none of the links address the lack of power that I've been discussing, to my knowledge.

I will admit to personal bias as well. I don't have a lot of faith in a subreddit that rallies against the solution to their own problems.

Men and women aren't just two jugs you can just fill with the equal amounts of water. That's a goal that will never be accomplished. You can't just want equal numbers even if there aren't even enough women in the field to make it even. The USA is equal in almost every way. We have enough people of all types in power to make sure it stays that way. To think otherwise is fooling yourself. You'll find every type of race and gender in every type of seat of importance or wealth. You'll now only find sexism or racism only in individual cases or small time group think. Things like the Presidency are a different story. That's a one person job that one person every 4 years gets to have and we've only just acquired our equality in the recent decades. We do still have holdouts from previous generations who are still holding their predispositions towards race and gender. But that'll change with every new generation born.

Being equal isn't about being a one to one ratio. It's about everything balancing out in the end. Where one man may have worked his way up the ladder with hard work and determination, a woman blackmailed her way there. One woman has to fight twice as hard to get her job while there is a guy who did it with his social status. For every woman that fights for real equality is one that does it for their own twisted agenda. If there are too many women with twisted agenda's then people start pushing back until it all balances out and that's what makes it fair and equal in the end.

I think America and most developed nations have gotten to this point of equality and it's only going to cement or get better while every older generation dies out. The real problem is trying to get the undeveloped nations there too.

This is what I believe.

The US isn't as equal as you think it is. Just as an example, in 2002 there was a study that concluded a 50% lower job application callback rate for African-American sounding names. Simply sounding like you were black meant a lower likelihood of being hired. Maybe this has improved in the past decade, but I doubt it's resolved entirely. The study is only about as old as Halo 1.

When the original Rock Band came out I was convinced it was a horrible idea. I was such a huge Guitar Hero fanboy that even knowing RB was Harmonix developed didn't sway my opinion. It took a small dorm party a couple months after Rock Band released to convinced me otherwise. Playing drums was so much fun I knew I had to bite the bullet and get the full band kit.

Years later, rhythm gaming isn't what it used to be but Rock Band is still one of my favorite franchises.

Though I haven't left consoles entirely, I'm playing more games on my PC than I ever have in the past and recently canceled my XBOX Live Gold account. At this point, I play on PC for three major reasons:

1) Frame rate. Smooth frame rates are the quickest way to my heart in any game, especially if it's smooth at 60fps. With console games, the frame rate can be a bit of an unknown quantity. My PC is good enough that I know any console port I buy will run smooth -- unless the port is jacked up. *cough*DarkSouls*cough*

2) Free online play. This wouldn't matter if I had a PS3, but I'm sick of paying for XBOX Live. The constant ads, the features I don't want, connectivity issues with friends... I never felt like I was getting my money's worth with that service.

3) Steam sales. They're so tempting that I got tired of passing up great deals because my PC wasn't powerful enough.

@Brodehouse said:

@mystakin the reasons stated are best explored in the shady8x post Jimmi linked to earlier. The redditor in question has done a commendable job of promoting equality over simplistic equivalencies. It is societal, but in a much more natural and self-driven way than the assumed 'oppressive male domination' that is too easily reached for.

I honestly find that post misleading and unrelated to my initial point. Though the articles state the pay gap may be a myth, few deny its existence outright. Many articles still state that women have difficulty breaking into business and that societal constraints may play a role in that. Either way, none of the links address the lack of power that I've been discussing, to my knowledge.

I will admit to personal bias as well. I don't have a lot of faith in a subreddit that rallies against the solution to their own problems.

@Brodehouse said:

@mystakin I don't find the 'picture an executive' to be a rhetorically effective method of establishing rampan sexism; it establishes a person's ability to recognize patterns (a trait that has actually been proven to be superior in women!). If we want to go down that path, picture a prisoner. You've pictured a man wearing orange (or possibly black and white stripes!). If you want to connect that to other things; people will intervene in a situation where a man raises his voice to a woman far more often than the opposite (in fact, they are more likely to respond to a man raising his voice to a woman than a woman physically attacking a man). If we're establishing that society is engendering men to become executives and politicians, it stands that we're engendering them to become criminals and dock workers as well. This is similar to the "Jews are over-represented in Hollywood; therefore you have to be Jewish to succeed in Hollywood" fallacy. Stereotypes and associative connections are absolutely at play at all levels of society, but that's kind of what makes it society rather than a series of completely disconnected events. The abolition of this element requires a fundamental, neurological change in human nature and intelligence. I'm a transhumanist, so that's at least interesting to me on an intellectual level.

It's the scenario that makes most sense to me, at least. I think subconscious assumptions drive our conscious actions a lot more than people give credit. Much like the nursing and teacher example, criminal and dock worker aren't careers people strive for, in general. They also aren't positions of power, which was my original point. Assuming there is male discrimination in sentencing criminals and hiring dock workers, it doesn't justify the lack of women in power. As for the Jewish example, it doesn't hold weight for me since it seems a bit too specific. I don't think people put thought into what religion someone is when they imagine them unless prompted to, but everyone will assign a gender to an imagined character.

Do you have an alternative explanation for why women are so under-represented in positions of power? The discrepancy has to exist for a reason, even if purely by chance. Maybe you've stated it and I've glossed over it by mistake.

@Discoman - That makes sense, but I would ask why are women more susceptible to ending their careers for family life? It could be a genetic caregiver role, but it could also be societal standards that suggest women should be caregivers that weighs on their decision making. As a "nurture" guy in the nature/nurture debates, I'm more inclined to say the latter is the larger cause.

@SpartyOn said:

@mystakin said:

@SpartyOn said:

@mystakin: Correct, as I said originally. The disagreement was on the statement that women have very little power in society. Take a look at societies and cultures around the world where women are considered to be property. Not only that, but it's crazy to say that gender equality can be measured by the % CEO's and members of Congress that are women. Those professions have long been dominated by men, largely because of scientifically observable personality traits common to men that correlate with success in such professions. You can easily find high-paying jobs dominated by women and quote those statistics too. I hate it when people interpret equality the way you are, which is to be completely equal in every respect...that's ridiculous. There are differences in gender and it's insane to ignore them. Men are better suited for some professions, and women others. The important thing, is that we allow for the exceptions to have the opportunities to succeed, even in roles dominated by the opposite gender. Your argument is completely invalid to me...a more appropriate argument would be the difference in pay rates between men and women...something directly comparable between genders, and not biased towards proving a particular point.

Corporate and political power are the two strongest forces in America. Anything that isn't run by the government is typically run by business and the free market. Both keys to power in America are held by men, which is why I said women hold little power in American society. I don't think women are equal in every aspect; I think they're equal in their ability to be CEOs and political figures. There's a reason I didn't mention athletics, which is a career that may in-fact be genetically more suitable for men -- though I haven't looked into it.

One more reply and then I'm going to have to be done with this conversation. If you're standard of gender equality is that we are only equal when women hold 51% of all political and corporate jobs, then your logic is seriously flawed. I read an article just the other day that stated women held more CEO positions in Fortune 500 companies than ever in history, and I think that is wonderful. However, I would rather the best people for the job, get the job. If that means 99% are men or women, so be it. This notion of everything being split down the middle or we're sexist is insane, and it only serves to propagate sexism in society. You're focusing on the wrong things, and you have the wrong goals, although your reasons are just. Regardless, fun debating with you, but I'm just repeating myself now so I will have to excuse myself from this conversation.

@Downloaded: Agreed completely. Well said.

I know you said you won't post again, so I'll try to sum up my thoughts on this. My point is not that America is sexist or that no progress is being made. My point is simply that America is still not gender equal, and there's a lot of progress left.

96% of the top 1000 CEO positions are held by men. The question then becomes, why? Why do they hold so many positions? Do we believe that such a large discrepancy could happen by chance? I don't. I think something is causing it. So what's causing it? Are women genetically predisposed to be bad CEOs/politicians? I don't see why they would be. Is it sexism in the workplace? Well, maybe, but we have standards in place now to take care of the extreme examples. I'm not convinced that's the whole story.

I don't think anyone knows for sure, but I think it's a society issue. When a person pictures of a business executive, they typically picture a man. That's what we're used to from fictional and historical depictions of the position. Does that make us all sexist? No, but these snap assumptions can lead to sexist decision making such as interrupting women more often during conversations or paying women less until they ask for a raise -- of which they're historically denied. I think the majority of discrimination against anyone in America is subconscious. It's like "there are no bad people, just bad decisions" except it's "there are no sexist people, just sexist decisions."

@Brodehouse - For teaching and nursing, I think the discrepancy may be two-fold. First, they are jobs historically held by women so -- much like my point with women of power but in reverse -- men aren't considered for those jobs as seriously as women are. That's not okay, either. Secondly, Nursing and teaching are facing potential shortagecrises, possibly due to low wages. Nursing and teaching aren't idealized as careers the way high-paying corporate and political jobs are, and with men holding so many higher-paying positions, it's reasonable to assume that a man might seek those careers out instead.

@SpartyOn said:

@mystakin: Correct, as I said originally. The disagreement was on the statement that women have very little power in society. Take a look at societies and cultures around the world where women are considered to be property. Not only that, but it's crazy to say that gender equality can be measured by the % CEO's and members of Congress that are women. Those professions have long been dominated by men, largely because of scientifically observable personality traits common to men that correlate with success in such professions. You can easily find high-paying jobs dominated by women and quote those statistics too. I hate it when people interpret equality the way you are, which is to be completely equal in every respect...that's ridiculous. There are differences in gender and it's insane to ignore them. Men are better suited for some professions, and women others. The important thing, is that we allow for the exceptions to have the opportunities to succeed, even in roles dominated by the opposite gender. Your argument is completely invalid to me...a more appropriate argument would be the difference in pay rates between men and women...something directly comparable between genders, and not biased towards proving a particular point.

Corporate and political power are the two strongest forces in America. Anything that isn't run by the government is typically run by business and the free market. Both keys to power in America are held by men, which is why I said women hold little power in American society. I don't think women are equal in every aspect; I think they're equal in their ability to be CEOs and political figures. There's a reason I didn't mention athletics, which is a career that may in-fact be genetically more suitable for men -- though I haven't looked into it.

@SpartyOn said:

@mystakin said:

@SpartyOn said:

Also, having expectations of women is not sexist, it's just an expectation that each male is, hopefully, willing to change based on a woman's wants. Men expect women to be able to clean and cook, and women expect men to be able to fix things and take care of the things they don't want to do, so why is only one of those sexist?

It's not. They both are, but women have very little power in American society compared to men. At face value, both assumptions are sexist stereotypes. However, men are in the fortunate position of controlling most American industries and are better equipped to counteract male stereotypes while propagating female ones -- usually without intent to cause harm.

Neither statement is more sexist than the other; one is just more of a problem.

I agree there are differences, but the claim "women have very little power in American society compared to men" is ridiculous. Today women are CEOs, political candidates, Supreme Court Justices, athletes, and just about anything else you can imagine. Saying they have very little power is undermining the massive progress this country has made in gender equality.

There are some, but they're outliers. There's nothing specific to women that should preclude them from being CEOs or political candidates, yet only 4% of CEOs in Fortune 1000 companies are women and 16.8% of Congress are women. Those numbers should be closer to, though not necessarily equal to, their population figure, which is 51%.

There's been progress, but it's nowhere close to equal.