http://youtube.com/watch?v=F3pYjYxl86E
What does /lgbt/ think of non-leftist trans pekple?
>>5443600
I don't really think she's a non-leftist, she just opposes the militant gynocentrism and misandry that's prevalent in feminist ideology.
>>5443639
What's exactly wrong with feminism right now? You people keep talking shit about it, but I've yet to see any examples of third way feminism being horrible?
>>5443647
Just had radfem thread after thread calling lgbt perverts and insisting that giving them rights would lead to a wave of rapes and murders.
That's pretty not endearing.
while feminism is typically associated w/ the left you can still be a leftist and not be a feminist. that said this video does not tell us anything about her political beliefs other than that she knows women hold privilege.
in theory they are fine. I do not really like or identify with either the left or the right, I think they are two great polemical evils. but that's another post
>>5443639
I guess thats true
I am a left-libertarian/ classical liberal and I identify as an egalitarian and while I dont agree with MRAs overall I find them more honest than feminists
>>5443639
I guess thats true
I am a left-libertarian/ classical liberal and I identify as an egalitarian and while I dont agree with MRAs overall I find them more honest than feminists
>>5443656
Those are TERFs and 'gender critical' radfems that are heavily influenced by transphobic second wavers. Third wavers are very much pro trans from what I've seen.
>>5443676
When are you guys just going to dump the feminist label and all the associated baggage?
It's like calling yourself a Republican because you believe the Emancipation Proclamation was a good idea.
>>5443694
They shouldnt need to drop the label but they need to make a much bigger effort into distancing themselves and portraying themsevles as not shitty people
Yes not all feminist are man haters but dont say they are not feminist, dont claim others "just dont understand feminism" and dont avoid calling out these shitty people.
Feminism doesnt NEED to get rid of its label (although it might be easier if they did) but they do need to redefine what it means, and that means more than just saying "they are not real feminist" and refusing to discuss your points because "educate yourself"
>>5443647
It's actually mind-blowing how misinformed or uneducated people are about this. My English professor, a grown-ass middle-aged man, actually proclaimed that women were paid less than men and believed it.
There is a lot of resources out there. Nobody is talking shit. We're discussing something worth talking about. If Feminism cannot be publicly talked about, it doesn't need to be around.
>>5443647
It comes at the expense of non white and non privileged people, believes in patriarchy theory where it doesnt apply, and treats non female issues as secondary or emergent
>>5443759
Also they have a tendency of citing the serious problems women face in third-world countries as a reason feminism is necessary, despite most feminists focusing only on first-world countries where gender parity has more or less been achieved.
>>5443647
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
>>5443656
Watch out anon, that one radfem shitposter that's stalking you is going to descend on this thread with a tidal wave of smug anime reaction images.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ba3G6kznLYM
Theyre pretty based desu
>>5443976
>cutie with glasses: there's nothing wrong with gender roles, it's how we go where we are today
See anything ironic about that
>>5443600
Why do you keep watching videos of trans people and then letting/lgbt/ know about it? Are you some sort of chaser or somethin?
>>5444033
No I am a translesbian
>>5444033
why are you concerned about such a thing you dumb cuck
>>5444701
Because chasers are le boogeyman
>>5443639
>militant gynocentrism and misandry that's prevalent in feminist ideology
Oh yeah, you sound like an expert on feminism.
What is your favorite feminist classic?
>>5443647
Nothing is wrong with feminism. There's just a new resurgence of it and a related backlash.
4chan is one of the anti-feminist centrals of the Internet so you're going to get an extremely skewed perspective.
Would strongly recommend you to read e.g. Woman Hating and "Pornography and Civil Rights" from here:
http://radfem.org/dworkin
>>5443656
>Just had radfem thread after thread calling lgbt perverts and insisting that giving them rights would lead to a wave of rapes and murders.
Except you're a deluded fuck who interprets every sentence however he/she pleases.
>>5443676
Not even TERFs. Only the TERFest of the most deluded TERFs would ever claim such a thing as transsexuality being some sort of plot. More usual TERF positions might include:
- Women should not be criticized for drawing clear lines on what people are allowed to their women-only events; cynically questioning the lines they draw is, well, cynicism and entitlement.
- Transsexuality is often being misinterpreted (possibly but not necessarily by the patients and doctors themselves) in ways that reinforce the gender binary, stereotypes, and roles. ("Our son likes to play with barbie dolls so it must mean he's really a girl.")
- No-platforming a feminist author/speaker due to fear of "transphobia" is just another way of trivializing women's issues in the face of other issues.
And so on.
>>5445528
>platform
So then you think money should be taken from student fees to pay people to come and tell others they're deluded.
Theft and free speech aren't the same thing.
>>5445513
>>5445528
When will you learn that your kind are not wanted here? The guy you're waging some kind of autistic board-war with is an idiot, but you're just a different brand of crazy yourself.
>>5443671
>I find MRAs more honest than feminists
Fucking LOL. MRAs are deluded and aggressive idiots. "Punch a bitch in the face month" anyone?
Read some actual feminist websites instead of simply believing what 4chan tells you about them.
http://feministing.com/
http://feministcurrent.com/
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/
http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/
http://radfem.org/
>>5443713
>they need to make a much bigger effort into distancing themselves and portraying themsevles as not shitty people
Whole fucking books have been written on the problem of radical feminists' arguments being conflated with right-wing arguments despite being fundamentally different.
Literally, whole fucking books, and that since literally decades.
Read e.g. Pornography and Civil Rights.
Read The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism.
Read any of Andrea Dworkin's books, or listen to Catharine MacKinnon or Gail Dines' speeches (they're on e.g. YouTube).
It's because of people buying into anti-feminist propaganda and making absolutely *zero* effort to educate themselves, that this myth prevails.
I've been screaming on /lgbt/ for a while about these matters now but deluded fucks like >>5443656 actively hurt the cause.
Here's some of the most common misconceptions cleared up.
Radfems:
- Are all about structural analysis of our society (culture, politics, economy), and shit on "personal empowerment" when it ignores structural problems. It's a legitimate move for woman's lib to criticize a "slutty" woman for being that way; after all she causes this whole notion of "dirty sexuality" to be strengthened. It does not mean wishing harm to that woman. It does not make radical feminism "misogynist", it makes it intelligent, and means it doesn't get swayed by shallow notions of "personal empowerment" that ignore deep, structural problems with the situation of women in our society.
- Argue for civil rights remedies for women who can prove in court to be hurt by specific publications of porn. They are also opposed to porn that reinforces the idea that sex is something inherently dangerous, related to dominance, etc. On the other hand, they are opposed to obscenity laws because those laws have the same implication that sexuality is inherently dirty.
- Oppose prostitution and other things furthering a conception of sexuality as something commodified, rooted in objectification, etc. However they are sex positive in the sense that they wish for people to genuinely love each other as much as possible.
- Criticize the dominance/submission based sexuality in some gay communities and gay porn. They are not opposed to gays in general; to the contrary, homosexuality is essentially a statement against patriarchal marriage ideals.
- Criticize the strengthening of gender stereotypes due to some people's misinterpretation of transsexuality ("being a woman means wearing dresses and being submissive"), and some people's obsession over transsexual rights at the expense of women's rights. However they don't support discrimination of transsexuals; transsexuality is a way of shitting on the patriarchy by saying fuck you, I live whatever gender identity fits my brain.
>>5443647
When people talk about feminism they mean third wave feminism which is equivalent to misandry.
>>5445540
Fuck off back to /pol/ if you want to spread anti-feminist memes.
>>5445538
>to pay people to come and tell others they're deluded
What the fuck are you even talking about?
When I visit a feminist event I don't expect Julie Fucking Bindel to be banned because some people's feefees were hurt.
If there were some ultra TERFs who lead to actual violence against transpeople, that's a different matter entirely. The likes of Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel are not exactly known to promote violence.
The most violent prominent feminist author in existence might have been Dworkin --well, next to Solanas perhaps-- and her opinion on transsexuality is here as you see on the left.
>>5445549
It's usually radical feminism (second wave) that's being characterized as misandrist, and even that is wrong.
Feminism has never contained any majority voice promoting misandry. The absolute worst you'll find is Dworkin saying that a woman should be allowed to kill her battering husband or a rapist, should be allowed to kill a rapist pedophile, etc.
She is the one most target of the "misandrist" slur. And she actually wrote a whole fucking article about the dangers of the idea of biological superiority, explicitly countering some fringe feminists who would claim that women are inherently superior.
That's the most "anti-men" feminist you will find.
>>5443744
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply but denying the gender pay gap is like denying climate change at this point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
>>5445543
>I've been screaming on /lgbt/ for a while
Nobody likes a screeching harpy, senpai.
>>5445569
>senpai
Can someone tell me what word gets transformed to "senpai"? Like t.b.h. gets transformed into desu?
More radfem opinions in pic related to dispel myths.
>>5445563
What is your opinion of Erin Pizzey?
>>5445528
>>5445548
>>>antidiscrimination which is designed to eliminate the rights of women and girls to areas in public life segregated from males for our privacy and protection against sexual harassment and predation? What could possibly go wrong? Nothing at all, if you are willing to ignore the ever present gauntlet of sexual violence by men against women and girls of all ages, ethnicities, orientations, and yes, even “identity”, across all cultures throughout recorded history.
>>> Two conflicting interests: anatomical males identifying as trans women, and original females. And whose interest is upheld by the fucking law? That of the anatomical male. That is certainly an outrage.
>>5445575
I don't have one, because I know very little about her.
There's always that odd one out making weird claims though. I bet 9001 bucks on you I can find a Jewish group denying the Holocaust in 5 minutes of Googling.
As far as I understand, this woman determined that a lot of domestic violence was being "started" by the woman, right? Just off the top of my head, without really looking into things, I could imagine ways in which that would happen that still paint a picture different than what your typical /pol/ack or misogynist will think of. For instance a prolonged verbal abuse and cynicism towards the woman might tip her off. Women's situation is so fucked up often they can't even tell themselves what is and isn't abuse against them.
>>5445586
>eliminate the rights of women and girls to areas in public life segregated from males for our privacy and protection against sexual harassment and predation
Great job quoting GenderTrender, what is your point? They have a genuine concern for women's well being, though I'm not sure if I agree with their characterization of the law that's being discussed in that quote.
>conflicting interests
Your point being? You can't handle someone criticizing a situation where the law keeps transsexual women's rights above normal women's rights? Normal women are just fucking invisible to you, or how does that work?
Anyway, I know you're the deluded idiot who's been spewing ridiculous nonsense for days so I won't bother arguing with you.
>>5445543
>Punch a bitch in the face month
And #killallmen is any better? At leas punch a bitch in the face month is targeting only bitches and not calling for everyone of the gender to be killed.
Radfem, feministing and feministcurrent all support #killallmen.
>>5445557
>Germaine Greer
said that medical transition is unethical and should be banned by the government
>Bindle
Pushed for conversion therapy
They can say what they want. But you say that students should be forced to pay fees to give them a salary.
It's wrong to take money from kids to fund the ideological crusade of bigots.
>>5445602
>Radfem, feministing and feministcurrent all support #killallmen.
Links or it didn't happen.
I bet you're either the same deluded idiot who can't read words or are missing some very fucking obvious irony.
>>5445604
I'm not seeing anyone getting no-platformed for promoting misogyny.
Because those women had one or two misinformed opinions does absolutely not justify no-platforming them. People are all too keen to shut women up as soon as they have an excuse to -- or without even that.
>>5445600
>I don't have one, because I know very little about her.
You should do some research on her rather than saying things "off the top of your head, without really looking into things" and making a lot of assumptions (something that you've been pretty adamant about criticizing when people are doing the same thing in regards to radical feminism). I mean, I would have thought you would have known more about her already, considering she's the woman that started the first domestic violence women's shelter in the modern world.
>>5445613
> links feministing
I didn't say that. Don't really have an opinion on libfems. But it does look that they treat lgbt as accessories as best.
Don't blame everyone who says stuff you don't like on me.
>>5445613
>misinformed opinions does absolutely not justify
It absolutely justifies not wanting to be charged student fees to pay them.
Let them soapbox, but you don't have a right to take money from kids or shame them for protesting.
>>5445620
I might look into her eventually, but I don't see her revolutionizing my views or anything.
What exactly do you think will it teach me, to look into her?
>>5445641
What do you think they're going to do, get up there and start preaching conversion therapy and the ban of SRS? Nobody's that retarded. It's simply a means of shutting up another brilliant pair of feminists on superficial grounds.
Solanas? Mentally ill murderer. Dworkin? Sexphobic manhater. Greer and Bindel? TERF bigots. MacKinnon? SWERF bigot. Woolf or Goldman? Who's that, ancient grandma.
The only second wave feminist who gets a bit of popular appeal seems to be Gloria Steinem and that because there's pictures of her wearing a Playboy bunny-girl suite and because she promotes erotica.
It's fucking insane.
And it's barely improving. Sarkeesian and Quinn? Conspiring money-hungry masterminds. Brianna Wu? Ugly amateur developer.
At the very least, Sarkeesian and Quinn were in a UN meeting about ending online violence against women...
>>5445664
Why should they be paid money taken from the very minorities they agitate against.
They don't have any brilliant academic accomplishment so why make them faculty just because they're polemicists.
Would you like a professor Fred Phelps and prof. Milo too?
>>5445664
>What exactly do you think will it teach me, to look into her?
Well, nothing at all if the attitude you take when looking into her is "I am determined not to learn anything from this research".
Look into her views, the conclusions she drew from her own research and experiences, and what happened to her after she published and expressed those views openly.
>>5445664
>At the very least, Sarkeesian and Quinn were in a UN meeting about ending online violence against women...
Yeah, and that went over swimmingly. The takeaway the UN got from it was "we need to censor the internet more".
>>5445600
>concern
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/20/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathro/198533
http://mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms#.PGET63WvG
http://www.attn.com/stories/4080/transgender-bathroom-panic
Doubt it, the claim huckabe and trender keep making about how boys will suddenly all claim to be Trans and perv on girls is total bullshit. No laws like it have ever led to such things.
They know that but just went and talked about rapists to kill the best chance of getting an antidiscrimination law that lgbt had.
You unquestioningly push their bullshit.
>>5445513
Take your no true scotsman bullshit elsewhere you howling cunt
>>5445681
>the very minorities they agitate against
Congratulations erasing out the existence of all fucking women in academia.
>They don't have any brilliant academic accomplishment
Yes, they do, they are some of the most prominent feminist authors.
>>5445685
Can you just sum it up to me so I know what I'm up to?
>>5445697
>we need to censor the internet more
Haha, "holding people responsible for their actions = censorship."
The same bullshit that people have been spewing for decades, I see. FREEZE PEACH.
>>5445721
>right wing
>right wing
>right wing
You missed the part where right wing is kind of the opposite of feminist.
>>5445731
Go stick a cactus up your ass you ignorant retard. There is no "No True Scotsman" argument being made here. You're free to read up on every prominent feminist author I've mentioned up there or bring up any others of your choosing.
>>5445739
>Can you just sum it up to me so I know what I'm up to?
You've been telling people to go read entire books to learn more about Radical Feminism from the horse's mouth, and you can't even find the energy to read a Wikipedia article and follow some of its citations? Really?
>>5445781
I've told people to do that because explaining them wouldn't work and they would ask for "proof" (as if we're doing fucking chemistry).
>>5445800
>Woman begins setting up refuges where abused women could find a safe environment away from their abusers, often fighting with authorities to ensure their existence.
>Militant feminists, in conjunction with the Labour Party, turned her Women's Aid efforts into one that was hostile to men, turning the movement she started into a political one.
>Through her experiences in helping battered women in these shelters, learned that domestic violence was often reciprocal.
>Grew increasingly concerned that not enough attention was paid to this, nor the underlying causes of domestic violence, making prevention difficult.
>Ultimately wanted to try and treat the cause, rather than the symptoms.
>Began receiving death threats, credible bomb threats, targeted harassment, and defamation campaigns from feminists (within this time frame, it would be the Second Wave) and other Women's Aids groups for expressing these views.
>Violently ostracized by the very people that one would have expected to be most invested in helping her.
>>5445870
>the underlying causes of domestic violence
>wanted to try and treat the cause
But what was the cause? You summarized the story of her life, not what political/historic/whatever knowledge we should be getting out of it.
>>5445884
The information you're looking for is within finger's reach. I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink.
>not what political/historic/whatever knowledge we should be getting out of it.
You don't think there is any political knowledge to be gained from the story of a woman who spent her entire life helping victims of domestic abuse, only to have her life torn down around her by feminist organizations, in a thread about an ongoing conversation related to feminism?
>>5445926
>You don't think there is any political knowledge to be gained from the story of a woman who spent her entire life helping victims of domestic abuse, only to have her life torn down around her by feminist organizations, in a thread about an ongoing conversation related to feminism?
No. For all I know, she might have told the women in the shelters that they should go back to their husbands because in the end it's the women's fault.
What is so difficult about just telling me what you mean to imply? I'm being this fucking explicit and you hide everything you want to say behind ten layers of implications.
Or will it come down to admitting that all you wanted to say is "feminists are dumb lol"?
>>5445568
>no metric for hours worked, time taken off work, sicks days, length of career, part time or full time
Fucking trash. Unless you factor in all the variables you're just using junk statistics.
>>5445950
>if we control for all the variables that cause the gender differences, suddenly there are no gender differences left!
Magic!
>>5445958
>women deserve the same money for working less!
Radfems
>>5445958
Well yeah. But those variables matter.
If the men are working more compared to the women then they deserve to be making more.
Simple as that.
>>5445948
>For all I know
And therein lies the problem. You're doing the exact same thing you've been criticizing others in the thread for doing.
>What is so difficult about just telling me what you mean to imply?
I'm not implying anything. I was asking what your opinion of this woman and her story was in the context of this ongoing discussion of feminism, particularly "radical" or "second wave" feminism, and all you've been telling me is "tl;dr lol".
>>5445958
>If we ignore the fact that these statistics are fucking bunk, people will pay more attention to my pet issues!
This is why nobody takes feminism seriously. Use accurate statistics when trying to argue your points or fuck right off.
>>5445971
>women cannot possibly work the same hours
On a scale from 9/10 to 11/10, how retarded are you?
Ever heard of parental leave?
>>5445972
But *why* are the women working less?
Holy fucking shit, does your intelligence go only so far that you can take one step?
>more blacks die in violence, this is a problem of structural inequality
>but of course they'll die more, more of them are living in ghettos, duh!
>...
Does anyone here even understand the basic concept of "structural inequality"?
>>5445972
Depends; for example, and this is just hypothetical, if men were hired to work more hours than women despite women wanting to work as many hours, that's discrimination. If the women are truly choosing to work fewer hours, however, it might not be, unless there are other factors involved.
>>5445990
>You're doing the exact same thing you've been criticizing others in the thread for doing.
What, not admitting how ignorant I am, pretending to know all about a topic I've never read a single book on, and explaining away the other side's arguments with bullshit I pull out of my ass?
Nah, I'm asking you to make your fucking point.
Holy fucking shit, if you can't even state what your argument is then don't waste my time.
>I'm not implying anything.
Then fuck off and don't waste my time.
"Hey anon, did you know Hitler was a vegetarian?"
"So what?"
"Nothing, I'm just saying! I just thought it would be interesting to mention in this discussion of vegetarianism!"
Fucking idiot.
>>5446002
The statistics are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now go ride a cactus.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216.htm
>>5443600
She's better than the feminists, but while I try to like her because she looks good, her personality appears to be pretty shit tier.
Keeps referring to herself and other trans people as "trannies", and in general use offensive language when speaking.
>Women who worked full time in wage and salary jobs had median weekly earnings of $657 in 2009. This represented 80 percent of men's median weekly earnings ($819).
Somebody needs to repent.
>>5446031
It's our word, we can use it.
>>5446040
>neoliberalism
Absolutely disgusting.
>>5446006
>changing the topic
Holy shit why are radfems so stupid? Is it because they don't get dicked enough?
>women deserve the same money for working less
>the problem is they make less money, that's why it's a wage gap
Try selling people the "hours gap" lmao
>W-what? You want us to work more? Th-that's not what I signed up for!
Structural inequality is a buzzword used by SJWs to ignore the material conditions right in front of them. If you can't make your argument by referring to how things are, you can observe a vague trend in certain sectors and use that to create a totalizing analysis in which everything that contradicts what you say can be safely ignored.
>>5446006
Because of their natural propensity to become pregnant, followed by the maternal instinct to care for the child. This is usually funded by the man staying in full time employment, it's what I did.
>>5446048
Is that actually a neoliberalism thing? Because I was really just making a reference to the debate about whether or not it's okay for black people to call each other niggers.
>>5446006
Structural inequality is just a shield you use to never have to provide examples of sexism.
You can never define it or quantify it, you just say it exists and point to things you claim are caused by it.
>>5446040
No, that's not how it works, and this >>5446048
She's also litterally talking with that milo guy, who hates trans people, super into "LGB no T", and is being a retard.
Yet, she probably has no clue what guy he is, so she's unirronically talking with him, and wanting to do some video with him.
Her other trans friend, meyrhn or something, literally said that you don't need gender dysphoria to be trans, and lots of other retarded tumblr-trans bullshit.
>>5446055
>>changing the topic
Nobody here is changing the topic, you idiot.
Women earn less money, that is the fact.
"They work less, period!" is a retarded way to try to end that discussion. Questioning WHY they work less, if they do so, is the next logical step in the discussion, not "changing the topic."
>Structural inequality is a buzzword
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_inequality
Also, let's look at other reasons for the pay gap
>Considerable research suggests that predominantly female occupations pay less, even controlling for individual and workplace characteristics.[48]
>In 2008, a group of researchers examined occupational segregation and its implications for the salaries assigned to male- and female-typed jobs. They investigated whether participants would assign different pay to 3 types of jobs wherein the actual responsibilities and duties carried out by men and women were the same, but the job was situated in either a traditionally masculine or traditionally feminine domain. The researchers found statistically significant pay differentials between jobs defined as "male" and "female," which suggest that gender-based discrimination, arising from occupational stereotyping and the devaluation of the work typically done by women, influences salary allocation. The results fit with contemporary theorizing about gender-based discrimination.[50][51]
>A study showed that if a white woman in an all-male workplace moved to an all-female workplace, she would lose 7% of her wages. If a black woman did the same thing, she would lose 19% of her wages.[52]
>Studies by Michael Conway et al., David Wagner and Joseph Berger, John Williams and Deborah Best, and Susan Fiske et al. found widely shared cultural beliefs that men are more socially valued and more competent than women at most things, as well as specific assumptions that men are better at some particular tasks (e.g., math, mechanical tasks) while women are better at others (e.g., nurturing tasks).
>David R. Hekman and colleagues found that men receive significantly higher customer satisfaction scores than equally well-performing women. Customers who viewed videos featuring a female and a male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were 19% more satisfied with the male employee's performance and also were more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance although the actors performed identically, read the same script, and were in exactly the same location with identical camera angles and lighting. In a second study, they found that male doctors were rated as more approachable and competent than equally well performing female doctors. They interpret their findings to suggest that customer ratings tend to be inconsistent with objective indicators of performance and should not be uncritically used to determine pay and promotion opportunities. They contend that customer biases have potential adverse effects on female employees' careers.[73][74][75][76]
>Similarly, a study (2000) conducted by economic experts Claudia Goldin from Harvard University and Cecilia Rouse from Princeton University shows that when evaluators of applicants could see the applicant's gender they were more likely to select men. When the applicants gender could not be observed, the number of women hired significantly increased.[78][79]
>Research finds that work by men is often subjectively seen as higher-quality than objectively equal or better work by women compared to how an actual scientific review panel measured scientific competence when deciding on research grants. The results showed that female scientists needed to be at least twice as accomplished as their male counterparts to receive equal credit[82] and that among grant applicants men have statistically significant greater odds of receiving grants than equally qualified women.[83]
That one bears repeating
>The results showed that female scientists needed to be at least twice as accomplished as their male counterparts to receive equal credit[82]
>In 2006, the United States National Academy of Sciences found that women in science and engineering are hindered by bias and "outmoded institutional structures" in academia. The report Beyond Bias and Barriers says that extensive previous research showed a pattern of unconscious but pervasive bias, "arbitrary and subjective" evaluation processes and a work environment in which "anyone lacking the work and family support traditionally provided by a 'wife' is at a serious disadvantage."[80] Similarly, a 1999 report on faculty at MIT finds evidence of differential treatment of senior women and points out that it may encompass not simply differences in salary but also in space, awards, resources and responses to outside offers, "with women receiving less despite professional accomplishments equal to those of their male colleagues."[81]
>Research on competence judgments has shown a pervasive tendency to devalue women's work and, in particular, prejudice against women in male-dominated roles which are presumably incongruent for women.[84]
And so on and so forth.
Somebody in the thread has been blown the fuck out, but I can't quite make it out who that is.
>g-guize, the pay gap is a total myth, right? guize. hey, guize. right?
>ok it's true but it's not because of discrimination, right? guize, hey, guize. it's not because of discrimination, right?
>oh
>Perceptions of wage entitlement differ between women and men such that men are more likely to feel worthy of higher pay.[120][121][122][123][124][125][126]
>dat list of citations
Shit like this always makes me giggle like a little girl.
WHAT MALE ENTITLEMENT?
ALL JUST FEMINIST LIES!
>suddenly the thread is silent
D-did I break the anti-feminists?
Why am I going to argue with now?
>>5446173
>It's not because of discrimination,
>David R. Hekman and colleagues found that men receive significantly higher customer satisfaction scores than equally well-performing women.
>Similarly, a study (2000) conducted by economic experts Claudia Goldin from Harvard University and Cecilia Rouse from Princeton University shows that when evaluators of applicants could see the applicant's gender they were more likely to select men
>Research finds that work by men is often subjectively seen as higher-quality than objectively equal or better work by women compared to how an actual scientific review panel measured scientific competence when deciding on research grants.
Sounds like discrimination to me, honey.
>It had been quiet for an hour
You know 4chan has timestamps on each post, right?
>>5446036
Which jobs were the women predominantly working in and which jobs were the men predominantly working in?
>>5446182
You don't know what discrimination is, also, whatever you're talking about is a an upper class 1st world issue, and not of importance.
>>5446186
>Research on competence judgments has shown a pervasive tendency to devalue women's work and, in particular, prejudice against women in male-dominated roles which are presumably incongruent for women.[84]
>... The results showed that female scientists needed to be at least twice as accomplished as their male counterparts to receive equal credit[82]
>... The results showed that female scientists needed to be at least twice as accomplished as their male counterparts to receive equal credit[82] and that among grant applicants men have statistically significant greater odds of receiving grants than equally qualified women.[83]
>>5446095
>The researchers found statistically significant pay differentials between jobs defined as "male" and "female," which suggest that gender-based discrimination, arising from occupational stereotyping
Discrimination and stereotyping, or choice? Women choose jobs like advertising instead of jobs like petroleum engineering. The job pays less, not the gender.
>>5446195
>You don't know what discrimination is
>rate a woman's work as bad just because she's a woman
>totally not discrimination guize
I'm starting to get bored.
>an upper class 1st world issue
What country do you live in?
>>5446196
he results showed that female scientists needed to be at least twice as accomplished as their male counterparts to receive equal credit[82]
completely subjective
>>5446203
It's not discrimination for a customer to think they got better service from a man, than from a woman.
If they're in the same position they're still gonna get the same pay.
Seriously, kill yourself.
>What country do you live in?
Doesn't matter, but one of the richest countries.
How much you earn above what you need to live isn't important.
Decreasing the suicide rates among men is one of the most urgent "big scale" issues we have to face. Any form of wage gap is completely unimportant, and can probably be ignored for a few decades while we fix actual urgent and real issues.
>>5446206
>completely subjective
>Research finds that work by men is often subjectively seen as higher-quality than objectively equal or better work by women compared to how an actual scientific review panel measured scientific competence when deciding on research grants.
Completely subjective indeed.
>>5446217
>It's not discrimination for a customer to think they got better service from a man, than from a woman.
Yes, it literally is, when everything else is absolutely equal, which it was in these experiments.
Want to check a dictionary on "discrimination"?
>Seriously, kill yourself.
Hard to accept losing an argument, huh?
>one of the richest countries
So these issues probably affect the people in the country you're living in.
>How much you earn above what you need to live isn't important.
It is, but I'm not even going to go there.
If you accept that women receive less money simply because they're women, then that's absolutely enough for me for today.
>Decreasing the suicide rates among men is one of the most urgent "big scale" issues we have to face.
For which we need to end patriarchal gender stereotypes about men. I.e. that they have to be cold and indifferent, aren't allowed to show emotions, and so on.
You know, the things Andrea Dworkin's books written in the 70s have mentioned. Want screencaps?
And there's also, you know,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women
>Any form of wage gap is completely unimportant, and can probably be ignored for a few decades while we fix actual urgent and real issues.
The backpedalling is just so fucking delicious.
>>5446259
Jesus christ.
If you're gonna transphobe you can leave this board. Naming feminists and not bashing them is transphobic.
Please everyone, a reminder to report all feminists.
Feminism is not "respectful LGBT discussion", it's the same as shouting Hitler slogans and talking about jews and concentration camps, and how you wish all LGBT people should be sent to them.
>Want to check a dictionary on "discrimination"?
Ok, lets do it.
>Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.
A customer wanting a male server is not discrimination, it's a preference.
Is it discrimination if a straight person doesn't want to have sex with another person of the same sex? According to you, it is.
>>5446259
So first you claimed that research grants were awarded with a subjective bias towards men, and now you're saying that they're awarded objectively based on competence. The whole thing reeks of subjective cherry picking.
>>5446285
>If you're gonna transphobe you can leave this board. Naming feminists and not bashing them is transphobic.
>>5446311
Feminism stands for genocide of trans people.
It's literally like going to a Hitler concentration camp survivor forum and start talking about your neo-nazi bullshit.
>>5446105
>The results showed that female scientists needed to be at least twice as accomplished as their male counterparts to receive equal credit[82]
>MFW just an excuse to boy mode around professors and pi and trick them into thinking they're helping some effeminate gay boy get into stem
Stay mad I'm gaming the glass elevator, bitches.
>>5446285
>Feminism is not "respectful LGBT discussion", it's the same as shouting Hitler slogans and talking about jews and concentration camps, and how you wish all LGBT people should be sent to them.
Hello, shill of /pol/.
>>5446285
>A customer wanting a male server is not discrimination, it's a preference.
Gender is a group, class, or category, not an individual merit.
>Is it discrimination if a straight person doesn't want to have sex with another person of the same sex?
People are not entitled to sex with each other.
Workers are entitled to get paid.
>>5446318
>Feminism stands for genocide of trans people.
>It's literally like going to a Hitler concentration camp survivor forum and start talking about your neo-nazi bullshit.
>that glorious feeling when you blow anti-feminists out so hard, they go utterly full-retard
>>5446367
>Gender is a group, class, or category, not an individual merit.
It's a merit, like for example being an ex-professional football player will make people value whatever your opinion more than others, even if you have the same opinion as the others.
Simply because it gives them safety, even if it's because of something as primitive as feeling more safety around somebody of your own sex, or feeling less alienated by somebody of your own sex.
>>5446380
Anon, don't be a sore loser.
>>5446357
They're another person.
Quite frankly I'm more interested in why you spread propaganda about how HERO is a.rape Trojan horse ploy.
Funny cause I'm cool with equal pay legislation and anti-discrimination, but you with what you say, and the Radfems are the last people to ever support antidiscrimination laws.
>>5446375
I'm trans, I've lived through what feminism has done to me, literally ruined my childhood, caused life long emotional and personality damage, and physical disfigurement.
I know what feminism did to me and to others, it's not something that belongs in LGBT discussion.
Hitler is to jews as feminism is to trans.
Go back to >>>/pol/ with your feminism.
>>5446375
>be for equal pay and antidiscrimination
>oppose white knight straight dude who calls lgbt rapists
>"antifeminist"
Yea
>>5446395
>>5446399
[SHITPOSTING INTENSIFIES]
Please report the avatar fag.
>>5446407
>who calls lgbt rapists
[citation needed]
>claim that feminists call transwomen rapists
>not antifeminist
>>5446420
>he doesn't know what avatarfagging means
For how long have you been 4channing?
>>5446420
I'd rather you not report him, but it's obnoxious how he cavalierly goes on about how hero is a rape ploy or his men attacking women ideas.
He's laughing over 1930s type propaganda they put all over Houston about lgbt being monsters.
>>5446436
The person is spamming some anime character over and over.
This isn't /a/, all anime characters here are the same.
They're clearly using the anime picture to be recognized.
>>5446395
>>5446399
>>5446423
>>5446444
For the longest time, I assumed you have some genuine delusions, paranoia, etc.
It now occurs to me that you might be intentionally shitposting.
I'll think of reporting your posts from now on, and would encourage others to do the same.
You have been spamming this "feminists call HERO a rapist plot and call transwomen pedophiles and murderers" shit for ages now.
It's basically on the intellectual level of /pol/ when you do that. I don't think it's appropriate for this board.
>>5446446
>They're clearly using the anime picture to be recognized.
No, they're clearly using them as reaction faces.
Moderators have explicitly sanctioned this a while back. Anime reaction faces are on-topic on every board because 4chan started with /a/.
>win a debate
>people try to find reasons to get you banned
It really feels good.
>>5446429
>feminism about calling gays and Trans predators who eat women and children
>above all criticism
Yea, if this is what feminism has become, then maybe I don't want to be a part of it. Maybe it's fundamentally incompatible with lgbt existing.
>>5446463
Keep em coming.
Holy fuck I'm dying. Keep them coming.
>>5445574
famiglia
>>5446477
family?
>>5446487
bro? brother? nigga? nigger? sis? sister? kiddo? sunny?
>>5446461
Not the one who wrote >>5446399
There are a lot of lgbt people put off by arrogant guys like you acting like they're morally superior, while simultaneously calling us monsters.
Not the one who wants to report you either. I think you're an idiot but you mean well.
Go ahead and try And ban me but all I've done is advocate for lgbt's safety from an lgbt perspective and do so in an lgbt board. I've done no wrong.
I've done no wrong.
>>5446501
>acting like they're morally superior
I don't even believe in morals. Only ethics. *tips nekomimi*
>calling us monsters
Just *what* are you smoking? Please, tell me.
>>5446511
Your own quotes regarding hero
>>5446529
Quote them. (Or better, link to them.)
>>5446546
>>>antidiscrimination which is designed to eliminate the rights of women and girls to areas in public life segregated from males for our privacy and protection against sexual harassment and predation? What could possibly go wrong? Nothing at all, if you are willing to ignore the ever present gauntlet of sexual violence by men against women and girls of all ages, ethnicities, orientations, and yes, even “identity”, across all cultures throughout recorded history.
>>> Two conflicting interests: anatomical males identifying as trans women, and original females. And whose interest is upheld by the fucking law? That of the anatomical male. That is certainly an outrage.
Own what you preach
>>5446563
That seems to be missing the part where it calls LGBT monsters, anon.
I think you might have made a little mistake.
>>5446611
So then you're totally in favor of calling antidiscrimination laws a rapist ploy, never mind the fact they've never resulted in those ends?
>>5445958
>Why don't secretaries earn the same amount as investment bankers??? SEXISM REEEEEEEEEEE
>>5446908
>Research finds that work by men is often subjectively seen as higher-quality than objectively equal or better work by women.
