Ask an Anti-Feminist!

[TheMessiah]

LOOOL - So your only sources are the American Enterprise Institute and Spiked, a magazine with a Libertarian ideological component? So you accuse me of being ideologically driven by posting RationalWiki but you proceed to do the same? How is that coherent? Why don't you post ideologically neutral studies?

- Didn't cite American Enterprise Institute

- Read the Archive link, I cited Wall Street Journal

Wall Street Journal cites both Conservative and Liberal opinions; that link posted links to neutral statistical sources which show:

- Men work longer hours
- Men work full time more frequently
- Men work more dangerous jobs

Here is one, Washington-Examiner; there IS a pay gap, but it's due to choice, not ''discrimination''.

If women want to get rid of the pay gap, then stop studying liberal arts or humanities and get into STEM/Maths.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-year...le/2563010

I don't know how many times this myth has to be busted before people stop repeating it, but here we go again.

Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler has a great takedown of the myth, giving "two Pinocchios" to those who continue to push it as a means of telling women they're perpetual victims of discrimination. One important factor that Kessler points out is that women often choose lower-paying fields. He includes two lists, the first showing that nine of the 10 highest-paying fields are dominated by men (the second highest-paying profession, pharmaceutical sciences, has slightly more women than men). The second list shows that nine of the 10 lowest-paying fields are dominated by women (theology and religious vocations has vastly more men than women).

Proponents of the wage-gap myth like to claim that the patriarchy pushes women into those less lucrative careers. That's a sad commentary on their way of thinking — their notion that women are simply too dumb or weak to think for themselves and choose the career they actually want. I think the numbers show that women are choosing the careers they prefer but those careers just aren't as lucrative as those chosen by men. There's nothing wrong with that. Do what makes you happy.

Mark J. Perry of the conservative American Enterprise Institute has also taken apart the myth, showing that different lifestyle choices made by women contribute to the wage gap. For instance, married women and women with children tend to make less on average than men. Again, proponents say this is patriarchal discrimination that allows women to make as much as men only if they never marry or have children. I see no discrimination, only women choosing to work less or choosing more flexible careers that let them care for children.

Lisa Maatz, a spokeswoman for the American Association of University Women, confirmed my suspicion years ago. When asked how much of the gender-wage gap is due to discrimination, Maatz — whose organization is one of the biggest proponents of the myth — responded: "We're still trying to figure that out."

Translation: Despite decades of pushing this number, they still have no evidence that discrimination is the reason.

Mark Perry added a new twist on workplace wage gaps this year, pointing out that men account for nearly all fatal occupational injuries. This is due to men choosing (or maybe being forced by the patriarchy?) more dangerous careers like logging and fishing (think Deadliest Catch).

"The higher concentrations of men in riskier occupations with greater occurrences of workplace injuries and fatalities suggest that more men than women are willing to expose themselves to work-related injury or death in exchange for higher wages," Perry wrote. "In contrast, women more than men prefer lower risk, family-friendly occupations with greater workplace safety, and are frequently willing to accept lower wages for the reduced probability of work-related injury or death."

Those who perpetuate the myth of the 23-cent wage gap myth do so even though they know the real reasons for the gap. President Obama continues to claim women earn less than men even though, using the same statistics to arrive at the 77 or 78-cent figure, his administration has its own wage gap. When that was pointed out, the administration responded by saying it was because there are more women in the administration but they hold lower-paying jobs, which skews the average. A side-by-side comparison of men and women working the same jobs found no such wage gap.

The acknowledgment that the 77-cent figure is inaccurate hasn't stopped the White House from still bringing it up from time to time, although Obama himself has slowed down on its use recently.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was discovered to have her own wage gap during her time as a Senator, based on publicly available data analyzed by the Washington Free Beacon. When confronted with the discrepancy, her spokesman pointed out to the Washington Examiner that women were some of Clinton's highest-paid staffers. Clinton's staff has recently tried to rebut her own wage-gap claim by providing internal data to Buzzfeed that we little people are not privileged to evaluate for ourselves.

But the fact that a deeper explanation exists at all only further proves that the broad numbers we see only make for a useful talking point and little more. Dig down deeper in any office and the wage gap just doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny. In fact, the only true way to eliminate the supposed gap is to control the choices women make, but that would be a crazy proposition.

[TheMessiah]

When I hear a crazy Feminist argument i disagree with, I think, "that's stupid, what a shame, this could make the cause as a whole look bad"

There must be a reason that when you hear one you think (and i'm totally putting words in your mouth here), "aha! typical man hating/cult-like/irrational feminists"

And since there's no evidence that the character of the Feminist movement overall is like that, the reason you think that it is must be some sort of personal bias - this is why you're being accused of being a misogynist

Accusing me of being a misogynist, based on some reasoning like that, is both irrational, and dare I say, similar to religious thinking.

If you're going to accuse me of being a woman hater, then provide something substantial; because the ''reasoning'' for the claims that have been thrown towards me border on the type of reasoning religious people would use, accusing people of being ''Satanists'' - it's extremely anti-skeptical and anti-irrational which should not be the case for the Atheist community.

This isn't Atheism Plus, this is Atheistforums.org.

It proves my point quite well though, my criticism of Feminism has led to people accusing me of being a woman hater, which backs up my point of Feminism being like a religion.

Ideology is the world's problem; not religion. Even Atheists can be corrupted by ideology, hence Atheism Plus and the accusations I'm getting.

People have to realize that such accusations are serious; you can't just label anyone who disagrees as ''misogynist''. It's not valid debate.

[Saxmoof]

How is it bad reasoning? Until you can provide evidence that the Feminist movement as a whole is man hating/supremacist/cult-like/whatever, it remains just your assumption that it is - why is that? why do you want to paint it that way?

[TheMessiah]

How is it bad reasoning? Until you can provide evidence that the Feminist movement as a whole is man hating/supremacist/cult-like/whatever, it remains just your assumption that it is - why is that? why do you want to paint it that way?

Because being a Feminist doesn't mean you have to be a woman - and opposing an ideology, does not mean you hate all women. Not only is that accusation absurd; and similar to Creationist logic, but it's incredibly deceptive.

Most women are not Feminists - I'm not using that as validation, I'm illustrating that being an anti-Feminist does not mean you are anti-Woman, because most women are not Feminists.

That's akin to saying hating Islam means you hate Muslims, and you know that's bullshit.

[Saxmoof]

You completely haven't answered my question, I can't be bothered explaining it again

[Dystopia]

Instead of actually refuting source by source I'm going to simplify this for you and ask some simple questions:

- If you have a disparity between one half of the population when it comes to career, jobs and career choices, what other reason is there than discrimination? "Choices"? Choices don't exist, free will doesn't exist, because all humans are conditioned. So, unless you have irrefutable proof that our brains are wired, what reason can there be for 50% of the population to choose low paying jobs? Why aren't people interested in making money? Everyone loves money.

BTW - A problem with those articles is that they forget the average pay gap accounts for everything - So it isn't saying all men make more than women etc it is saying that, if you compare a man and a woman in the same position chances are he will still make more than her even with longer working hours. It isn't comparing female secretaries with male surgeons.

Two additional questions:
- If the wage gap is totally due to choices and not discrimination, why is it that black or non-white women earn, on average, even less?

- If the wage gap is really just due to choices, why is it that even in female dominated fields most positions of authority are occupied by men and men still earn more than women?

[Homeless Nutter]

Your rhetoric has consisted of, constant accusations of misogyny. The word is really beginning to lose meaning because of people like you, who throw it around like there's no tomorrow.

I have no idea why you label me ''Conservative reactionary'' either.

This is something I've noticed with you; you have your buzz-words of calling people ''misogynist'' or ''Conservative'' (as if it's an insult) just because they disagree with you.

- Not a muh-soggy-kneeist

- Not a Conservative either

Considering I grew up under-privileged and dirt-poor with parents working full-days, I don't think I was raised ''privileged'' - nice try though, your rhetoric reminds me of Atheism Plus, which was based on emotion, not any reason or logic; hence why you resort to labeling your opponents as ''misogynists'' or ''reactionaries''

I really don't think you realize that you come across as a religious person with that kind of rhetoric.

Do you realize that you call everything you don't like a religion or a cult and compare everyone you're disagreeing with to a religious person?

Of course you don't consider yourself a misogynist. And I'm sure you're tired of hearing it. But if you're hearing it so often - maybe it's because you are one? Hmmm?

And "conservative" does not mean "Conservative" , as I'm sure you know. This has little to do with political conservativism and all to do with social conservativism and gender stereotypes.

As I said before - you (and Thunderfoot) fail to make a convincing case against feminism, arguing instead with fringe ideas and people marginally associated with feminism, but in no way representative of the whole. Even the biased way you're describing it, feminism and its future consequences seem totally benign, which is why I doubt sincerity of your motivations.

Deep-seeded misogyny is - of course - a guess on my part. But if the shoe fits...

[TheMessiah]

You completely haven't answered my question, I can't be bothered explaining it again

That's because your question is dishonest.

Instead of actually refuting source by source I'm going to simplify this for you and ask some simple questions:

- If you have a disparity between one half of the population when it comes to career, jobs and career choices, what other reason is there than discrimination? "Choices"? Choices don't exist, free will doesn't exist, because all humans are conditioned. So, unless you have irrefutable proof that our brains are wired, what reason can there be for 50% of the population to choose low paying jobs? Why aren't people interested in making money? Everyone loves money.

BTW - A problem with those articles is that they forget the average pay gap accounts for everything - So it isn't saying all men make more than women etc it is saying that, if you compare a man and a woman in the same position chances are he will still make more than her even with longer working hours. It isn't comparing female secretaries with male surgeons.

Two additional questions:
- If the wage gap is totally due to choices and not discrimination, why is it that black or non-white women earn, on average, even less?

- If the wage gap is really just due to choices, why is it that even in female dominated fields most positions of authority are occupied by men and men still earn more than women?

Choices do exist. More women go to university than men - what reports have found is that women choose to opt for liberal arts, English and humanities degrees; they don't choose STEM or Math because.....it doesn't interest them as much, sometimes, men and women like different things.

If a woman wants to earn more money, she can do that - but she has to choose the right degree, not a useless liberal arts major.

- Anyway, can you cite me reports which say women make less than men for the same hours and same job?

1. That's mainly due to class; and even then, more black men will most likely opt for dangerous jobs and longer hours

2. Which specific field?

[TheMessiah]

Your rhetoric has consisted of, constant accusations of misogyny. The word is really beginning to lose meaning because of people like you, who throw it around like there's no tomorrow.

I have no idea why you label me ''Conservative reactionary'' either.

This is something I've noticed with you; you have your buzz-words of calling people ''misogynist'' or ''Conservative'' (as if it's an insult) just because they disagree with you.

- Not a muh-soggy-kneeist

- Not a Conservative either

Considering I grew up under-privileged and dirt-poor with parents working full-days, I don't think I was raised ''privileged'' - nice try though, your rhetoric reminds me of Atheism Plus, which was based on emotion, not any reason or logic; hence why you resort to labeling your opponents as ''misogynists'' or ''reactionaries''

I really don't think you realize that you come across as a religious person with that kind of rhetoric.

Do you realize that you call everything you don't like a religion or a cult and compare everyone you disagreeing with to a religious person?

Of course you don't consider yourself a misogynist. And I'm sure you're tired of hearing it. But if you're hearing it so often - maybe it's because you are one? Hmmm?

And "conservative" does not mean "Conservative" , as I'm sure you know. This has little to do with political conservativism and all to do with social conservativism and gender stereotypes.

As I said before - you (and Thunderfoot) fail to make a convincing case against feminism, arguing instead with fringe ideas and people marginally associated with feminism, but in no way representative of the whole. Even the biased way you're describing it, feminism and its future consequences seem totally benign, which is why I doubt sincerity of your motivations.

Deep-seeded misogyny is - of course - a guess on my part. But if the shoe fits...

There you go again....muh-soggy-knee this, muh-soggy-knee that. I want a rational explanation, not a tantrum filled accusation that has no evidence other than your ideological leanings.

If I disagree with a Creationist, I'm a Satanist - but if I disagree with a Feminist, I'm a ''misogynist'' - that's a trait among religious folk; when they have no argument, they use labels in an attempt to shut down conversation, hence your behavior.

I'm not a ''Social'' Conservative because I believe in equality - hence why I'm an Egalitarian, if you want to have a conversation, then stop using dishonest labels and adhering to nonsensical reasoning; because you are filling the steryotype of a Feminist that cannot stand disagreement.

P.S, I provided evidence for my case; every single PR filled Feminist campaign recently has been based on bull-shit; when I presented these facts, you responded ''Why should I care''?

[Saxmoof]

So answer a completely different question then, sure, that makes sense

It's not possible to debate someone who will only answer their own questions