Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?

[Dystopia]

Women go in for less well paying jobs, simple as. They also take way more time off work than men do, and visit their doctor way more often than men. Then of course, pregnancy makes it more difficult for women to work as well.

That is true, but why do they go? answer me this question, because this is the basic most fundamental explanation of the wage gap. Why the fuck isn't one gender interested in ruling, having power and earning tons of money + social prestige?

You are basically reducing everything to capitalism and labour choices. But it doesn't work like that. There's sociological and cultural influences to be considered. Why do you think some jobs have more males applying and some have more females (Disproportionally)? Don't you think it's at least a little weird considering both men and women have opportunities in education? How do you justify one gender making so different choices? Do you think biology accounts for all of this? Are men programmed to be leaders and women nurturers?

Okay, you shouldn't really insult other people when you quite clearly didn't understand what I was saying. I wasn't talking about all men all over the world, only an idiot would think that I was saying that. I meant in, for example, an office. All the men are paid more than the women for the same jobs. So why doesn't the employer fire all the men that work there, hire all women and save money?

Mwaaaaah he insulted me because I was telling the truth!

Because:
It is illegal in most countries to fire someone for their gender

Firing 50% of the workforce would cause the collapse of the company and families would starve

Additionally, most high ranking jobs are occupied by men so the company needs to keep at least the male leaders.

And some jobs are male dominated and have mostly males working there so it is counterproductive to fire them. It would mean a burden to the company.

Not all doctors are equal. As a male doctor, you are more likely to earn more money, simply because they go into higher paying jobs. Women are more likely to go into lower paying jobs like pediatrics because they like children more, whereas men are more likely to be brain or heart surgeons, which pay more.

And why do men go mostly for high paying jobs and women go for jobs with childrens? C'mon Wolf, you can do better than that. Question everything. You can't say "women don't want better jobs so it is a choice" and not question why those choices happen. Why do you honestly think that women don't go for jobs with positions of power and high paying jobs and, curiously, go mostly for jobs related with children or jobs that have secondary and less prestigious functions (example - Nurses are considered secondary next to doctors by society)?

You still haven't given me any examples of jobs where men earn more than women for exactly the same work.

Can you show me a graph where 100 people, 50 men and 50 women and only the men got the jobs?

You are the one disputing an accepted fact, so you're the one who needs to provide evidence. I am merely questioning your assertion. Look, I've always liked the following link to explain the wage gap:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/f...story.html

There are, indeed, more women in low-paying occupations such as social work and education, and more men in high-paying fields such as engineering. Yet that doesn’t go very far to explain the gender pay gap. As Harvard labor economist Claudia Goldin has said: “There is a belief, which is just not true, that women are just in bad occupations and if we just put them in better occupations, we would solve the gender gap problem.” Goldin has found that the pay gap is widest in some of the highest-paying fields. Female financial specialists make 66 percent of what their male counterparts make, female doctors earn 71 percent, and female lawyers and judges make 82 percent. That’s all controlling for age, race, hours and education.

The following is a link for occupations:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annua...occupation

It's for the UK, but as you can see almost every job has a wage gap.

Oh I can argue my case, I just don't want to, not with unpleasant people like Dystopia who goes into a SJW rage every time feminism is mentioned.

Of course you don't want to, how convenient. Be careful with what you call me, I'm not what you classify as a SJW, but I'm not an ignoramus either and I have a brain to realize life isn't equally easy for both sexes. And now my unpleasantness is the reason you're not arguing? I don't go into a rage, I just dislike dunning-kruger and people making wrong assumptions. I'm trying to be reasonable. I consider I might be wrong, and if I am I will reformulate the position accordingly, but everytime a discussion on feminism comes up you're the one who starts on the premise that feminism is wrong and therefore what comes associated with it is false as well. You should at least consider that your point of view can be wrong sometimes. You made the conclusion that there's no unequal pay anymore, that's a very extraordinary claim even for economists.

Edit - I didn't know if you noticed but the quote before your last reply is wrong - That was said by @I_am_not_mafia

[FlyingSpaghettiMonster]

Can someone tell me what progress needs to be made? Why is feminism even needed around, women have the right to vote and apply for jobs what more is needed?

Would you be contented having the right to apply for work even though it meant that you are less likely to be offered the job and even if you were successful, were going to be on a lesser wage for doing exactly the same work just because you are a man?

Would you still be contented knowing that you are also less likely to get promotion?

Would you still be contented knowing that your work was possibly going to be valued less because of common-place biases about what your gender was capable of despite whatever quality of work you produce?

http://www.hastac.org/blogs/superadmin/2...Dh.twitter

Thank for the reponse, I was glad to get a good answer, and realize there is indeed now that there seems to be not only gender bias but also racial bias in jobs. My question is now is there a really a pay gap between the sexes? Your link gave solid evidence of gender bias but not about pay wages. But aside from gender bias do you feel any other forms of discrimination that is felt by women?

Personally I understand that there is a problem of bias as much as we consciously hate it, we still do it, I think a way to remedy this situation is being able to censor names and leaving any questions that identify your gender or race out of applications.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Women go in for less well paying jobs, simple as. They also take way more time off work than men do, and visit their doctor way more often than men. Then of course, pregnancy makes it more difficult for women to work as well.

Citation required.

Women prefer less well paying jobs? Because if they don't prefer it then there is a reason that they go for them. You need to explain that as not being due to discriminating factors .... with citations.

And all women who are paid less just happen to also become pregnant. Citation please.

Bad Wolf, obviously you didn't read the link I posted earlier.

It didn't work for me

Works for me. Try again.

http://www.hastac.org/blogs/superadmin/2...Dh.twitter

Oh I can argue my case, I just don't want to, not with unpleasant people like Dystopia who goes into a SJW rage every time feminism is mentioned.

Again it comes down to the usual argument of blaming the person rather than what they are trying to say. You see the same thing when people dismiss Anita Sarkeesian.

You have not yet demonstrated that you can argue your case. All you are doing is making assertions without any evidence to back it up, and attacking the person who is making the argument. Which in case you did not know, is truly an ad-hominem.

[Delysid]

I thought it was obvious from my post. Absolute unequivocal gender equality for everyone.

Got a problem with that?

First of all, let's relax with the hostility. I am attempting to have a civil discussion here and you've been tossing around some hints that you're looking to take this elsewhere.

To clarify, I was making an educated guess that this is what you meant, but I wanted to see you answer the question so we can both be 100% clear. Now, if you don't mind, could you explain to me exactly what you mean by unequivocal gender equality? Could you maybe give some examples or explain what this looks like on a societal scale? Also, could you give some examples of where this equality does not currently exist or is lacking?

I hate to answer your questions with more questions, but if I understand your position clearly than I can have a more informed conversation with you. But I'll politely ask you to drop all of the "got a problem with that?" nonsense because quite honestly that will take this discussion nowhere very quickly.

I don't understand this question. Civil rights movements aren't strategies. The movements uses strategies to put pressure on politicians and to change the general public's beliefs and attitudes. A strategy is marches to raise awareness for an issue or have protests or have pride parades.

I was not claiming that any civil rights movement was in and of itself a strategy.

Basically what I am asking is, does large-scale oppression of females still exist here in the states? If so then a feminist movement may still be necessary. Or, has it now come down to individual instances of discrimination which can be dealt with by developing certain strategies for eradicating said discrimination on a case by case basis?

I thought it was pretty clear that that is what I was saying, but if not I hope this rewording of the question has cleared things up for you.

[Dystopia]

First of all, let's relax with the hostility. I am attempting to have a civil discussion here and you've been tossing around some hints that you're looking to take this elsewhere.

Oh don't get me started on the civility manners again. You're the one making presumptuous premisses. What studies in economics and sociology do you have to say that one movement is not needed?

To clarify, I was making an educated guess that this is what you meant, but I wanted to see you answer the question so we can both be 100% clear. Now, if you don't mind, could you explain to me exactly what you mean by unequivocal gender equality? Could you maybe give some examples or explain what this looks like on a societal scale? Also, could you give some examples of where this equality does not currently exist or is lacking?

Educated guesses without content are worth less than a rude guest with good points and evidence.

Check out my post in the previous or before the previous page. I made some basic points

I hate to answer your questions with more questions, but if I understand your position clearly than I can have a more informed conversation with you. But I'll politely ask you to drop all of the "got a problem with that?" nonsense because quite honestly that will take this discussion nowhere very quickly.

Why? Do you have a problem with that?

Basically what I am asking is, does large-scale oppression of females still exist here in the states? If so then a feminist movement may still be necessary. Or, has it now come down to individual instances of discrimination which can be dealt with by developing certain strategies for eradicating said discrimination on a case by case basis?

You might think oppression like in the dark ages motivated by legislation doesn't exist, and you're right about that, the west is much better for women, but that doesn't mean one group can't be disadvantages. Basically, you're making yourself unclear in the last sentence. Why do we need only some strategies? Why can't we have strategies + a group for people's rights? IMO, as long as there's one relevant issue such as (check one of my previous posts again) higher incidence of domestic violence and lack of useful support for victims that makes a gender equality movement all worth it.

I_am_not_mafia was a little "rude" probably because you're making the typical assumption that there's no problems for one gender just because you may not have seen them and because of that you question the necessity of feminism (and possibly other egalitarian movements) - Instead of asking, why don't you google "women's problems" or something like that and go see for yourself? At least before making these questions

[Delysid]

Um, no, the conversation will remain civil or I will not partake in it. No skin off my nose or anyone else's, I'll simply stop having the conversation if someone, you or anyone else, wishes to turn it into pointless bickering.

By the content of mafia's post, it was pretty obvious that he/she was suggesting that complete gender equality would be the desired goal, however I decided to ask the question so I could get a clear answer... Not sure what is wrong with that or what you're attempting to pick apart here.

Your poor attempt at being clever here really serves no purpose except to maybe try and aggravate me? I'm not sure but it's definitely not conducive to any sort of productive discussion.

And I'm not necessarily against a movement in general, I am simply asking mafia, "Why a feminist movement?" as opposed something else? That is why I am asking mafia questions so I can get a more clear view on what he/she thinks. Not sure where the problem is there?

If mafia felt that I was making unfair assumptions based on some ignorance or lack of awareness of some societal issues, then mafia can feel free to address me on those assumptions and we can go from there, but it doesn't give him/her the right to be rude. Period.

[Bad Wolf]

That is true, but why do they go?

Because they want to.

answer me this question, because this is the basic most fundamental explanation of the wage gap. Why the fuck isn't one gender interested in ruling, having power and earning tons of money + social prestige?

Why does everyone not become a banker? Because they care more about what they do rather than how much money they make.

You are basically reducing everything to capitalism and labour choices.

No i'm not, i stated in my previous posts there are many reasons for this.

But it doesn't work like that. There's sociological and cultural influences to be considered. Why do you think some jobs have more males applying and some have more females (Disproportionally)? Don't you think it's at least a little weird considering both men and women have opportunities in education? How do you justify one gender making so different choices? Do you think biology accounts for all of this? Are men programmed to be leaders and women nurturers?

Because men and women are different. Have different preferences. Have different motives.

Mwaaaaah he insulted me because I was telling the truth!

You insulted me by purposefully misrepresenting my hypothetical scenario in order to make me look stupid, prick.

Because:
It is illegal in most countries to fire someone for their gender

Firing 50% of the workforce would cause the collapse of the company and families would starve

Purposeful misrepresentation yet again. I did not mean fire all men within the second. I find it very hard to believe that you actually believed that, so I must conclude that you are just being an asshole.

Additionally, most high ranking jobs are occupied by men so the company needs to keep at least the male leaders.

Women can lead too, now whos being sexist?

And some jobs are male dominated and have mostly males working there so it is counterproductive to fire them. It would mean a burden to the company.

Do you mean the manual labour jobs? You know? The hard, tough, gritty, unpleasant jobs that men do and women don't.

And why do men go mostly for high paying jobs and women go for jobs with childrens?

Because in general, men are more motivated by money and women prefer children. In general.

C'mon Wolf, you can do better than that. Question everything. You can't say "women don't want better jobs so it is a choice" and not question why those choices happen. Why do you honestly think that women don't go for jobs with positions of power and high paying jobs and, curiously, go mostly for jobs related with children or jobs that have secondary and less prestigious functions

I have questioned why those choices happen, and its not sexism.

(example - Nurses are considered secondary next to doctors by society)?

And so they should be. Nurses don't go through nearly the same time or level of education as doctors do.

You are the one disputing an accepted fact, so you're the one who needs to provide evidence. I am merely questioning your assertion. Look, I've always liked the following link to explain the wage gap:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/f...story.html

Accepted fact by who? Clearly not the government as they would arrest employers who paid women less.

Of course you don't want to, how convenient.

I don't know if you've ever tried talking to yourself, but you aren't very pleasant.

Be careful with what you call me, I'm not what you classify as a SJW, but I'm not an ignoramus either and I have a brain to realize life isn't equally easy for both sexes. And now my unpleasantness is the reason you're not arguing?

Yes

I don't go into a rage, I just dislike dunning-kruger and people making wrong assumptions. I'm trying to be reasonable. I consider I might be wrong, and if I am I will reformulate the position accordingly, but everytime a discussion on feminism comes up you're the one who starts on the premise that feminism is wrong and therefore what comes associated with it is false as well.

No I don't. I'm done with you misrepresenting my position. Again and again.

You should at least consider that your point of view can be wrong sometimes. You made the conclusion that there's no unequal pay anymore, that's a very extraordinary claim even for economists.

Firstly, I consider I'm wrong all the time. Don't accuse me of not doing that like a child would when they're losing an arugment with their parents. Second, I didn't say there wasn't unequal pay anymore, I said that there isn't unequal pay for the same work.

I'm probably going to ignore you after this because you've misrepresented me too many times and i'm done correcting you. But still, I can't be bothered to read through loads of peer-reviewed papers right now so i'll just post some videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-6usiN4uoA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc

[Dystopia]

Because they want to.

Why?

Why does everyone not become a banker? Because they care more about what they do rather than how much money they make.

Correct, and why is it that one gender is more interested in becoming a banker?

No i'm not, i stated in my previous posts there are many reasons for this.

which you still haven't listed

Because men and women are different. Have different preferences. Have different motives.

Then prove that the differences between men and women are biologically sufficient to ensure they take drastically different paths.

You insulted me by purposefully misrepresenting my hypothetical scenario in order to make me look stupid, prick.

Not going to answer

gain. I did not mean fire all men within the second. I find it very hard to believe that you actually believed that, so I must conclude that you are just being an asshole.

whatever. You do realize that, even so, firing 50% of the workforce progressively is counter-productive right? Not to mention men are preferred by a lot of employers because they don't get pregnant and are not expected to do most house tasks, etc.

Women can lead too, now whos being sexist?

I_am_not_mafia provided links that show barriers to female leadership.

Do you mean the manual labour jobs? You know? The hard, tough, gritty, unpleasant jobs that men do and women don't.

So what? that's completely irrelevant, and btw I'm 100% in favour of more women in manual labour jobs. But I was talking about high paying jobs like politics and engineering. You can't bring the manual labour to make men look pitiful, I don't think it's fair for men to execute all manual labour, but this isn't connected to the point. We're arguing on women, so please if you want to discuss men's problems create another topic

Because in general, men are more motivated by money and women prefer children. In general.

Prove it Mr. Neurologist

I have questioned why those choices happen, and its not sexism.

You have not give an answer. You can't just say "these people are different therefore it's justified." I want a clear answer.

Accepted fact by who? Clearly not the government as they would arrest employers who paid women less.

In my country at least it's very VERY hard to prove your gender was a factor. The fact there are no prosecutions doesn't prove it doesn't exist

I don't know if you've ever tried talking to yourself, but you aren't very pleasant.

I'm a super nice person but I'm not gratuitously nice

Yes

If you want to know the truth I think you make some good points on many posts about atheism and religion. I just think you're wrong at this. I don't think you're a bad person Wolf

Firstly, I consider I'm wrong all the time. Don't accuse me of not doing that like a child would when they're losing an arugment with their parents. Second, I didn't say there wasn't unequal pay anymore, I said that there isn't unequal pay for the same work.

But there is and I provided links two pages before this one.

I'm probably going to ignore you after this because you've misrepresented me too many times and i'm done correcting you. But still, I can't be bothered to read through loads of peer-reviewed papers right now so i'll just post some videos.

OH really, it's always me misinterpreting you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-6usiN4uoA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc

I have a question for wage gap deniers - Do you have any proof b sides conservative websites like the AEI? Because that's all I see. I've already refuted those videos from "factual feminist" countless times and I'm tired of arguing. One of the videos. which has been used against me is easy to refute - The woman in the video says "there's cultural conventions that make women go for less well paid jobs, take more time off, etc" - She fails to address what are the causes of those cultural conventions. So please, can you show me something that is not the equivalent to American Fox news? :Thinking: this is not an ad hominem, I'm not attacking anyone's character, I'm refuting the source. Can you provide a peer reviewed impartial proof?

Wolf let's simplify this - Even if it was true that 100% of women who receive unequal pay receive it just because of choices, can you prove me that those choices are biologically natural? I want to know why do you think those choices happen. why isn't a woman interested in a job like engineering that pays off very well? I mean there are women in engineering, but they're not so interested. Curiously, why aren't men interested in teaching as much as women? WHat's wrong with men teaching?

---

Um, no, the conversation will remain civil or I will not partake in it. No skin off my nose or anyone else's, I'll simply stop having the conversation if someone, you or anyone else, wishes to turn it into pointless bickering.

Then you're going to be in bad sheets when you step on someone's toes in real life.

And I'm not necessarily against a movement in general, I am simply asking mafia, "Why a feminist movement?" as opposed something else? That is why I am asking mafia questions so I can get a more clear view on what he/she thinks. Not sure where the problem is there?

What do you propose darling?

If mafia felt that I was making unfair assumptions based on some ignorance or lack of awareness of some societal issues, then mafia can feel free to address me on those assumptions and we can go from there, but it doesn't give him/her the right to be rude. Period.

Actually people have the right to be rude when you step on toes. It's life. If someone comes to tell me that atheists are immoral I have the right to tell them how idiotic they are.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I thought it was obvious from my post. Absolute unequivocal gender equality for everyone.

Got a problem with that?

First of all, let's relax with the hostility. I am attempting to have a civil discussion here and you've been tossing around some hints that you're looking to take this elsewhere.

To clarify, I was making an educated guess that this is what you meant, but I wanted to see you answer the question so we can both be 100% clear. Now, if you don't mind, could you explain to me exactly what you mean by unequivocal gender equality? Could you maybe give some examples or explain what this looks like on a societal scale? Also, could you give some examples of where this equality does not currently exist or is lacking?

I hate to answer your questions with more questions, but if I understand your position clearly than I can have a more informed conversation with you. But I'll politely ask you to drop all of the "got a problem with that?" nonsense because quite honestly that will take this discussion nowhere very quickly.

The reason I said "Got a problem with that?" was that I had assumed that it was not in question that unequivocal gender equality was a desirable state to achieve. I was frankly amazed that anyone would question it.

I can't see how you can question whether we currently have gender equality considering the ongoing wage gap and the existence of the glass ceiling that has already been discussed. So I can only assume that from what you are saying, you are questioning whether it is desirable.

So let me ask you this. Should black people be given equal rights? Do you believe that they should still be slaves? No? Well maybe you think as long as they have the chance to work then that's all that matters. If you are someone who never questions the status quo then you would not likely to have been thinking that 200 years ago in America. But then even after slavery was abolished, there was still a legacy of poverty and bigotry to overcome. Or do you think that it was OK that black people were only given menial work and not even proper rights until they fought for it in the 1960's?

Should gays be able to get married to members of their own gender? Yes? No? What about making homosexual acts illegal? Should we go back to a society where gays need to pretend to be straight and live in a sham marriage in order to survive?

Maybe you believe in equal rights for blacks and gays, but then why shouldn't there be equal rights for both men and women? Either we work towards a society where there are the same basic rights for everyone regardless of who they were born as, or we should be honest about wanting the current society because we personally benefit from it. Let's not try and equivocate about specific instances or indulge in victim blaming.

Do you personally wear anything other than a white shirt and black tie and only ever ask for a short back and sides at the Barbers because anything else would be effeminate? No? Well you have gender equality to thank for that.

This is from the Dismantle Misogyny facebook page.

---

https://www.facebook.com/DismantleMisogy...=1&theater

---

[comet]

Being a lesbian trapped in a man's body I can tell you women should have equal rights.
As long as people give househusbands equal creditz too.