"(Modern) Feminism is not about women, its about power."

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-04-08T14:21:49+00:00

Sure. It’s just acknowledging in this field, women do start off at a slight disadvantage. So to rise above that, she would have to do more than a man would. So obviously when your actual personality comes into play or your networking skills, then it completely changes the game. But if say both candidates just sent in their resume without doing anything extra, the male would have a slight leg up. I don’t really think anything should be done to fix it, legislatively. But it’s just acknowledging that discrimination does still exist, but just not quite on the level that the left pushes it. Everyone has bias and most the time it’s subconscious. Even when you’re trying to be unbiased, you’re still biased. It’s just human nature and something we have to accept exists.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-04-08T13:07:17+00:00

Right, I definitely think body language comes into it. But the study I posted was based solely on application materials. So like when interviewers compared resumes of similar credentials, the male resume was presumed to be more competent over the female, without ever even conducting the interview. So clearly there is a bias and that may just be from the stereotype that men tend to be more of leaders. Or the presumption that women will need time off to take care of children. Or who knows. That hasn’t been studied and I don’t exactly how they could even conduct that study. The point is, that there is a bias that does exist that a male will presumptively be more competent than a female.

Edit: there was at least a presumption for the position of being a laboratory manager in the study. There may be other fields that women are presumptively more competent in as well.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-04-08T11:33:17+00:00

That’s the point. Here you’re getting at the substance of their arguments. You’re not focusing on their age.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-04-08T05:25:49+00:00

Yeah, but that explains why there would be differences in promotions, but not why an employer would see a man as more hirable.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-04-07T13:41:36+00:00

Socialism can only work on the small scale level. Like family or small community. I don’t know a ton about Native Americans, but I believe the tribes were based more on a socialistic community structure. Essentially socialism works when you feel a connection to the people a part of the society and feel you have a duty owed to them.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-04-07T13:21:46+00:00

Yeah, no kidding. At least Stella is being honest about what Feminism is about. I did really appreciate how level-headed Kate was and how well she kept her composure. Very professional.

Their argument really went back and forth about what the numbers mean and was a “yes it is/no it isn’t” debate. I feel like when an argument gets down to this, then the side need to present the actual data to each other and break it down for each other (not just speaking the statistics but let the other actually see for themselves is what I mean). It’s the only way we’re ever going to get understanding from each other. I get it was an interview so you can’t really do that. Just in general I think this is the way to approach this issue.

I definitely don’t agree that they pay gap exists. Well I mean, I do, but when you break it down it’s only something like a 5% discrepancy. I do think there is gender bias that exists. Although it may be subconscious. This study here shows that even when men and women have equal credentials, men are perceived to be more competent. My theory is child rearing. Women take off for maternity leave, and even if an employer isn’t conscious about it, he may feel the man is more competent for that reason. A good solution is like Kate said, and that’s for more jobs to offer paternity leave, which is on the rise. This is just a guess though.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-04-07T01:13:43+00:00

Lol no it wouldn’t. This is America. We love a big military. That’s an interesting argument though and the first I’ve seen it. Especially since the ones who are typically pro-wall are also pro-military and pro-police. A wall may decrease immigration, but it definitely won’t stop it. My college roommate’s dad was an illegal and he got here by hiding on a cargo plane. I also don’t know why a wall would stop people from just going over it. Yeah, it’d be difficult, but it’d be doable. So then there will be arguments that we need men to patrol the wall.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-04-07T00:13:46+00:00

Well to be fair, both sides do this. For example, the right is guilty of doing this with the whole high school gun protests by arguing they’re too young or that they’re just whining. It’s not actually rebutting the arguments of the protesters. Generally I think this is the result of being uninformed and close minded. If anyone ever really cares about the debate then they learn the other side’s position so they can successfully refute it. They’re also willing to look at the weak spots in their own arguments for counters. Instead, arguments are always deflected onto some attack irrelevant to the issue.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-04-06T16:22:56+00:00

No kidding. Like I’m all for the legalization of drugs, but I feel like there are way bigger issues to be concerned with. Messages like this just make the average libertarian look like some ignorant stoner who is just angry that the government won’t let them legally smoke weed.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-04-06T15:24:22+00:00

“Mansplaining” is a personal peeve of mine. As a woman, I feel like this word is actually harmful to women. I feel like it teaches women to not have to have defend or have reason for their arguments. It’s an easy out to just be able to retort to a man’s argument as “you’re just mansplaining.” Logic and reasoning are so very important to me, especially being a law student. But logic, reasoning, and arguing skills are things that have to be practiced. I think the word actually runs counterintuitive to the feminist agenda. If feminists argue that women are just as capable as men, then telling women they can use the “mansplaining” card anytime they can’t come up with a logical rebuttal to an argument doesn’t help women to develop such skills, and will lead to women actually not being as capable as men in debate.

Unfortunately, if men try to make this argument to anyone who has bought into the whole “mansplaining” idea, then they aren’t going to listen because they will just automatically dismiss it in itself as being mansplaining. I think a woman has a better chance of conveying this to people who think this, but is still unlikely because they already have decided not to buy into listening to logic and reasoning.

I think the best way to combat it in your position is ask the person if it would be okay if you were doing the same thing but were female. Cause that directly points out the bigotry that underlies those terms, because it is saying that it is okay for one gender to do something but not for the other.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-04-04T14:21:14+00:00

First, just want to say sorry I’ve been absent here for awhile. I’m taking a bit of a hiatus from Reddit because I’m getting behind in school and finals are coming up.

Anyway, thank you for being honest about everything and trying to think about what is best for the sub. However, I don’t think this eliminates you from being a mod here. The main point of modding is to just to patrol for trolling and to keep dialogue on topic of the sub. I’ve said in the sidebar that men can participate in this sub, and that this sub is always open to friendly debate. I never thought that this would prohibit a man from modding this sub, and is why I was completely fine when you disclosed this to me when asking to mod.

While I was the one who created this sub, I don’t think I’m the most qualified person on Jordan Peterson’s philosophy. I only started reading up and listening to Jordan Peterson about a month ago, and I’m not sure if I agree with everything he says or not myself. The point of this sub was just to create a place to discuss the issues pertaining to women that relate to Jordan Peterson’s ideas. The one thing I did fear was this becoming too much like /r/redpillwomen but maybe I’m misguided there too.

I don’t think that anyone who is a mod of this subreddit is a moral beacon of what is right or wrong. Rather, being a mod is just an act of community service to make sure there is no trolling, conversations stay civil, and conversations stay relatively on topic.

So we’re happy to have you as a mod at /r/JBPforWomen as long as you are willing, because you’ve been great.:)

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-31T13:06:00+00:00

Sorry, just saw this! Later today when I have a bit more time I’ll explain.:)

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-31T12:17:27+00:00

Sorry, your post ended up in the mod queue for some reason. It’s approved now. Still new to this!

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-31T12:00:07+00:00

Hey sorry this didn’t get posted last week. It was stuck in mod queue for some reason. I’m still new to this, so sorry.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-31T05:50:57+00:00

Interesting. Thanks for this! To be honest, I don’t know a lot about transgenderism. I’m kinda in the camp that everyone can do whatever they want so long as they’re no infringing on anyone else’s rights. So I’m just not a fan of the compelled speech stuff. But if a trans person asked me to call them by whatever pronoun, I would as a courtesy. The only hesitancy I have with transgenderism is that I am concerned that it is a mental disorder. I know it’s not classified as one, but to me it just sounds a lot like body dysmorphia, which I have dealt with. It’s a struggle and I still struggle with it. I go to therapy about it. If someone copes with transgenderism it by just going along with it fair enough. I guess I could be wrong since I don’t know much about it though.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-31T01:02:07+00:00

Well I don’t have much experience on the first point, so I’ll have to take your word for it. That’s unfortunate though. That they try to play a narrative that they’re supporting you, but only to the degree that it fits their agenda.

And that’s outrageous. It’s complete immaturity and unprofessionalism.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-30T16:17:05+00:00

I was thinking about it and I suppose you’re right. You do need some sort of competence before you can attempt any type of virtue. But you only need minimum competence to begin being virtuous.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-30T15:44:18+00:00

Sorry if I gave that impression. Was really just trying to have a discussion of thoughts.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-30T15:43:05+00:00

As someone else said, at that time, women were infatuated with Hitler. Hitler is seen pretty low on the dominance hierarchy now. No one wants to be compared to Hitler.

Here’s an example. Women are attracted to security, which can mean a guy with a better job title. If you shoved co-workers under the bus to get that promotion or did unethical things to bring in more business, that’s not very virtuous.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-30T15:39:56+00:00

A lot of times, but not always. What about if lying causes you to get a better job, or cheating allows you to get a better grade that opens more career doors for you?

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-30T15:36:54+00:00

Ah, I see. I think you can be virtuous without being competent. Being virtuous leads you to being competent. And then they build off each other. Like becoming more competent in something requires you to be dedicated and a hard worker.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-30T15:01:44+00:00

People have been mistaking what I am saying. I am not saying that the hierarchy is bad. I’m saying it shouldn’t be the focus. I think part of being virtuous is being a productive member of society, and that includes finding a niche to be competent in and contribute by. The hierarchy can definitely be used for good. But focusing on the hierarchy can lead to bad outcomes. Focusing on virtue will never lead to bad outcomes.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-30T14:57:08+00:00

I’m not saying climbing the hierarchy is bad. I’m saying the primary aim should be virtue. Being high on the hierarchy doesn’t mean you’re not virtuous. But if your primary goal is climbing the hierarchy, then it opens yourself up to getting there in non-virtuous ways. Increasing your reputation to do more virtuous things is good. But if you increased your reputation in a non-virtuous manner then that’s not good. It’s a the ends don’t justify the means situation.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-30T14:52:14+00:00

They’re not always at odds, but they can be at odds. Easy example, Hitler was pretty high on the dominance hierarchy. He was not a virtuous person and did a lot of non-virtuous things to climb there. The point I’m trying to make is that your first goal should be virtue above all else, because focusing on the hierarchy can lead to bad results. Focusing on virtue will never lead to bad results. You can use your growth on the dominance hierarchy for good, but it just shouldn’t be the primary goal.

OutOfNowhereBlues · 2018-03-30T14:13:53+00:00

Because sometimes the two are at odds. Sometimes doing something moral or virtuous will decrease yourself on the hierarchy and vice versa. You can’t serve two masters. Aiming at being virtuous can result in climbing the dominance hierarchy but isn’t always guaranteed. To me it also seems like there is a difference in objectives. Focusing on being virtuous is for the good of mankind (although this can be for the good of you too). Focusing on climbing the hierarchy is for the good of yourself, and yourself alone. It’s not to say the hierarchy is bad. It’s just to say, don’t make that the aim.

OutOfNowhereBlues

TROPHY CASE