Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 29

Author Topic: Gender quotas  (Read 37390 times)

i2amroy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cats, ruling the world one dwarf at a time
    • View Profile
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #120 on: January 14, 2016, 04:22:01 pm »

Ninja Edit: So we sort of moved on, but I spent like 20 minutes typing up this response about what I think are the main causes of thread degeneration into personal insults. I still feel it's valid in what we can do to change our way of speaking to avoid problems like this happening again (despite the fact that we pretty much saved ourselves from this particular outbreak), so I'm still going to post it.

Personally, I've noticed a couple of people in this thread (on both sides) that could serve to make their arguments a bit less "attack-y", which I think would go a long way towards helping to stop the thread from degrading into a thing that needs the attention of the Great Toad. Honestly I think the biggest problems are when someone uses the words "you", "all men" (or "men" with the all implied), and "all women" (or "women" with the all implied), because they almost always come across as an attack. Heck, you can even notice it with some small changes to this first part of this very post! Compare:
1) Honestly I think the biggest problems are when someone uses the words "you", "men", and "women", because they almost always come across as an attack.
2) Honestly I think the biggest problems are when you use the words "you", "men", and "women", because they always come across as an attack.
3) Honestly I think the biggest problems are when men use the words "you", "men", and "women", because they always come across as an attack.
4) Honestly I think the biggest problems are when women use the words "you", "men", and "women", because they always come across as an attack.
#1 comes across as decidedly less hostile, yeah? To fix this problem all people need to do is to avoid the use of the word "you" in regards to attacking, and to always make sure there is a bit of leeway in your statements. Say "most men", "many men", "men were more likely to", "in general men were" instead of just "men" (which automatically implies "all men"). Use phrases like "a couple of people", or "someone" instead of naming names and using the word "you". Doing this allows for others who don't necessarily that general trend (of which there are many in these types of threads) to place themselves in that leeway and feel like the statement is not a personal attack. For example I know that I'm trying as much as possible to not discriminate, so a statement such as "men cause discrimination" could very easily be seen as a personal attack. On the other hand a phrase like "many men cause discrimination", while still not necessarily something I agree with, now allows me to fit myself into that give room and no longer see the statement as personally being an attack on me.

Since you asked, Reelya, in general I haven't seen any of your posts in this thread really cross the line, (though a few have approached it), since your numbers are coming from studies  as such they very rarely include that absolution that makes things seem like an attack. Probably the closest that I've seen in this thread was this particular statement from one of the early pages:
And the hours required for the job don't change. In fact, being under-qualified in a demanding job sounds like Hell on Earth. Women want flexible jobs so they can spend time with their family, and high executive roles don't allow that. Here's a good article on the topic. Even a high-executive woman, with the husband taking over childcare duties 5 days a week, wasn't happy with the work/life balance:
Which could be coached much less attack-y like this:
And the hours required for the job don't change. In fact, being under-qualified in a demanding job sounds like Hell on Earth. In general/Many/Most, women want flexible jobs so they can spend time with their family, and high executive roles don't allow that. Here's a good article on the topic. Even a high-executive woman, with the husband taking over childcare duties 5 days a week, wasn't happy with the work/life balance:

That said there have been several posts in this thread so far that I've seen come extremely close or have crossed that line where they could definitely be regarded as a personal attack due to a lack of wiggle room in their statements. If people avoid absolutisms then we shouldn't have a problem with it anymore, I think. At an absolute least effort case where people are stating a lot of things that would be greatly shortened through the use of the words "men" or "women", simply adding a note to the top of their posts (that way people see it early on, first impressions and all that jazz) stating that they are simply talking about generalities instead of absolutes in their post with those words will go a long way to cutting down on the amount of personal attacks.

As an example of a "good" post for wiggle room I'm going to be a hair arrogant and take one of my previous posts from this thread and underline all of the wiggle words I've put in for easy viewing, and to show that it's totally possible to make statements and an argument while still allowing for plenty of wiggle room to make your statements not seem like a personal attack.
I know just a few months ago I saw this excellent 50min or so long video that was a discussion panel between two ivy league professors (one male one female) on the exact topic of the wage gap and how it related value-wise to potential discrimination as a cause. It was definitely a very relevant discussion by two people who know way more about this topic than us; I'm trying to track it down.

That said here were a few of the nifty relevant points:
1) Both agreed that what was acting was a combination of some discrimination, some cultural influences and some biological tendencies. For part of this they looked at some studies that looked at cultures that had very different values than the typical European one, and found that, at least in part, women tended to seek out much of the same jobs, and tended to have a lower pay, despite the different culture and discrimination things.
2) In general (note, I'm not saying they said this applied to 100% of women! This was a very broad generality, and if I'm able to track down the discussion I'll be able to tell you exactly how broad) the studies looked at values and found that much more often men tend to be more interested in "object-driven" jobs, such as scientists, engineers, etc., while women tend to be much more interested in "people-driven" jobs such as nursing or jobs that interact with clients. Part of our culture, however, tends to value "object-driven" jobs such as engineering higher than many "people-drive" jobs, and thus places a higher wage on them. One notable exception in the other direction they brought up is the field of nursing, which is a "people-driven" job and in which case many of the wages for women were just as high as those in the engineering fields.
3) Nursing was brought up as a relevant point several times, in that it's a field that essentially functions as the opposite of a STEM field gender-wise, and pays almost as well. It was somewhat discussed if the fact that we had some 9 women to every 1 male in the nursing field meant that we were not putting enough effort into drawing in male nurses, and how that example related.
4) Both professors agreed that at this point we simply do not have enough data to actually be able to draw a line in how much of the wage gap is related to discrimination/cultural stereotypes and how much could be related to a larger amount of biological predispositions. They both agreed that at this point much of the data is showing that the dominoes could fall either way, and until we have more data the opinion largely comes down to the individual opinions of the person or professor; there simply isn't enough data out there yet to clarify exactly how much of the wage gap is being contributed by each source.

I'll continue looking for that video. For now I'd like to remind everyone here that I don't think there are any of us here who would be willing to say that there is no discrimination in the workplace period (be that in either direction). We're all at least somewhat on the same side, so please remember to stay civil to each other and try not to get too hung up on the little details, since we pretty much all agree that there is somewhat of a problem, the only question is exactly how big it is (which, as noted by the professors in the video I'm searching for, is something we really just don't have enough data to nail down yet).
In most cases you probably don't need quite this many wiggle-room words (since part of it was covering my own backside in the case I remembered things wrong), but having at least a few in there will go a very long way to avoiding thread degeneration. :P
Logged
Quote from: PTTG
It would be brutally difficult and probably won't work. In other words, it's absolutely dwarven!
Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead - A fun zombie survival rougelike that I'm dev-ing for.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #121 on: January 14, 2016, 04:24:45 pm »

Why don't people just not assume everything is an attack instead of somersaulting to make eye-bleeding English

All attempts to make friendly words just makes new insults, lame -> spastic -> retarded e.t.c.

If the word 'you' is insulting we might as well all commit sudoku
« Last Edit: January 14, 2016, 04:28:31 pm by Loud Whispers »
Logged

nullBolt

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #122 on: January 14, 2016, 04:25:58 pm »

I'd prefer someone called me a prick than weasel-word around it.

Actually, let's try it:
I'd prefer you called me a prick than weasel-word around it.
I'd prefer men called me a prick than weasel-word around it.
I'd prefer women called me a prick than weasel-word around it.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2016, 04:31:55 pm by nullBolt »
Logged

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #123 on: January 14, 2016, 04:27:02 pm »

PTW
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

i2amroy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cats, ruling the world one dwarf at a time
    • View Profile
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #124 on: January 14, 2016, 04:38:02 pm »

I'd prefer someone called me a prick than weasel-word around it.
Well so would I. But the problem here is when people don't intend to call others prick's, but because of the fact that they were speaking in absolutes they do it inadvertently. And in most cases the problem lies in the fact that while the words a person is speaking may be absolutes, their intended meaning often is not. If I say the phrase "men are taller than women", I don't actually mean all men are taller than all women, I'm speaking in generalities. However it's very easy for people to assume that "all" unless you specifically state otherwise, and that's where the rub comes in. For example:
"Some americans are rude" vs. "Americans are rude"
The first one could just be talking about that annoying tourist that you met last week. The second one can very easily be viewed as a personal attack against all americans everywhere, when that is very likely not the intended meaning of the statement.

Why don't people just not assume everything is an attack instead of somersaulting to make eye-bleeding English
Because when people come right out and say things in absolutes it's something we consider rude in most western cultures (as opposed to many asian cultures, which is one of the reasons why the Asian Rudeness trope is a thing). And because many people find it difficult to hold themselves back when they feel that someone is insulting them.

And personally I'm not sure I would consider that "eye-bleeding" when it's only used as much as necessary. Do you consider this post I'm making right now eye-bleeding? I mean it's certainly not high formal english, but I'd definitely file it under what would be allowed conversationally despite the fact that I included at least a couple of wiggle words. Heck, you even used a word that includes a fair bit of wiggle room in the quoted post, with the phrase "people", which like the word "someone", is one of the best words in english for expressing generalities because of the very fact that there is no defined edges on it, and can thus almost never be considered a personal attack due to being an absolute.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2016, 04:42:04 pm by i2amroy »
Logged
Quote from: PTTG
It would be brutally difficult and probably won't work. In other words, it's absolutely dwarven!
Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead - A fun zombie survival rougelike that I'm dev-ing for.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #125 on: January 14, 2016, 04:56:25 pm »

If I say the phrase "men are taller than women", I don't actually mean all men are taller than all women, I'm speaking in generalities. However it's very easy for people to assume that "all" unless you specifically state otherwise, and that's where the rub comes in.
Then it's on their head to not make assumptions and ask for clarification, ez, and if they get mad amen

For example:
"Some americans are rude" vs. "Americans are rude"
The first one could just be talking about that annoying tourist that you met last week. The second one can very easily be viewed as a personal attack against all americans everywhere, when that is very likely not the intended meaning of the statement.
The first is also such a useless toothless statement

DEATH TO some AMERICA

Because when people come right out and say things in absolutes it's something we consider rude in most western cultures (as opposed to many asian cultures, which is one of the reasons why the Asian Rudeness trope is a thing).
Stop subjecting me to your faux Western standards and your tvtropes links shitlord, this is the culture of Cali not the West. First thing it says is that that's a British culture reaction to Asians, but it describes Orientals instead and doesn't get Brits - this was written by an American. And it's not even Oriental culture in general, but business which demands the same tonal inflections which I've found common in business language from New York to Riyadh or Singapore
Damn Calis, I hope based nippons annex you

And because many people find it difficult to hold themselves back when they feel that someone is insulting them.
It is not your fault if others lack any self-restraint to jump at perceived insults
I've got nothing funny to say about that, it's just how it is

And personally I'm not sure I would consider that "eye-bleeding" when it's only used as much as necessary. Do you consider this post I'm making right now eye-bleeding? I mean it's certainly not high formal english, but I'd definitely file it under what would be allowed conversationally despite the fact that I included at least a couple of wiggle words.
M
  Y
   
     E
        Y
          E
            S

Heck, you even used a word that includes a fair bit of wiggle room in the quoted post, with the phrase "people", which like the word "someone", is one of the best words in english for expressing generalities because of the very fact that there is no defined edges on it, and can thus almost never be considered a personal attack due to being an absolute.
10 shillings says I can make a phrase that would get you banned in it attacking "people" or "someone"
Wiggle out to Wales friend, saving face has no face on internet space

Gatleos

  • Bay Watcher
  • Mournhold... City of Light... City of MAGIC!
    • View Profile
    • Someone Sig This
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #126 on: January 14, 2016, 05:00:06 pm »

-snip-
But those things are entirely cultural.

That's a very difficult statement to prove or disprove. Personally, I think calling it "entirely cultural" is just as stupid as calling it "entirely biological".

That's the only post I've made in this thread, and it might have come off as "stop being stupid". Sorry if I contributed to any hostility in here. Just throwing that out there.
Logged
Think of it like Sim City, except with rival mayors that seek to destroy your citizens by arming legions of homeless people and sending them to attack you.
Quote from: Moonshadow101
it would be funny to see babies spontaneously combust
Gat HQ (Sigtext)
++U+U++ // ,.,.@UUUUUUUU

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #127 on: January 14, 2016, 05:03:49 pm »

PTW. Also I agree that tone is important. Just because this is the internet that doesn't mean we have to sink to internet standards. Hell, I'd argue that we should avoid doing so because of simple statistics: How many produuctive discussions have ever been had in the internet-typical way?
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

scrdest

  • Bay Watcher
  • Girlcat?/o_ o
    • View Profile
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #128 on: January 14, 2016, 05:10:44 pm »

For example:
"Some americans are rude" vs. "Americans are rude"
The first one could just be talking about that annoying tourist that you met last week. The second one can very easily be viewed as a personal attack against all americans everywhere, when that is very likely not the intended meaning of the statement.
The first is also such a useless toothless statement

DEATH TO some AMERICA
Gently Push Over The Forces Of Repression!
Logged
We are doomed. It's just that whatever is going to kill us all just happens to be, from a scientific standpoint, pretty frickin' awesome.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #129 on: January 14, 2016, 05:13:19 pm »

PTW. Also I agree that tone is important. Just because this is the internet that doesn't mean we have to sink to internet standards. Hell, I'd argue that we should avoid doing so because of simple statistics: How many produuctive discussions have ever been had in the internet-typical way?
This is the internet, we don't need to sink to meatspace wiggling where people are so afraid of bad tones and bad feelings they cover up crimes against humanity

For example:
"Some americans are rude" vs. "Americans are rude"
The first one could just be talking about that annoying tourist that you met last week. The second one can very easily be viewed as a personal attack against all americans everywhere, when that is very likely not the intended meaning of the statement.
The first is also such a useless toothless statement
DEATH TO some AMERICA
Gently Push Over The Forces Of Repression!
Let some eat cake!

penguinofhonor

  • Bay Watcher
  • Minister of Love
    • View Profile
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #130 on: January 14, 2016, 05:16:19 pm »


Considering you were heavily involved in the progressive thread discussion right as it got locked, I'd say you might have been part of the problem. It seems pretty self-serving to conclude that only people who disagree with you are responsible, and if everyone just posted like you then we'd have no problems.
Logged

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #131 on: January 14, 2016, 05:16:48 pm »

PTW. Also I agree that tone is important. Just because this is the internet that doesn't mean we have to sink to internet standards. Hell, I'd argue that we should avoid doing so because of simple statistics: How many produuctive discussions have ever been had in the internet-typical way?
This is the internet, we don't need to sink to meatspace wiggling where people are so afraid of bad tones and bad feelings they cover up crimes against humanity

Have you insulted someone today? If not, you might be Literal Hitler!
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #132 on: January 14, 2016, 05:25:36 pm »

Considering you were heavily involved in the progressive thread discussion right as it got locked, I'd say you might have been part of the problem. It seems pretty self-serving to conclude that only people who disagree with you are responsible, and if everyone just posted like you then we'd have no problems.
Yeah and the US was involved in 9/11, didn't mean they caused it m8

If you think I think I'm an infallible God of based posting and all others should follow my lead you should note my last post there was literally saying I had expected the worst and Helgo was insulting me when he was not. I didn't report shit though, and right until the end my posts were actually without shitposting, all sourced and all analysis thoughtful and explained without ambiguity
Shit was a farcry from the terrorist shitposting of yore

Have you insulted someone today? If not, you might be Literal Hitler!
If this is how you think you might actually be Hitler

nullBolt

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #133 on: January 14, 2016, 05:30:08 pm »

Yeah and the US was involved in 9/11, didn't mean they caused it m8

Using this one in the future.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gender quotas
« Reply #134 on: January 14, 2016, 05:34:21 pm »

Thanks for taking the time to write that i2amroy. Yeah, hadn't really considered the problems with the "you" word. I think people often use it as the "hypothetical you", i.e. how you (by which I meant whomever is writing, i.e me, ironically) would write when writing for a mass audience, but that could be construed to be an "actual you" in a forum thread. But I can't see how to avoid "men" and "women" in a thread about gender topics without so many qualifiers as to make every post unreadable.

I admit that I sometimes play devil's advocate, e.g. if people are all agreeing on something, and I find counter-evidence, then of course I'm going to present that evidence. Usually people are just citing the first article they found, ion good faith, and maybe looked for confirming evidence, but we should always look for dis-confirming evidence, too. But there's also the point that one study doesn't automatically contradict another study because it's on a different "side". Facts don't have a side, we have to first try a synthesis where we accept all studies as valid unless we have a really good reason to reject some of them as flawed. Usually, even flawed studies are saying something valid, just not the thing that some people claim it is.

For example, the confirmation-bias studies of women don't contradict the confirmation-bias studies of men, but they put it in perspective: it's misleading to claim that only men suffer from confirmation bias in this domain, because both genders seem to equally. Citing one without the other is highly ironic, because omitting data that doesn't agree with a theory is the most basic form of confirmation bias I can imagine.

Well this is a new one (data from august 2015), it's new data suggesting women graduates outearn men in many fields which are "male dominated", I also provide some evidence that male graduates outearn women in "female dominated" fields, along with some suggestions as to why this is true, both ways:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: January 14, 2016, 05:43:54 pm by Reelya »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 29