Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bohandas]

The English "working class white boy" of those British studies are the exact analogue of the poor African-American boys in the USA. Both are the lowest caste of a stratified economic system (which works differently in the UK than it does in the USA). It seems to be a specific disadvantage that girls in the same economic dire straights are not suffering from.

And it definitely tests the concept of intersectionality of feminism - solidarity and recognizing that different segments of the population also suffer discrimination. Feminist logic here is very linear, in that your oppressions must stack on top of each other and more complex phenomena are just ignored. And there's a pecking-order of discrimination. i.e. gender is always a dominant variable over race to feminism.

So the idea that a black man is less privileged than a white woman, many white feminists aren't going to buy that, because they'll point out that black men are more privileged vs black women, thus changing the topic. The idea that black men are doing significantly worse than even black women, well that doesn't seem to really compute to most feminists, because admitting "well, sometimes being male can be a disadvantage" for anything not purely trivial is like arsenic to a lot of core feminist doctrine, so they're not even going to have the discussion about why that might be true: they won't even acknowledge it to start with, they need to trivialize or victim-blame for all bad things that happen to men, such as the black male incarceration rate.

It is hard to get good science on the effects of quotas, but they've been shown to work in some case. Duflo's work on village chief quotas for women in India is the best study I know of, if you are interested I can send you the .pdf.

Sadly, works of that quality simply isn't possible in most case, so we have to make do with that "weird silly pseudoscience", because you can't put human in a test tubes. Or put in quotas, remove them, see if things changed. Which people have been advocating, both here and IRL.

I think I'm starting to understand what mainiac was driving at.

It's just that when I see clear (scientific) evidence that boys are falling behind across the board with no real reaction from the government or any interest groups, I do start to wonder if it's a political issue rather than an actual one. Especially when the wage gap myth is constantly trumpeted by almost every single government I see.

It's like the end of the Dennis Moore sketch on Monty Python where by the end he's stealing from the poor and giving to the rich because he's taken too much from the nobles already.

[Reelya]

Actually, one argument feminists use to say that black men aren't disadvantaged is that black men still earn more than black women (although the gap here is much smaller than the general population wage gap).

But there's a whopping flaw in that logic. That's comparing 1 full-time employed black man to 1 full-time employed black woman.  It doesn't factor in the higher unemployment of black men, and on top of that, the outright tragedy of at least 1.5 million black men of working age (24-54) who should exist but are "missing" (read dead or disproportionately in prison).

That's 1/6th of all black men with their life or freedom completely removed. Those people aren't being counted in the wage-gap statistics when you consider the quality of life of a boy or girl born black. Clearly, being a man is not necessarily a privilege for a black person, which means intersectionality needs to be a more flexible concept than just stacking or multiplying-together "approved" things you can say you're oppressed about.

[mainiac]

It is trivially easy for a statistician to look at a population with both a racial gap and a gender gap and account for both simultaneously.

[nullBolt]

It's just that when I see clear (scientific) evidence that boys are falling behind across the board with no real reaction from the government or any interest groups, I do start to wonder if it's a political issue rather than an actual one. Especially when the wage gap myth is constantly trumpeted by almost every single government I see.

Actually, one argument feminists use to say that black men aren't disadvantaged is that black men still earn more than black women (although the gap here is much smaller than the general population wage gap).

But there's a whopping flaw in that logic. That's comparing 1 full-time employed black man to 1 full-time employed black woman.  It doesn't factor in the higher unemployment of black men, and on top of that, the outright tragedy of at least 1.5 million black men of working age (24-54) who should exist but are "missing" (read dead or disproportionately in prison).

That's 1/6th of all black men with their life or freedom completely removed. Those people aren't being counted in the wage-gap statistics when you consider the quality of life of a boy or girl born black. Clearly, being a man is not necessarily a privilege for a black person, which means intersectionality needs to be a more flexible concept than just stacking or multiplying-together "approved" things you can say you're oppressed about.

It's not just white boys in Britain, though. It's all boys. It's just white boys that are hit the hardest by it because they have none of the community that ethnic minority groups do.

It is trivially easy for a statistician to look at a population with both a racial gap and a gender gap and account for both simultaneously.

And yet they don't. Like the oft repeated wage gap myth. It's people who manipulate statistics to get the result they want... And then outright lie in what they're saying.

Just so you know, that's the: "A woman working the same job as a man earns 77c for every $1 a man earns."

[mainiac]

 

I just want to repeat in case anyone forgot.  All research that disagrees with my opinions is shodily done and contains the same falacies.  I am aware of all research that disagrees with me and know the flaws of all of it.

[Reelya]

It is trivially easy for a statistician to look at a population with both a racial gap and a gender gap and account for both simultaneously.

It's also trivially easy for activists to take stats out of context and misuse them, which is what our conversation is about.

[mainiac]

 

[Reelya]

But there's straight up evidence of that. So plz no vapid eye rolls.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/05/13/3437471/women-homicide-work/

All told in 2012, 351 women died on the job. The leading cause of death was homicide – 28 percent were murdered, a sharp increase from the 8 percent killed at work in 2011. While far more men die on the job than women overall – 4,277 were killed at work that year – just 9 percent are murdered.

Why are so many women victims of homicide at work?

The only problem with this article is it's a huge beat up. It's like asking "why are so many white people arrested by the police?" and only looking at raw numbers, not percentages. This is a textbook logical fallacy: "begging the question".

And the "Sharp increase" never happened. I checked 2008 figures and they're the same as the 2012 figures. I'm guessing they misread the 2011 male-homicide rate of 8%. So this is a scare campaign about an epidemic of female-centric murders at workplaces which isn't even happening.

9% of 4277 men = 376, and 28% of 351 women = 99 (from checking the data source). So, women are a lot more safe from murder than men are. They're just disproportionally extra, extra safe from all other things that happen to men on the job.

So a data source which screams "women are really safe compared to men" is twisted into "epidemic of anti-woman violence is upon us!"

It's like the feminist version of the Daily Mail scare campaigns.

[nullBolt]

I just want to repeat in case anyone forgot.  All research that disagrees with my opinions is shodily done and contains the same falacies.  I am aware of all research that disagrees with me and know the flaws of all of it.

Glad you have no response or facts to back up your opinions. At least you're honest about it.

(Seriously, if you're going to say that sort of stuff, I'd sit down and have a good, long hard look in the mirror first.)

[mainiac]

Man, someone who is actively hostile towards an idea is totally qualified to characterize the naunce of the views of it's adherents.

[nullBolt]

Man, someone who is actively hostile towards an idea is totally qualified to characterize the naunce of the views of it's adherents.

I have to say, do you actively do this? If I come down here into General Discussion, should I be expecting you to come and troll in order to get people to insult you so you can report them? Because that's what you're doing, aren't you?

[Reelya]

Well you're the only one doing those things you accuse of, mainiac.

I've said some things, and I cited reputable studies to back them up. For example one key claim I made was that the wage gap is almost entirely related to having children. I provided evidence for that, nobody has cited evidence that disproves the census and Bureau of Labor data on the matter.

There have been plenty of hypothetical bias studies thrown around, but the problem is that the biases shown in those don't necessarily show up in the actual employment data. And the best test of that is that people writing those articles can google the actual data just as easily as us. If an in-depth article about biased hiring practices only cites hypothetical trials and they haven't even bothered to google real-world data that would prove their point, you need to be skeptical of whether the actual data supports the conclusions.

[mainiac]

Yes, what on earth could have promoted this snark.

[nullBolt]

Yes, what on earth could have promoted this snark.

Facts that you don't like being true, apparently.

[mainiac]

No man.  Everything I want to be true is totally true.  It's other people who are mislead.  Universal fact.  Even when I'm describing other people's views, I know what they believe better then they do.