Jump to content
The Corroboree

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Halcyon Daze

That Gok guy really annoys me.

Recommended Posts

hehe I knew it

ballzac>

Women are permitted much more gender plasticity than men.

oppressed feminine side, bro?

thats because its a men's world and men enjoy the made-for-men-crowd phony "lesbian pornography"

so two women kissing is hot, two men kissing is disgusting... lucky women right???

fuck, how narrow-minded??

what did you except in a mens world, be gay or act like one and walk with it? Is a man world and you're a supposed to be a man. if not you're gonna get fucked...

oh, I forgot you dont think its a mans world.

This is because our society fundamentally accepts women as they are, but men are forced into conforming to certain roles, which is a form of oppression.

lololololol

or plain sexism, jealousy related with hidden inner secrets ?

in my opinion, your references to semantics and seemingly academic word flow cannot hide that behind your full of holes views, lie , from what I understand a butthurt soul. Your opinions are just interpretations and reflections of the gender issues you are obviously been having throughout your life ...

and while you claim to have solid opinion, the only solid about your opinions is the sexism. in a wide range of topics of the same nature which I haven't bothered to read all...

in the case I am totally wrong in my hypothesis, and you dont have true personal issues with this subject you seem to enjoy talking so much , then man your analysis is the epitomy of doing it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea about the video is awful. the actors are awful and the guys is trying not to laugh at some points. Seriously he doesn't look at all frightened or abused and the whole video with people passing by, really doesnt present something really out of control for people to interfere.

for what its worth, I dont believe people should interfere when a woman is publicly beaten unless she cries for help. Some women and men like to be abused, its part of their mentality. And talking about men...

people who got serious Cancer and Libra positions in their natal charts are especially prone to be dominated by their usually more powerful and dynamic female partners...

You know some men are real pussies. Some men are women in men bodies, not in the sexual sense, they might be perfectly straight, but they might have real woman traits.

I have never seen a woman beat a man, and if she did, the man usually can react, as they come stronger, no?

PS: needless to say I am so immensly happy for the papers that links masculinity (probably better said as sexism) with homophobia

THANKS A LOT, very important material

PS2: ballzac, its so sad seeing you fail to grasp the big picture... (or posing so)

hear it out.

homophobia related to hypermasculinity is linked with woman in this sense: homophobes are being homophobes either because they are themselves and have repressed it or they feel so masculine they need to proove it.

Proving you are so god damn masculine has always been a good trait to get yourself noticed by women.

so by bashing those that fail to be so man like you, you get MEN POINTS and probably have more possibilities to fuck that cure red-hair chick, who is obviously impressed by violence against the different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and given that set of premises, I asked why you think criticisms levelled at masculinity and femininity are 'the same', if we ignore overlaps in gendered behaviour between the sexes (at which point it becomes more difficult to classify behaviour as gendered -- a point I made previously).

If you mean 'the same' as in equally right/wrong, then it's simply a consequence of being an egalitarian.

 

And why don't you think it has to do with gender?

It depends exactly what you mean, and I may have mispoken. Obviously I don't mean it has nothing to do with gender because I've made it clear that it is about gender non-conformity, which is clearly 'about' gender. But I mean I don't think it is misogyny or misandry. That is what I mean when I say it is not about gender per se. You claim that a particular group of men are discriminated against while the corresponding group of women are not discriminated against to the same degree, and I think if you see that as sexism rather than simply expectations of gender conformity, then it is more reasonable to call it misandry than misogyny, considering that it is hatred directed at men. But my point is that this is not a view that I subscribe to.

 

Keep in mind you're arguing against large bodies of evidence from Psychology, Sociology, Biology and Chemistry. The nature versus nurture debate would warrant an entire thread in itself, but suffice to say, hormones, genetics, etc play a MASSIVE part in affecting behaviour, emotions, etc. Of course, nurture (environment, culture, etc) will shape behaviours, gender roles etc, but there are some pretty convincing arguments suggesting that culture/environment are really just manifestations of biology anyway, and aren't exactly phenomena that form in a vacuum existing as some kind of free-standing entity that shape a person separately from biological determinism.

I don't understand how any of that relates to whether the dislike of men who show feminine traits is misogynistic or not.

 

Depending on how you wish to polarise behaviour, you could argue it is non-conformity to gender normally congruent with one's physical sex and conformity with a gender not matching biological sex (as assigned at birth). This is all just semantics / word play. If we're discussing 'non-conformity to gender', we're still discussing gender. I guess it becomes somewhat murky once you move into intersexed / genderqueer territory.

Yes, it is just semantics, but I see your position as a linguistic sleight of hand that takes hatred or discrimination directed at men and somehow characterises it in a way that makes women appear to be the victims.

As I've stated, I'm not sure if the dislike of a public figure because of their mannerisms can every be seen as real discrimination. But let's assume it is. Then you're taking discrimination directed at a man, completely ignoring his gender while simultaneously claiming that this discrimination is about gender, and claiming misogyny.

If this was purely about gender, and it was femininity that was the problem, then this would be a thread about someone who has an extremely high 'femininity rating', which would undoubtedly be a woman rather than a man who has some feminine attributes.

 

I guess my point here is to show that sex and gender are fairly intertwined (generally), and that there are quite a few different correlates (neural, chemical, etc) which are highly suggestive that we are discussing does relate to gender. Simply applying some hand-waving and saying 'it's not about gender' doesn't make it so. Gender is really a statistical classification. Sure, correlation does not equal causation, but at what point do we concede correlations to be statistically significant?

Sorry, I had forgotten about this bit of your post when I typed my last post.

You can have a very strong correlation and still not have causation between the two events. You imply that the only options are causation or coincidence, though there are multiple other possibilities of how two events that are not causally linked can be correlated, so you can't rule out coincidence and then claim causation. I think the example in my last post covers this. But to make it clearer, I'm going to steal an example from wikipedia:

As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply.

Therefore, ice cream consumption causes drowning.

This is something that you will find correlated again and again across the world. At what point do we concede that this correlation is statistically significant and claim causation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claim that a particular group of men are discriminated against while the corresponding group of women are not discriminated against to the same degree, and I think if you see that as sexism rather than simply expectations of gender conformity, then it is more reasonable to call it misandry than misogyny, considering that it is hatred directed at men. But my point is that this is not a view that I subscribe to.

See below. There are studies showing that men are much more likely to be homophobic than women, and the homophobia tends to be directed more at homosexual men than women. Several scholars have made the argument that this homophobia relates to expected gender roles. Men are more likely to attempt to protect their masculinity and draw distinctions between

gender roles. This, it is believed, contributes to a higher incidence of homophobia directed at homosexual men. The arguments are much more nuanced and detailed than this, but this is one of the core aspects of the argument. There is plenty of evidence from studies and surveys showing that homophobia is often directed at people because of behaviours and outward appearance than actual suspicion of sexual orientation. Looking at the way in which homophobia is prevalent in school children is but one example of this.

I said it was a 'deep rooted misogyny'. You can argue it's both misandry and misogyny. Misandry, as men aren't living up to the expectation of others (particularly other men), and misogyny because by subscribing to more 'typical' aspects of femininity, men are seen as weak, inferior etc, which says a lot about society's perceptions of femininity. My point is, if there wasn't such a skewed view of femininity, then perhaps there wouldn't be such a taboo toward 'less than mascline' men. The fact that this taboo emanates more from self-ascribed (hyper)-masculine men is quite telling.

 

I don't understand how any of that relates to whether the dislike of men who show feminine traits is misogynistic or not.

It doesn't. It seemed to be implied before that gender and sexuality were different / entirely separate, and I had gone off on a tangent. I was showing the relationship, rather than just blindly asserting the premise that gender is related to sexuality and orientation (which is a subset of sexuality).

 

Yes, it is just semantics, but I see your position as a linguistic sleight of hand that takes hatred or discrimination directed at men and somehow characterises it in a way that makes women appear to be the victims.

Linguistic sleight of hand because I haven't written an essay and already wasted too much time in this thread defending stupid BS? Again, see below. There is extensive literature in Psychology, Child Psychology, Socioloy Journals on this very topic. I don't believe it's a direct attack on women and that they're being 'victimised'. It's an indirect attack by proxy of certain ideals and attitudes towards femininity which is normally/typically associated with women. Whether this is misogyny, a variant thereof, or something else entirely would be an entirely separate argument.

 

As I've stated, I'm not sure if the dislike of a public figure because of their mannerisms can every be seen as real discrimination. But let's assume it is. Then you're taking discrimination directed at a man, completely ignoring his gender while simultaneously claiming that this discrimination is about gender, and claiming misogyny.

How am I completely ignoring his gender? I understand that someone can IDENTIFY as a male, however their gender expression is more in-line with that of the opposite sex. I have never sad anything to the contrary. Usually gender identity, gender expression, sexuality and physical sex (primary/secondary characteristics) are congruent.

In this instance, it's not difficult to argue this isn't entirely the case (the case is true across all people across the spectrum to varying degrees). In fact, many transsexuals start out identiftying as gay men largely due to their gender expression (along with sexuality / orientation, of course). After years of self-deceit, they may also begin to realise their gender IDENTITY is female.

 

If this was purely about gender, and it was femininity that was the problem, then this would be a thread about someone who has an extremely high 'femininity rating', which would undoubtedly be a woman rather than a man who has some feminine attributes.

In this instance (Gok), I'm claiming that it's LARGELY about gender. Not once have I tried to extrapolate and say ALL homophobia is about gender. Stop strawmanning me. I'm arguing AGAINST a position asserted by the original poster (and others) about where I think their homophobia comes from *in this instance*.

It's not difficult to argue that Gok exhibits gender expression more toward the feminine end of the spectrum than masculine. Why does someone with a 'high femininity rating' have to 'undoubtedly be a woman' ? How do you then explain transgenderism / transsexualism? Again, I refer to the self-realisation of gay males who actually end up identifying and transitioning to live as women. The inverse also holds true (although far less often) -- transgender people who question their gender identity, but end up living and identigying as a gay man (usually quite feminine).

 

You can have a very strong correlation and still not have causation between the two events. You imply that the only options are causation or coincidence, though there are multiple other possibilities of how two events that are not causally linked can be correlated, so you can't rule out coincidence and then claim causation. I think the example in my last post covers this. But to make it clearer, I'm going to steal an example from wikipedia:

Oh come on. Don't be patronising. I already point out correlation is not causation previously, and suggested that the only way we can even have this argument is the observation of empirical evidence in the form of correlated data, then attempting to make inferences. And yes, homophobia correlates to a lot of different demographics - age, race, location, etc.

Anyway, as the literature shows, when people give *reasons* for their homophobia, it is much clearer and easier to infer or suggest a causal link. I'm not sure if you're trying to make an argument from universal skepticism or epistemology here, or what. If we question homophobes as to WHY they are homophobic and show intent (again, plenty of studies/surveys in this area), it becomes much more difficult to argue for coincidental correlation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Homosexuality and the Social Meaning of Gender'

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wlr1988&div=12&id=&page=

An argument suggesting homophobia is a reaction to violation of gender norms.

'Gender Differences and Attitudes Towards Homosexuality'

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v43n01_05#.Uq-MW_QW3oF

A study which suggests negative attitudes to homosexuality relate to rigidity of gender roles.

'Protecting the Gender Nonconformist from the Gender Police - Why the Harassment of Gays and Other Gender Nonconformists Is a Form of Sex Discrimination in Light of the Supreme Court's Decision in Oncale v. Sundowner; Lester, Toni'

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/nmlr29&div=8&id=&page=

An actual example argued from a legal perspective.

'Mapping Homophobia in Australia'

http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP79.pdf

Australian study. Shows men are more likely to be against homosexuality than women, plus some other interesting statistics.

'Gender Role Ideology, Homophobia and Hate Crime: Linking Attitudes to Macro-Level Anti-Gay and Lesbian Hate Crimes'

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/016396290931614#.Uq-NRPQW3oF

Attempts to link attitudes towards gender and homophobia using attitudinal measures.

'Engendering Homophobia: violence, sexuality and gender conformity'

http://jos.sagepub.com/content/37/3/257.short

Shows how violence towards homosexuals is seen to be a part of masculine identity.

'Personality Correlates of Homophobia'

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v34n01_05#.Uq9NYvQW3oE

'Sexual Orientation, Gender Role Expression, and Stereotyping: The Intersection Between Sexism and Sexual Prejudice (Homophobia)'

http://counselingoutfitters.com/Rees.htm

Covers The Culture Gender Belief System (which I've already alluded to) and inversion therapy, and how they influence people's perceptions of others (as to masculinity/femininity).

I have a lot more of these..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I ever get in trouble with the police I want Ballzac and Goneski to team up & defend me court.

I reckon you two could put up a bulletproof case to prove anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I tried to follow some of the discussion and my brain ended up curdling

But the Gok bloke annoys me too, is it homophobia if I'm gay? ;)

For all I know he may be a wonderful, caring person with a rich inner life which will never make it to television. And good luck to him

But why call his obnoxious traits 'feminine' anyhow? That level of camp, if most women acted like that we'd be socially non-functional. Chicks 100% like that are out there, in small numbers thank fuck, but to say that campness is identifying strongly with women is begging the question- most really camp men I know are mysogymistic. Whatever traits they are garnering to try to achieve that level of theatre, I'd call anti-social rather than 'feminine'. whatever that is

At some point 'camp' can become mysogynistic, like wearing black stage makeup can be really racist. Like the Ulysses club wearing back patches and thinking they're bikies. Really, it's not about identification so much as it is internalised parody of a bunch of people they are really clueless about, whose lives they know and care not a lot for, and who they probably wouldn't like much in person if they met

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I have a lot more of these..

Is there anything there that specifically addresses the relationship between misogyny and homophobia, and establishes that the latter is a special case of the former, or at the very least that there is a direct causal link? I don't have the time to be reading pages and pages of papers, but certainly want to read anything factual that challenges my current perspective.

The problem seems to be that we have one very specific point of disagreement, and I think we keep somehow talking at cross purposes when we really agree on a huge amount of this issue.

There is no point in trying to convince me that this is about rigidity of gender roles, as I agree with you on that. There is no point in trying to convince me that misogyny and homophobia are positively correlated. I already considered that to be plausible, and you have shown good evidence to support this. There is no point in trying to convince me that homophobia is more common among men than women. I find this plausible and it has nothing to do with whether homophobia is misogyny or not. The only significant point of disagreement is whether or not its fair to characterise an attack on a man as misogyny, and whether or not there is direct evidence that any of these forms of homophobia are special cases of misogyny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you stick to the attitudinal studies & surveys, then yes, these contain empirical evidence highly suggestive of a causal link (i.e. certain held beliefs regarding gender & sex roles influencing homophobic attitudes). Of course, there are quite probably psychoanalytic views out there arguing that reasons presented by perpetrators of hate crime / homophobia may hold less weight than others, such as repressed homosexuality as I briefly mentioned before.

If you're interested in evaluating the 'fairness' of the characterisation of homophobic attacks, well then you'd have to read the arguments presented in light of the data. Obviously, it will also depend on how you qualify fairness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That gok guy annoys me

That gok chick annoys me equally as much too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Gok bloke annoys me too, is it homophobia if I'm gay? ;)

I think it would kind of depend on how you phrase it. Like for example, if I where to say, damn those people living down the street bug the shit out of me! They never smile or say hello and just stare at you like ya rooted their wife or something when you walk past there house.

Obviously that’s not a racist comment, just an observation of some disrespectful individuals.

But, if I where to say (purely for example), goddamn Afghanis! Taking over the place, thinking they own everything and acting like I have no right to be in my own country, no regard whatsoever for the aussie culture!

Well then obviously I’d be saying essentially the exact same thing as the first sentence, yet now I’d be saying it in a very racist manner.

Who would have thought, choice of grammar could be the difference between a harmless observation and a very racist rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sally

LOL

awesome post-intervention, so much needed here

well done

yes they are both awesome rhetors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you stick to the attitudinal studies & surveys, then yes, these contain empirical evidence highly suggestive of a causal link (i.e. certain held beliefs regarding gender & sex roles influencing homophobic attitudes).

You kind of snuck that "sex roles" bit in. Your original claim was that homophobia, or more accurately/specifically negative attitudes to men who display characteristics generally considered to be feminine, is a form of misogyny. This was my point about us having a very specific point of disagreement, and somehow straying from that point.

Your response is also kind of vague. I'm asking you if there is evidence in any of the 10 papers you've linked to that supports your position on this specific point of disagreement and, to paraphrase, you basically said "it's in there somewhere". Why can't you say "yes, Bloggs et al. found that the link was causal by controlling for multiple factors, such as blah blah blah..."? Then I could either modify my own opinion on this in light of evidence that I was previously unaware of or, if I am unconvinced, explain why I think there is a flaw in their methodology or reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So because I've already wasted too much time in this thread, providing references, you decide to be too intellectually lazy to actually READ then somehow blame me?

I briefly wrote a sentence on what each paper shows. If you took 30 seconds to read through some of the abstracts, you would begin to see how the paper may be relevant. Why should I have to repeat something already studied, referenced and reviewed and waste further time in this degenerate thread?

Besides, I was straw-manned from the beginning. I made a comment about what I believed about people's homophobia in THIS thread, somehow I was then straw-manned and this was extrapolated out to make me appear to apply this to ALL homophobia. I said that it CAN apply and that there are many causes for homophobia, and we agreed on that. I said in this instance, based on comments I believed the homophobia was really a form of misogyny. You disagreed on several points, when I reinforced my point of view with examples or references, you somehow flipped position and then conceded there was only one point of contention, basically brushing over most of what I said.

Despite being straw-manned, I've given several papers which show various interesting statistics and present fairly easy to comprehend arguments on how homophobia can be rooted in or a variant of misogyny. I decided to provide proper, peer-reviewed journal articles rather than ridiculous anecdotes to add weight to the argument. If people are too lazy to read, not my problem.

EDIT: The reason it is preferable to reference journal articles is because this is how academia works. It seems rather pointless to needlessly paraphrase something within the context of an internet forum and end up wasting time writing a thesis. Besides, if I do this, you'll probably then ask me to defend several other premises (ad infinitum) which are referenced in said articles. Also, those articles are NOT "blogs". They're academic journal articles.

I'm out of this thread, and probably out of this forum for that matter. What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for what its worth, I dont believe people should interfere when a woman is publicly beaten unless she cries for help. Some women and men like to be abused, its part of their mentality. And talking about men...

You are a sick individual and need help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So because I've already wasted too much time in this thread, providing references, you decide to be too intellectually lazy to actually READ then somehow blame me?

It's not intellectually lazy to expect you to be able to provide a specific example of the evidence you claim exists. You dump more than half a dozen links to papers in a post, and from your summaries, it's not clear that any of them demonstrate your point. I'm not going to read all of them on the off chance that the evidence you claim is in there somewhere actually is. It should be pretty straightforward to actually pinpoint where this evidence is so I can read it and respond to it. If it is my responsibility to read every paper you link to in order to be able to respond to it, then there is no end to it. You posted two papers, I read the first one, but instead of addressing my issues with this one, you just post eight more. Then if I read them and still aren't convinced, are you not going to just post 20 more links, then 30, etc.?

 

EDIT: The reason it is preferable to reference journal articles is because this is how academia works. It seems rather pointless to needlessly paraphrase something within the context of an internet forum and end up wasting time writing a thesis. Besides, if I do this, you'll probably then ask me to defend several other premises (ad infinitum) which are referenced in said articles. Also, those articles are NOT "blogs". They're academic journal articles.

I'm out of this thread, and probably out of this forum for that matter. What a joke.

There is a difference between referencing a journal article to support a point, and just posting a heap of articles and claiming that the evidence is in there somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also,

 

Besides, I was straw-manned from the beginning. I made a comment about what I believed about people's homophobia in THIS thread, somehow I was then straw-manned and this was extrapolated out to make me appear to apply this to ALL homophobia. I said that it CAN apply and that there are many causes for homophobia, and we agreed on that. I said in this instance, based on comments I believed the homophobia was really a form of misogyny.

You have repeatedly claimed that your position on this is backed up by a huge body of scientific evidence. I had assumed this to mean that you believe it to be true in a more general sense, because if that isn't your claim, then this means that there is a large amount of research that has been done specifically on Halcyon's personal reasons for finding this Gok guy annoying, which is obviously ludicrous.

 

You disagreed on several points, when I reinforced my point of view with examples or references, you somehow flipped position and then conceded there was only one point of contention, basically brushing over most of what I said.

Okay, well let's call it a core point of disagreement.

I am not aware of having flipped positions. I originally thought that calling negative comments about a man "misogyny" is wrong, and I still think that.

And the only things that I am aware of having glossed over are the things that either we agree on, or that I think are too trivial to dispute. The idea being that if you strip away anything that is not relevant to this core point of disagreement, we could hopefully actually come to some kind of consensus on this main topic. In other words, I'm willing to grant you A, B, and C for the sake of argument, and I already agree with you on D, E, and F, so let's focus on G, which is where we actually vehemently disagree.

I ask you to provide evidence of G, and you provide evidence that may support some of A-F, and then tell me I've glossed over most of what you said when I ignore it and again ask you to point me toward evidence of G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am proudly homo-sapien - full on fukin knuckle dragger lol and I am outraged that I cannot get a job dressing skinny models in my idea of fashion undies. I mean really I have the RIGHT to spank skinny models on the bum and I want to be paid to do IT!

[edit] nah I don't really want the job but it was a funny thought all the same. I don't want to be a gooseberry I want to grow them!! I'd rather be the caretaker of a fine lush garden that goes on farther than the eye can see :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are a sick individual and need help.

lol...... HELP!!!!!!

this is the most awesome compliment one has offered in the whole year! Thanks a lot. (I thought noone pays attention to me anymore)

its funny you see that both misandry and misogyny is deriving from the same matcho man mentality, but still, you dont think the problem is a man made society , a men's society with weak women.

In all seriousness, who is to blame if a stupid chick marries an abusive man that beats her? Not the men-dominating society, according to all of your opinions

So I am asking, who is to blame for this woman choice, to get involved and not getting away from an abusive husband?

ME?

All in all, and letting aside any comments on who is sick (AKA who is coming from a society of beating husbands, a society that resembles america in so much ways it seems, from drug and alcohol abuse to domenstic violence)

who the fuck discusses in a high-profile & almost scholar way philosopical - sociological semantics in the bitches/degenerated thread, and especially in a thread that started as absolutely sexist and homophobic , from the men's point of view of course??

Beats me

anywayz, life is awesome

and it wouldn't be any less awesome without some absolutely fucking stupid ideas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoah...

Just wanna agree with dL that I would never equate "campness" with feminity, But more with as DL said theatrics. Not that there's anything wrong with theatrics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

something inane

I've been mostly just ignoring you because there's really nothing in your posts that I even considered worth addressing, but I really draw the line at you quoting me out of context and saying I have said things I haven't said. The first time I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't even read my post properly and missed the entire paragraph where I explained that those comments were not positions that I hold on this topic. But now it's pretty clear that you are intentionally mischaracterising my position on this, because you can't possibly be stupid enough to have misunderstood every single thing I have said in this thread.

I would appreciate it if you would edit the false claims as to what I have said out of you posts, but I don't expect you to do that...

ETA: Thanks for editing your post mutant, I really appreciate it. I am, however, leaving this post because your first post that quoted me out of context still remains unedited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balzac and mutant love it :)

I actually read the above post in goks voice envisioning hand gestures etc

This thread had become more camp than

Gok will ever be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All in all, and letting aside any comments on who is sick (AKA who is coming from a society of beating husbands, a society that resembles america in so much ways it seems, from drug and alcohol abuse to domenstic violence)

We at least made the top 30 list (at 21) by forbes for the best country to be a women. Greece didn't even make it, even the US made it at 27.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/11/best-countries-women-lead-cx_mk_1112gender_slide.html

btw, can't believe New Zealand made number 5, How can they be so much different than Australia when it comes to the equality of women?

You are a sick individual and need help.

I'm fairly sure mutants making more of a threat than any kind of general observation. In that, if anyone tries to intervene when you see him beating on his women in public, he’ll just smack the living piss out of her twice as hard once there alone, then proceed to blame her for embarrassing him and making him look foolish & weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We at least made the top 30 list (at 21) by forbes for the best country to be a women. Greece didn't even make it, even the US made it at 27.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/11/best-countries-women-lead-cx_mk_1112gender_slide.html

btw, can't believe New Zealand made number 5, How can they be so much different than Australia when it comes to the equality of women?

 

Be aware that this index is calculated by determining a score for each subindex e.g. enrolment in tertiary education female-male ratio (1.35) and estimated earned income female-male ratio (0.92). They then 'truncate' anything where women have performed better than men: that is, the numbers above would become (1) and (0.92) and then produce a weighted average from these results, which, ignoring all the other subindexes and not using any weighting, would result in a mean of 96% gender gap.

However, if the areas where women outperform men are not truncated, we end up with a mean of 113% (i.e. women outperforming men). Of course, I have only included two of the subindices for this calculation, so this result is meaningless, but it demonstrates the significant shortcomings of this metric as a means for determining equality, unless you consider equality to be the state of women being more privileged than men. By this I mean that if women surpass men in all areas except for one, they will still be deemed to be underprivileged by this metric. Indeed, this metric never allows the calculated gender gap to be over 100%, meaning that if women do surpass men in all areas, the calculated gap will be 100%, and the conclusion of this index is that equality has been reached. If you do the opposite (i.e. truncate any score that is under 1 and set it to one) you will end up with a result that shows that men are underprivileged. So the very design of this index forces the conclusion to be that women are underprivileged.

It would make more sense to me to not truncate the scores if we really care about who is doing better and by how much.

ETA: This report gets worse the more I read of it. I wouldn't take it too seriously. I was looking through the numbers, and when I saw the figure for "wage equality for similar work" (0.67), I thought it was way off because I thought it was meant to be a percentage that women are paid compared to men, so I was looking for where they got their figure from, when I found this:

• Wage equality between women and men for

similar work: Response to the survey question, “In

your country, for similar work, to what extent are

wages for women equal to those of men?” (1 = not

at all — significantly below those of men; 7 = fully

— equal to those of men). The data is converted to

a female-over-male ratio.

 

So basically, they are determining wage equality from the public opinion on wage equality :scratchhead: , and then they use this number in their calculation to determine their gender gap figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who's followed this thread and noticed it develop into what appears to be an academic debate, they could easily be excused for seeing it in such a superficial light.

If I was to put myself in Goneski's shoes, the only way I could describe the latter stages would be that it appeared to be a challenge to all his values and morals which resulted in an emotionally charged character defence & re-reading his final statements it seems to indicate that it's had a profound (detrimental) effect on him. For Ballzac it was just an academic debate.

There's a lot more going here on than what appears in the text we've read, I won't go into details but I'll just just say there's a deeper subtext that is not evident to a casual observer.

Don't base all all your opinions on what you've read & interpreted from the posts in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×