Page 3 of 3

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2020, 21:24
by GaySpacePirateKing
Brenden wrote:
GaySpacePirateKing wrote:It also does not make it any less of a sexist position to hold and the idiot used googles own messaging board to make the point so I think he got what he deserved.

God, you're insufferable. Where else would be publish a memo about his company meant to highlight an issue within the company and make the company better?


Ermm maybe somewhere else so he is less likely to lose his job over it maybe.

I have worse words to label you and I thought you were no longer responding to me anyway. I‘d fucking prefer that.

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2020, 21:26
by harel
GaySpacePirateKing wrote:the idiot used googles own messaging board to make the point so I think he got what he deserved.

James Damore, the fired Google senior software engineer, earned his Master's degree in systems biology at the Harvard University. He was also doing PhD studies in this field there. And you are calling him "an idiot"...

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2020, 21:27
by Brenden
GaySpacePirateKing wrote:
Brenden wrote:
GaySpacePirateKing wrote:It also does not make it any less of a sexist position to hold and the idiot used googles own messaging board to make the point so I think he got what he deserved.

God, you're insufferable. Where else would be publish a memo about his company meant to highlight an issue within the company and make the company better?

Ermm maybe somewhere else so he is less likely to lose his job over it maybe.

You don't seem to understand the point of it. The point was to be constructively critical, and if you'd actually read it you'd see this.

GaySpacePirateKing wrote:I have worse words to label you and I thought you were no longer responding to me anyway. I‘d fucking prefer that.

I no longer responded to you in that other thread. I didn't say I wouldn't respond to you everywhere else.

I'd fucking prefer you to either take your head our of your ass or shove it deeper so we can't hear you.

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2020, 21:41
by Choicespecs
harel wrote:Look, they are better than Nick Fuentes


Just to clarify, I mention Nick Fuentes due to his popularity with a lot of young men. I'm not saying he's any better than other people.

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2020, 21:50
by erti
As much of a Feminist I am, I also like to advocate men too. Mainly because when it comes to custody battles the women usually gets the child unless the mother is determined inadequate they get custody. Or if a women wanted to give her child up for adoption the father has the right to keep the baby before adopting it out... too many loop holes and it all that has many deserving men slip through the cracks.

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2020, 22:17
by Magic J
Urg... Fine, here's my uninformed hot take on Damore: the product of a full half hour of Googlin' (Duck Duck Go, actually, but the verb's stuck by this point :P).

He refers to a lot of psychological research that I really can't comment on intelligently. Whether he can or not, I leave it up to the experts, and the consensus that I can see is this: he correctly states their findings, but goes on to apply those findings in ways which their research cannot substantiate. Several academic psychologists have publicly stated this, and it looks like a majority opinion from what I can see.

He said men and women have different preferences. Fine, observably true. He said they have different aptitudes. I'd say that's also fine: men and women trend differently on the commonly defined metrics (e.g "conscientiousness). For what reasons, it's not entirely clear, but he himself seems to lean hard on it being determined "biologically".

However, there's in reality no hard and fast division here. They're stats, not people. All the expert analysis seems to indicate that: whatever differences there are, they are 1) small, 2) merely trends, and not indicative of individual preference/aptitude, and 3) of very limited use when it comes to concrete policy proposals. So, he'd be wrong to suggest any sort of policy from them.

But I think the main point against Damore in this case would be this: even if it is true that in general "men are more thing - oriented, women more person - oriented" (or any other of the differences he appeals to) , why would this matter? Google would hire those women who are as thing - oriented as they require. A major contention that lies behind the "more women in STEM" arguments is that: despite having the preference and ability, many women feel unwelcome for various reasons. I see no reason to doubt them, and it's certainly arguable that making a commitment to hire more qualified women is one of the things which could help address this.

Should he have been fired? I'd personally say probably not and it could have been addressed in a better way, but the monopolistic, tax-dodging, data thiefs over at Google need to buffer their image, so it seems like good business, to be honest. :P

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2020, 22:38
by Brenden
Did you read his memo itself? It’s pretty short, and he addresses some of your criticism in it, like saying that there’s overlap between the two sexes and that you shouldn’t simply look at the average and make policy based on the average.

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2020, 23:06
by Magic J
Brenden wrote:Did you read his memo itself? It’s pretty short, and he addresses some of your criticism in it, like saying that there’s overlap between the two sexes and that you shouldn’t simply look at the average and make policy based on the average.

I did, yeah, but I probably missed out on it when I went back and looked at some of the academic responses to it. The gist of the argument seems to me to be "there are various reasons other than discrimination that men and women might go into certain jobs". And so there is. However, the other big bit is essentially a criticism of so-called positive discrimination policies in hiring. And when these go together, it seems that he's criticising on the grounds that it engineers an unnatural state of affairs. It's a kind of "just so" story as to why there are more men in tech, and I can see why someone would object to his conclusions. I'd also say he doesn't substantially address the reasons why people do advocate for those sorts of hiring policies, so again, I can see why it could be objectionable. Finally, I've no idea as to the climate at Google (or Alphabet... whatever we're calling them now), but it seems that discrimination is a problem for some of their staff, so I could see why it might be inflammatory in that context.

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2020, 23:07
by GaySpacePirateKing
Brenden wrote:
GaySpacePirateKing wrote:
Brenden wrote:
GaySpacePirateKing wrote:It also does not make it any less of a sexist position to hold and the idiot used googles own messaging board to make the point so I think he got what he deserved.

God, you're insufferable. Where else would be publish a memo about his company meant to highlight an issue within the company and make the company better?

Ermm maybe somewhere else so he is less likely to lose his job over it maybe.

You don't seem to understand the point of it. The point was to be constructively critical, and if you'd actually read it you'd see this.

GaySpacePirateKing wrote:I have worse words to label you and I thought you were no longer responding to me anyway. I‘d fucking prefer that.

I no longer responded to you in that other thread. I didn't say I wouldn't respond to you everywhere else.

I'd fucking prefer you to either take your head our of your ass or shove it deeper so we can't hear you.


Like do you have any point here other than to just argue with me for the sake of it?

I can't believe your actually taking issue with me saying that if he wanted to make those points (whether you agree with them or not) they are controversial and damaging to a company so its no fucking surprise he was fired. What the hell is there to take issue with over that?

And I don't think I am fucking brilliant or anything I am only adding my own opinion and defending myself like everyone else.

And I don't think I am morally superior or anything at all either. Yeah I am a bit of a social justice warrior on here (a bit may be an understatement :P, promise to try tonning it down) but really so fucking what I don't think I am doing anything wrong actually. So is social justice warrioring on a gay forum of all places where you would think we might support it bad then? But anti-trans crusading by the admin of that forum perfectly fine? Ok then got it.

Either way I don't want to deal with you any longer. Every interaction is unpleasant and whether its my fault your fault or both faults that it got this bad I don't care I could still do without it. If there is a way to block you so we can no longer interact with each others posts then I want to.

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2020, 00:23
by poolerboy0077
Derek wrote:That's seriously the most embarrassing thing I've read in weeks.

Which is saying something considering my several Justin Bieber posts.

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2020, 18:39
by Derek
poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:That's seriously the most embarrassing thing I've read in weeks.

Which is saying something considering my several Justin Bieber posts.

Erick! Was that self-awareness just now?

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2020, 22:04
by poolerboy0077
Derek wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:That's seriously the most embarrassing thing I've read in weeks.

Which is saying something considering my several Justin Bieber posts.

Erick! Was that self-awareness just now?

Image

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 9 June 2020, 16:30
by Scaffolder
I support equality for women. Women should be helped.

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 12 June 2020, 22:28
by harel
Scaffolder wrote:I support equality for women. Women should be helped.

Grrrrr... There is a book "The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys". The author argues that any discrimination against men in the society is considered less important than that against women. Your case confirms this observation.

Have you read the following?
harel wrote:Men get longer sentences for the same crimes: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 06.00383.x
Men have a higher retirement age for the same jobs in most countries of the world.
Less money is spent on prostate and testicular cancer research and treatment than breast and cervical cancer research and treatment, also if calculated per patient or death.
Mothers are more likely to get custody of the children after a divorce.
In the European Union funds projects, according to the partnership agreements, there are usually 60%-70% quotas for women: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tende ... t-funds_en

Many male health problems are not considered public health issues. Nothing is done to stop the following:
harel wrote:A 2007 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism revealed that in the United States since the 1980s the average testosterone levels have declined by about 1% per year.

The memo uploaded by Brenden was downloaded 7 times, while the topic was displayed app. 700 times. I do not like it. Boys, it is more informative and important than our discussions here:
Brenden wrote:Here is the memo in question.
Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf


Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 12 June 2020, 22:41
by Derek
We should organize a Take Back the Night rally for men's rights. Pooler could choose what we all wear.

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 12 June 2020, 23:08
by poolerboy0077
I suggest banana hammocks.

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 16 October 2020, 15:31
by harel
Another reason to become a masculist!

A study published by the US. National Academy of Sciences shows the results of five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical male and female applicants. Faculty members from four fields preferred female applicants over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced).

Figure below shows hirability of identically qualified candidates with matching lifestyles shown by field: percentage of faculty members ranking the applicant number one.


The article is available here: https://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360

Re: Masculism

Unread postPosted: 29 October 2020, 19:00
by poolerboy0077
And we’re supposed to unpack this how, exactly?