I have long known from studies referenced that there is no such thing as a gender gap anymore, when you account for hours worked, and the assertiveness and value of women it essentially vanishes or turns insignificant. The prejudice is essentially gone, but the powerful narrative remains. The rhetoric feminists use is based on ancient obsolete studies, not objective and up to date ones such as Pewpew. When you account for men working 9 hours longer and generally get paid in overtime any difference is statistically irrelevant. It is true though that women are somewhat less likely to become major CEOs, enter hard science, or become programmers, and this can be explained in many ways (generally individual decisions by women to work less), which don’t require psychological guesswork, “a patriarchy” or a culture of “oppression.”
I got the “9 hour gap per week” figure from Pew Pew: “Among all people ages 16 and older, men spend an average 30 hours a week on paid work and women spend 21.”
If for some reason you don’t trust Pewpew, the BLS has its own set of numbers that show men work significantly longer. (Men worked an average of 41.1 hours per week. Woman worked an average of 36.4 hours per week in paid employment. More specifically, women are twice as likely to take part-time work as men.) I’m not concerned enough to find out whether Pewpew or the BLS have more accurate numbers, for me it’s enough to show that there is a material difference in hours worked, and both agree on the correlation.
Here’s another fun fact: women actually tend to make more per hour than men doing part time work.
Obviously there is still an absence among the largest CEOs at large companies, but those people live in a totally different world than what any of us are going to experience, where corruption and nepotism are rules governing their a parallel universe that government doesn’t yet have the strength to reset. Women lead fewer video game companies, because women don’t like video games as much, few study programming (except for the transgendered who are overly represented–if they count as women), and women lately have preferred to use video games as a medium to preach progressive messages
in a condescending and boring way rather than to make the interesting escapist fantasies that men actually want to play. (Famous feminists who don’t actually play video games
have waged a war on video games for the last few years, decrying the objectification of women because there have been too many sexy babes, in games that women don’t like to play.) Basically they’re highly irrational and part of the reason American games have been censored and boring lately to avoid controversy, with ugly women with monkey lips as protagonists
or on the covers
More women get college degrees these days (though they favor degrees that tend to pay less), and half of the students in my major were women. If the women from my major want to change upper management they can if they’re assertive and committed to their careers. We nearly had a female president and there were no serious indications that her sex would have been a liability rather than an asset for scoring votes by a large feminist and progressive base, so I consider fighting sexism flogging a dead horse when society should move on to bigger and more real controversies. Feminism is dead, and feminist activism should stay buried along with the 70’s. When the genders are nearly at parity in the workforce, the only way for women to rise further is to feminize men and cut mens’ dicks. (I think we’ve been going in that direction in the west, which has begun to drive men to join “the sexual right.”)
72% of 18-22 year olds have no religion in Britain. Overall, I think I would have been happier and more successful living in the UK or basically any western European country where this trend is far accelerated and where the socio-economic views and ethics agree with mine. I am starting to feel relieved that this trend is so accelerated in the youth, and I know it won’t stop and will be just like gay marriage, ending segregation, suffrage, permitting divorce, or ending slavery. I don’t think I will feel any nostalgia for the loss of religion, religious fables, or forced communion with racist/prejudiced/tribal cultists when I die, hopefully in another 40 years, for there is just too much the world offers outside of that narrow inherited world-view.
America may be behind, and my experience knowledge and general intelligence/openness may have happened to put me ahead of the curve as a logical thinker, but I do feel relief knowing that America generally follows Europe and if I were to leave this country in a few generations religion and all of the associated evil ideologies are still predicted to die out here. We may soon not have anyone as eloquent as the recent old atheists in Britain who are about to die out, but the arguments will be won, because the younger generation will not be prejudiced from the start.
Without childhood indoctrination in religion, almost no atheist has converted to it in the last century because all the claims look ridiculous and there is not a shred of evidence to back any of it up. The arguments that used to be persuadable for Christian apologists in less modern eras have all been refuted by centuries of more careful thinkers–philosophers and psychologists, or by the data accumulated by science as the most objective means we have ever discovered of obtaining the truth. Now the apologists speak with elusive language like lawyers only to keep their own flock from knowing the truth, for their own financial or psychological benefit, while countless conservative institutions uphold the lie. The younger generation has started to know that the truth doesn’t change no matter what people say or believe, and remains ready to be found. Consequently, the next generation of thinkers won’t be persuaded, because they has just gotten too good at questioning why the truth needs so many lies, institutions, and violence to be defended if it’s so obvious.
First rule about Christian fight club: you don’t talk about Christian fight club.
second rule about Christian fight club: you don’t talk about Christian fight club.
I like the religion of kissin’ Hank’s ass…the analogy appeals more than a discordian religion.
One thing that pisses me off about Christians in America is how they don’t like cynics and tend to glorify acting naively optimistic like Flanders. But a degree of pessisim generally correlates with more gdp per capita:
It’s called being realistic and I don’t like overly optimistic people.p who refuse to regularly dip into cynicism or take a balanced view.
I do understand what some people mean about the importance of setting a good example in certain situations. But we have to define what is a good example? Is it really always civility and the virtues we want others to emulate, or can it be useful to teach by making a bad example? I will explain later.
There is a lot of room for disagreement on what is a generally good behavior, and while peter boghossian takes a softer Socratic approach to persuade Christians, Christopher Hitchens is combative and debates on hard facts. Certain techniques work better on certain personalities and we need to support both doves and hawks to get our message out.
I personally think I need to be more aggressive. I think we should even mimic their hypocrisies at times if we see an individual using them, so that Christians will see it and call us out on them, and then hopefully realize they’re looking in a mirror and fix their ways. For example, it might be useful to act like you’ve lost your temper around someone who loses their temper easily, to teach them a lesson about maintaining self-control if you want to be listened to. It might be useful to be excessively prideful around a proud psrson for the same reason. I guess this is the opposite of setting a good example, and I haven’t heard anyone else use it, but I think it has uses.
It’s a pre-liminary lesson that needs to be learned somehow or other to listen. Otherwise no discussion or real exchange of ideas can occur. If you ever meet someone who is 70 years old and cannot remain calm, rational or humble enough to listen to a word you say on anything, but who loves to berate and throw out uninformed prejudices, I think It’s justified to mirror them and show utter disrespect until they realize their wrong.
Why am I so amazingly smart? QFT
You experience this illusion because you’ve been surrounded by your intellectual inferiors your whole life. Leave your home and find a place where you will frequently be the least intelligent person in the room, and you will be able to grow and learn far more than ever before.
/ fucking saved. Someone took my shitpost on te philosophy board seriously, and reaffirmed the value of something I’ve told myself for years. I gotta trust myself and get out of this stupid country. To do anything but seek intellectual abroad is the real escapism!
Hah, he burned the south pretty well! http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/fundamentalism-racism-fear-and-propaganda-an-insider-explains-why-rural-christian-white-america-will-never-change/
I don’t think white racism as well covered up as some people believe. The excues used by racists sound hollow to anyone who is commited to removing biases and I have a pertinent anecdote.
It used to annoy me how often “right wingers/American conservatives/the alt-right/colourists” would say Obama wasn’t fit to be president because he was not an American, or how they would circulate emails about how the bible said it’s justified to not follow illegitimate leader like Obama (in regards to Obama, the Kenyan Muslim.) Not long after he was first elected, I listened to one Christian teacher explaining the birther conspiracy to another Christian US history teacher. She went on a long rant about the bible, and the American constitution, and how there was a section that didn’t allow anyone who had been born in America to become a president.
(In my view this is a historical safeguard, meant to prevent a British politician or hostile invader from legally taking over a new country.) I turned to one of them and asked if were technically true, why would it matter if he had lived in America for his entire life? (Obama was educated in America and worked there his entire life. Voters had decided he shared sufficient views and connection, and was therefore good enough.)
“IT DOES MATTER!” One of them shouted at me, as Christians like to do. And that was all they had to say, as if that line had decisively answered the question.
What the birthers really want is a narrow excuse to act like bigots and be stubbornly opposed to groups or individuals, while pretending they aren’t bigots and their words are both clever and acceptable. But their mask is transparent to anyone outside of their bubble of bigots. The cleverest excuse is transparent to anyone who doesn’t actually want to delight in saying stupid prejudiced things, like a tribal savage, or listening raptly to the invalid arguments that constitute hate speech.