tuco wrote:[Its for a fact that, whether mainstream or not, the push for equal pay as you described is, at least partially, real as seen in agenda of European Commission in these matters, for example quotas for women - its being described as decision making but I read it as higher paid jobs. Such measure could influence the gender pay gap. The reasoning, from what I've understood, is that women would be entering what is being called hostile environment thus need some advantage to compete.

Either way, without equal distribution of jobs equal pay is a dream as it was noted.

Yeah, quotas are absolutely necessary for equal opportunities, partly because of the hostile environment you mention but also just to simply offset the hiring biases of employers (where we find that they are around twice as likely to hire a man rather than a woman, even if they apply with the exact same CV).

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Beatsong wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/07/gender-pay-gap-government-maria-miller

Earlier this month, the ONS revealed that the overall median gender pay gap in the civil service is 13.6%, compared to the national average of 15%. The difference is even bigger for women working part time, who earn 35% less per hour than men working full time, according to a TUC analysis of official figures.

I'm not sure Maria Miller is generally considered a mainstream feminist (or a feminist at all), but that claim there seems to be a comment from the author of the article based on simple statistics gathered from surveys. I don't see how it would be considered a non-minority feminist view, if even feminist at all.

It is reported in articles like this on the assumption that it's bad, and needs to be equalised. That assumption has come from feminist approaches to workplace and pay policy, by and large.

We could sit here all day and argue about what is and isn't "mainstream" feminism, but something tells me that's unlikely to get us very far and you're just going to play No True Feminist with it all. The second article I linked to was by a bigwig in the Fawcett Society, and it could be reasonably be argued that the Guardian itself is as representative a voice as any of mainstream British feminism (whatever that is).

But if you really want to tell me that general discourse in the media about the need to equalise pay outcomes doesn't have anything to do with feminism - then OK. I could probably try and research a selected number of organisations of your choosing to show that it does, but - er, I can't be arsed.

Beatsong wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/16/gender-pay-gap-audits

Even though legislation to ensure equal pay has been in place for 40 years, the gender pay gap in Britain remains among the highest in the EU. On average, women in the UK earn about 15% less than men.

For every £100 men take home, women are typically earning about £85, though the gap varies between regions and sectors. In London, the pay gap stands at 23%.

This disparity in pay is perhaps one of the starkest indicators of how far we have to go before we achieve equality between women and men.

Following that, they then dedicate the rest of the article to discussing the adjusted wage gap:

"A range of things contribute to it, including the undervaluing of "women's work", where jobs traditionally done by women are generally less well paid than those where men dominate (nursing versus mechanics, for example). The lack of flexible work opportunities available means mothers, who still tend to do the bulk of unpaid caring for children, can find it hard to reconcile paid work with family responsibilities. This "motherhood penalty" can also lead to outright discrimination, with employers less likely to hire or promote women of childbearing age, for fear they may fall pregnant. But a key and often overlooked part of the battle is awareness. All too often, employers and employees of either sex are unaware they may be experiencing or perpetuating a gender pay gap.

But you have told us that the "adjusted wage gap" is 5-8%, and this article is discussing a reported wage gap of 15%, sometimes higher. So it's presumably referring to the unadjusted wage gap and what you say here makes no sense. And a statement like "The lack of flexible work opportunities available means mothers, who still tend to do the bulk of unpaid caring for children, can find it hard to reconcile paid work with family responsibilities" is not evidence of an adjusted wage gap due to sexism. It's evidence of one factor OTHER than sexism that might be responsible for some of the difference between men's and women's average earnings.

And yet the crude measure of outcome is still assumed to be a problem.

Beatsong wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/16/australian-gender-pay-gap-widens

The Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that the full-time average weekly wage for women stood at $1,252 in May, up from $1,193 in the same month last year.

However, this growth has been outstripped by a greater increase in male earnings, stretching gender pay disparity. Australian men in full-time work earned an average of $1,518 in May, up from $1,447 last year.

Nationally, men are now paid, on average, 26% more than women, up from 24% a decade ago.

All crude averages, and all derived from outcomes. All of it.

But probably my fault for reading the Guardian.

But that article again wasn't written by a feminist (at least not explicitly so or from the perspective of a feminist) and they again explicitly discuss the importance of the adjusted wage gap:

"The growth in WA wages has been driven largely by the mining industry, which paid an average of $2,490 to workers across Australia in May. Within the mining industry, women earn, on average, more than $500 a week less than the overall average.".

[/quote]

How are they discussing the adjusted wage gap, when you claim it's 5-8% and they are talking about 26%? Furthermore, drilling down to the specifics of the WA mining industry doesn't make any difference. They could be discussing the fact that male miners called Bob with exactly 15 years experience who were born on a Tuesday earn more than female miners with all the same characteristics, it wouldn't change my point. They are still taking OUTCOMES as the starting point for the problem. It doesn't matter how much you control for other factors; there is still no direct evidence that differences between men's and women's earnings are due to sexism.

Getting back to the point - this is particularly so IF you accept some of the ideas coming out of evo psych. If you believe that innate differences between the sexes might lead to different choices, behaviours or even competencies in the workplace, then you can believe that a non-sexist workplace (however specifically or generally defined) can lead to those differences of outcome. There is a potential conflict here with feminist thinking that views the different outcomes themselves as evidence of a problem - which was the only point I was making.

Quotas are also controversial, though from this no one could tell. From what I know even feminist can disagree with them while not abandoning feminism. Perhaps the thread should ask whether biology is compatible with feminism. Then again, we had the weaker sex and have not solved anything. So we can encourage women to take men jobs but unless men are encouraged take women jobs , or have communism, not much will change.

tuco wrote:So we can encourage women to take men jobs but unless men are encouraged take women jobs , or have communism, not much will change.

This of course brings up another issue of potential conflict relevant to the OP: whether we even should be encouraging women to take "men jobs".

It would be possible for certain positions and attitudes derived from evo psych to lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't - since those jobs have become "men jobs" precisely they are more natural for men and men are better at them. Hence another point of conflict with feminism.

I hasten to add I'm not referring to my own beliefs here: just to the question of the OP.

Beatsong wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:I'm not sure Maria Miller is generally considered a mainstream feminist (or a feminist at all), but that claim there seems to be a comment from the author of the article based on simple statistics gathered from surveys. I don't see how it would be considered a non-minority feminist view, if even feminist at all.

It is reported in articles like this on the assumption that it's bad, and needs to be equalised. That assumption has come from feminist approaches to workplace and pay policy, by and large.

Let's suppose it is has come from "feminist approaches" - why not just link to those feminist approaches rather than just a second-interpretation of it from a non-feminist?

Beatsong wrote:We could sit here all day and argue about what is and isn't "mainstream" feminism, but something tells me that's unlikely to get us very far and you're just going to play No True Feminist with it all.

Whoa, hold up there. You can't go throwing around terms and giving them new definitions. There is no "No True Scotsman" above because I have accurately pointed out that the article wasn't written by a feminist (or at least there is no indication of it and I can find any information on it). For it to be a fallacy you need to show a counterexample and I need to explain it away with post hoc reasoning.

What has happened here is essentially I've said, "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge", and you've replied with, "But Robert Mugabe puts sugar on his porridge!". I'm not coming up with post hoc explanations that distinguish between regular Scotsman and "true" Scotsman - I'm literally saying that Robert Mugabe isn't Scottish (as far as I know). That is not a fallacy.

Beatsong wrote:The second article I linked to was by a bigwig in the Fawcett Society,

Good! That would have been a decent example of what I was looking for, if the discussion in that article didn't centre around the important distinction between the adjusted and unadjusted wage gap.

Beatsong wrote:and it could be reasonably be argued that the Guardian itself is as representative a voice as any of mainstream British feminism (whatever that is).

That seems like a stretch to me, I can't find anything in their mission statement about promoting feminism.

Beatsong wrote:But if you really want to tell me that general discourse in the media about the need to equalise pay outcomes doesn't have anything to do with feminism - then OK. I could probably try and research a selected number of organisations of your choosing to show that it does, but - er, I can't be arsed.

You're moving the goalposts a little bit there. I don't deny that, to some degree, feminism has had an impact on the general discourse about the need to address the pay gap in the media but you argued that mainstream feminists were arguing those points - not that feminists had influenced other people and they had mistakenly held that position. Above I even explicitly accepted the existence of news articles written by reporters commenting on research misunderstanding, or ignoring, the distinction between the adjusted and unadjusted gap - and that's exactly what you presented as 'evidence'.

Put it this way: if I said I don't think anything more than a minority of evolutionary biologists believed that evolution has stopped in humans, and you disagreed by presenting evidence of news reporters commenting on scientific research saying that evolution has stopped in humans, I would not accept that as evidence based on the reasoning: "But if you really want to tell me that general discourse in the media about human evolution doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary biology - then OK. ".

Beatsong wrote:

Following that, they then dedicate the rest of the article to discussing the adjusted wage gap:

"A range of things contribute to it, including the undervaluing of "women's work", where jobs traditionally done by women are generally less well paid than those where men dominate (nursing versus mechanics, for example). The lack of flexible work opportunities available means mothers, who still tend to do the bulk of unpaid caring for children, can find it hard to reconcile paid work with family responsibilities. This "motherhood penalty" can also lead to outright discrimination, with employers less likely to hire or promote women of childbearing age, for fear they may fall pregnant. But a key and often overlooked part of the battle is awareness. All too often, employers and employees of either sex are unaware they may be experiencing or perpetuating a gender pay gap.

But you have told us that the "adjusted wage gap" is 5-8%, and this article is discussing a reported wage gap of 15%, sometimes higher. So it's presumably referring to the unadjusted wage gap and what you say here makes no sense.

The gap isn't the same everywhere, for every job, for every employer - I also mentioned that above. It is also only a brief glimpse at what the statistics actually say so it's unlikely to be the full adjusted gap and they've only adjusted for a few factors, but it's enough to point out that they've acknowledged the importance of the gap.

Beatsong wrote:And a statement like "The lack of flexible work opportunities available means mothers, who still tend to do the bulk of unpaid caring for children, can find it hard to reconcile paid work with family responsibilities" is not evidence of an adjusted wage gap due to sexism. It's evidence of one factor OTHER than sexism that might be responsible for some of the difference between men's and women's average earnings.

Yes, because they're discussing relevant discriminatory issues that make up some of the unadjusted gap but that has nothing to do with using overall outcome scores, it's based on actual data and research into the difficulties mothers face finding paid work.

Beatsong wrote:And yet the crude measure of outcome is still assumed to be a problem.

I'd be interested in seeing some evidence of that.

Beatsong wrote:

But that article again wasn't written by a feminist (at least not explicitly so or from the perspective of a feminist) and they again explicitly discuss the importance of the adjusted wage gap:

"The growth in WA wages has been driven largely by the mining industry, which paid an average of $2,490 to workers across Australia in May. Within the mining industry, women earn, on average, more than $500 a week less than the overall average.".

How are they discussing the adjusted wage gap, when you claim it's 5-8% and they are talking about 26%?[/quote]

Again, the gap isn't consistent everywhere and it's likely not a full adjusted gap.

Beatsong wrote:Furthermore, drilling down to the specifics of the WA mining industry doesn't make any difference. They could be discussing the fact that male miners called Bob with exactly 15 years experience who were born on a Tuesday earn more than female miners with all the same characteristics, it wouldn't change my point. They are still taking OUTCOMES as the starting point for the problem. It doesn't matter how much you control for other factors; there is still no direct evidence that differences between men's and women's earnings are due to sexism.

But they aren't, they've narrowed down some very specific variables to get a more accurate measure of discrimination, like controlling for career.

Beatsong wrote:Getting back to the point - this is particularly so IF you accept some of the ideas coming out of evo psych. If you believe that innate differences between the sexes might lead to different choices, behaviours or even competencies in the workplace, then you can believe that a non-sexist workplace (however specifically or generally defined) can lead to those differences of outcome. There is a potential conflict here with feminist thinking that views the different outcomes themselves as evidence of a problem - which was the only point I was making.

Sure, but you first need to present evidence that a non-minority group of feminists (as you claimed) believe that - you've so far failed to do so.

Mr Samsa : The Guardian is a left of centre newspaper with a liberal agenda which includes
feminism. You may not have referenced this from its mission statement but that is what it is

On quotas : I find myself being ambivalent on this as I can see merit in both sides of the argument. But given how within
politics as within other professions too the gender divide is not as representative of society at its most fundamental level
then I am - when push comes to shove - in in favour of all female ones. Now one is not talking about granting them unfair advantage but in point of fact a reversal of the unfair advantage that a patriarchal society has given males. Which tends
not to be something many of them are actually aware of until it is challenged. I am not insisting on absolute demarcation
here but something that is within reason broadly representative as such [ ten per cent either way would be my ball park ]
And if all female quotas are the only way to achieve that then so be it. And it should be worth pointing out that if it was
not for them then Parliament would have an even lower number of females members than it currently does. But there is
still a significant disproportionality. In a liberal democracy in Twenty Fourteen this is just no longer acceptable

surreptitious57 wrote:Mr Samsa : The Guardian is a left of centre newspaper with a liberal agenda which includes
feminism. You may not have referenced this from its mission statement but that is what it is

I know what The Guardian is but it doesn't help Beatsong's point. Being generally more left than other newspapers doesn't make it a mainstream feminist source. The fact that it's more left than other papers also means it sometimes discusses evolution but I'm sure as fuck not going to take their opinion as evidence of what biologists believe.

surreptitious57 wrote:On quotas : I find myself being ambivalent on this as I can see merit in both sides of the argument. But given how within
politics as within other professions too the gender divide is not as representative of society at its most fundamental level
then I am - when push comes to shove - in in favour of all female ones. Now one is not talking about granting them unfair advantage but in point of fact a reversal of the unfair advantage that a patriarchal society has given males. Which tends
not to be something many of them are actually aware of until it is challenged. I am not insisting on absolute demarcation
here but something that is within reason broadly representative as such [ ten per cent either way would be my ball park ]
And if all female quotas are the only way to achieve that then so be it. And it should be worth pointing out that if it was
not for them then Parliament would have an even lower number of females members than it currently does. But there is
still a significant disproportionality. In a liberal democracy in Twenty Fourteen this is just no longer acceptable

The way I see it is that the situation is already unfair in that women are not being hired purely because they are women. So when people moan about how affirmative action ignores merit and takes places away from "deserving" applicants, all I can think is: maybe it does, but we know for a fact that the situation without affirmative action isn't based on merit either so at least everyone has a job now.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Nicko wrote:But these feminists are not a hypothetical group.

Really? I have honestly never met one. I'm sure some might exist (there are idiots everywhere) but usually the only time I hear about a feminist calling for equal outcomes regardless of things like merit is when someone is misrepresenting a feminist position, like people arguing that affirmative action is about trying to artificially create equality where the two groups are fundamentally different.

*sigh*

Oh, now I remember why I was going to stop engaging with your posts about feminism.



I'm sorry, I just do not believe that you were - prior to reading this thread - unaware that a prominent subset of feminists advocate gender-based quotas. It is frankly inconceivable.

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Nicko wrote:But these feminists are not a hypothetical group.

Really? I have honestly never met one. I'm sure some might exist (there are idiots everywhere) but usually the only time I hear about a feminist calling for equal outcomes regardless of things like merit is when someone is misrepresenting a feminist position, like people arguing that affirmative action is about trying to artificially create equality where the two groups are fundamentally different.

*sigh*

Oh, now I remember why I was going to stop engaging with your posts about feminism.

And interestingly, as "obvious" as the position is, nobody can present any evidence for it...

Nicko wrote:I'm sorry, I just do not believe that you were - prior to reading this thread - unaware that a prominent subset of feminists advocate gender-based quotas. It is frankly inconceivable.

Gender based quotas have nothing to do with an assumption of equal outcomes regardless of merit. They are based on the exact opposite, where we find that women are discriminated against and looked over purely because of their gender - the quotas then attempt to counteract some of this bias in employment. No quotas, that I'm aware of, demand an equal 50/50 split.

But hey, why let facts and accurate descriptions of your opponent's position get in the way of a good strawman? Through in another emoticon instead of presenting evidence for your claim, that'll show 'em!

tuco wrote:Either way, without equal distribution of jobs equal pay is a dream as it was noted.

True.

The problem is, the pay gap is pretty much entirely down to the different choices men and women - statistically speaking - tend to make throughout their lives.

If you want to get equality of outcomes through legislation, quotas aren't going to cut it. You'd need to pass some - fairly intrusive - laws mandating that women prioritise making money over the other considerations they statistically find more important.

I really don't give a shit about enforcing outcomes. I care about people's gender not being regarded as a relevant consideration in situations where it is irrelevant. I care about the removal of gender-based barriers - whether formal or otherwise - to people doing what they want.

Nicko wrote:

tuco wrote:Either way, without equal distribution of jobs equal pay is a dream as it was noted.

True.

The problem is, the pay gap is pretty much entirely down to the different choices men and women - statistically speaking - tend to make throughout their lives.

Depends what you mean by "pretty much entirely". It's true that the unadjusted gap contains many factors that pertain to differences in choices, but the adjusted gap (which accounts for those things) is still pretty significant - sitting at around 5-8%. And of course, don't make the mistake of thinking that the unadjusted gap contains no element of discrimination, it's just not the overt kind of discrimination that directly affects hiring practices.

Nicko wrote:If you want to get equality of outcomes through legislation, quotas aren't going to cut it. You'd need to pass some - fairly intrusive - laws mandating that women prioritise making money over the other considerations they statistically find more important.

Sure but irrelevant since I (and feminists) aren't fighting for equality of outcomes. That's why quotas aren't 50/50.

Nicko wrote:I really don't give a shit about enforcing outcomes. I care about people's gender not being regarded as a relevant consideration in situations where it is irrelevant. I care about the removal of gender-based barriers - whether formal or otherwise - to people doing what they want.

Agreed, and this is a fundamental assumption in mainstream feminism. It's about equal opportunities and if people don't want those jobs, then so be it. All that matters is that, within reason, they had the freedom to choose.

Beatsong wrote:I don't think I would agree that the section of feminists advocating equality of outcomes are either hypothetical, or in a minority.

They may well constitute a numerical minority of feminist-identified people. They are certainly not a minority voice in feminist activism. Perhaps The Patriarchy is silencing those feminsts who hold reasonable positions as a way of discrediting feminism?



Anyone who honestly thinks they are a "hypothetical" group is clearly ignorant of contemporary feminist activism.

Nicko wrote:

Beatsong wrote:I don't think I would agree that the section of feminists advocating equality of outcomes are either hypothetical, or in a minority.

They may well constitute a numerical minority of feminist-identified people. They are certainly not a minority voice in feminist activism. Perhaps The Patriarchy is silencing those feminsts who hold reasonable positions as a way of discrediting feminism?



Anyone who honestly thinks they are a "hypothetical" group is clearly ignorant of contemporary feminist activism.

And still no evidence of said claim

Leave it to the anti-feminist crowd to tell you what feminists think - brilliant.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Leave it to the anti-feminist crowd to tell you what feminists think - brilliant.

The weird thing is that I wasn't even arguing against it - I accepted that it's possible that some feminist out there has probably said something like that. But they wanted to push it further and claim it was a mainstream position. That's fine, I was interested in what such an argument would look like. If it's such a mainstream position then presumably it wouldn't be that hard to find an example of it from a major feminist group..

You've probably seen it before but in discussions like these I just can't stop thinking of straw feminists in the closet.

A major feminist group?

Probably the most prominent mainstream feminist group in the world would be the National Organisation of Women in the US. Now, if I type "National Organisation of Women" and "gender quota" into Google, the first result on my search is this article.

Democracy in Africa wrote:The 50/50 Group, in cooperation with other women’s groups, such as the Women’s Forum, and the National Organisation of Women (NOW), drafted the Sierra Leone Women’s Manifesto to lobby and advocate for at least 30% of all elective and appointive positions in politics and the public sector to be held by women.

I guess that NOW are a bunch of "straw feminists" though?

Look, I support affirmative action. Quotas are not affirmative action. They institutionalise the factors that genuine affirmative action seeks to expose as irrelevant.

Nicko wrote:

Beatsong wrote:I don't think I would agree that the section of feminists advocating equality of outcomes are either hypothetical, or in a minority.

They may well constitute a numerical minority of feminist-identified people. They are certainly not a minority voice in feminist activism. Perhaps The Patriarchy is silencing those feminsts who hold reasonable positions as a way of discrediting feminism?

It's always going to be impossible to define exactly which feminists are "mainstream" and "representative" and which aren't. Who the fuck gets to say, anyway? The Official Worldwide Council Of Feminists or something? In lieu of being able to define that, one can of course simply define "mainstream" feminism as that subset of it that coincides only with the most rigorous, intellectually defensible interpretations of all gender-based issues. That can be useful if it's personally important to one to pretend that feminists can never be wrong.

Anyone who honestly thinks they are a "hypothetical" group is clearly ignorant of contemporary feminist activism.

Ignorant, in denial or just selective, yes.

Of course this is all pretty irrelevant anyway because the OP didn't even say anything about "mainstream" or "fringe" feminism. They simply asked the question of how evolutionary psychology might come into conflict with "feminism". Discussion of potential conflicts between evo psych and minority or extreme feminist positions is a perfectly valid response to that.

Not that I'm saying concern for gender gap outcomes is a minority or extreme feminist position - it isn't. Just that it's not even very relevant to be worrying about whether it is or not. Unless of course it's personally important to one to pretend that feminists can never be wrong.

Beatsong wrote:It's always going to be impossible to define exactly which feminists are "mainstream" and "representative" and which aren't. Who the fuck gets to say, anyway? The Official Worldwide Council Of Feminists or something?

I hear it's Mr Samsa.

Nicko wrote:A major feminist group?

Probably the most prominent mainstream feminist group in the world would be the National Organisation of Women in the US. Now, if I type "National Organisation of Women" and "gender quota" into Google, the first result on my search is this article.

The 50/50 Group, in cooperation with other women’s groups, such as the Women’s Forum, and the National Organisation of Women (NOW), drafted the Sierra Leone Women’s Manifesto to lobby and advocate for at least 30% of all elective and appointive positions in politics and the public sector to be held by women.

I guess that NOW are a bunch of straw feminists though?

...But that doesn't support your point at all. Where are they demanding equal outcomes without merit? They aren't even demanding equal seats, they are just attempting to implement legislation so that government positions demonstrate a more proportional representation of the people.

Nicko wrote:Look, I support affirmative action. Quotas are not affirmative action. They institutionalise the factors that genuine affirmative action seeks to expose as irrelevant.

In a perfect world, yes, we wouldn't need quotas but they are undeniably a necessary band aid in the mean time. It's nice that you can sit there and say that we need long term methods of deeper societal change to produce the differences in hiring practices but that's not going to happen any time soon and in the mean time women aren't getting hired and when they are, they're getting paid peanuts.

Beatsong wrote:

Nicko wrote:They may well constitute a numerical minority of feminist-identified people. They are certainly not a minority voice in feminist activism. Perhaps The Patriarchy is silencing those feminsts who hold reasonable positions as a way of discrediting feminism?

It's always going to be impossible to define exactly which feminists are "mainstream" and "representative" and which aren't. Who the fuck gets to say, anyway? The Official Worldwide Council Of Feminists or something? In lieu of being able to define that, one can of course simply define "mainstream" feminism as that subset of it that coincides only with the most rigorous, intellectually defensible interpretations of all gender-based issues. That can be useful if it's personally important to one to pretend that feminists can never be wrong.

It's not that hard at all, just find a quote from a person stating that they are feminist or a quote from the group identifying feminism as one of its goals in its mission statement.

It's only "impossible" if you think that linking to The Guardian makes it "feminist" because it's slightly more left than other publications. I mean, seriously.

Beatsong wrote:

Anyone who honestly thinks they are a "hypothetical" group is clearly ignorant of contemporary feminist activism.

Ignorant, in denial or just selective, yes.

Then it wouldn't be that hard to show them to be wrong then... (still waiting)

Beatsong wrote:Of course this is all pretty irrelevant anyway because the OP didn't even say anything about "mainstream" or "fringe" feminism. They simply asked the question of how evolutionary psychology might come into conflict with "feminism". Discussion of potential conflicts between evo psych and minority or extreme feminist positions is a perfectly valid response to that.

It's not irrelevant because you specified mainstream feminism. Above I accepted that there are probably some feminists around that argue for equal outcomes and not equal opportunity. You took the time and the effort to argue that I was wrong and that it was in fact a mainstream feminist position - I simply asked for evidence.

What is this, a fucking theist community where evidence is scary now? If the only "evidence" you have is your personal opinion then just say so and we could have skipped the last couple of pages of discussion. Just don't expect me to accept your personal opinion over my own when your experiences are so radically different from mine.

Beatsong wrote:Not that I'm saying concern for gender gap outcomes is a minority or extreme feminist position - it isn't. Just that it's not even very relevant to be worrying about whether it is or not. Unless of course it's personally important to one to pretend that feminists can never be wrong.

Glass houses, buddy. You can't present a single scrap of evidence for your position, which is why you're engaging in the snarky passive-aggressive behavior, and you're honestly going to sit there accusing others of not wanting to be wrong? Jesus, talk about lack of self-awareness.

But who needs to concede positions when you can just claim that The Guardian is a major feminist publication and call out random fallacies when people look at you with cocked eyebrows, right?

Nicko wrote:

Beatsong wrote:It's always going to be impossible to define exactly which feminists are "mainstream" and "representative" and which aren't. Who the fuck gets to say, anyway? The Official Worldwide Council Of Feminists or something?

I hear it's Mr Samsa.

No, it just requires any kind of evidence to think that they may be feminist in some way. If you think The Guardian newspaper is a feminist publication then I will happily accept your claim if you present evidence but saying "They are vaguely more left than other papers and feminism is generally a leftist position, therefore they are a mainstream feminist group" is absolute nonsense.

Mr.Samsa wrote:... in the mean time women aren't getting hired and when they are, they're getting paid peanuts.

Please stop lying.

Why it is that you think you can make a statement like this without backing it up with some major evidence, but insist that people who point out that some feminists advocate gender quotas provide must back that up with evidence is just beyond me.