What Are Your Thoughts on Intersectional Veganism?

[brimstoneSalad]

Knot covered this a bit, but:

The perpetuation of notions like there are biological bases that mean women are more suited to certain professions, although there is no actual basis for it. It's a watered down version of woman are naturally best for household chores, taking care of kids etc except this isn't the 1800s so the situation has improved to women aren't suited for stem jobs etc. There can also be issues during hiring or even the way individuals of different sexes interact, what are called microaggtessions that some individuals often unknowingly do.

I recognize that there are some irrational ingrained social ideas that contribute to this, but I hope you will recognize the evidence that there are also some legitimate differences that contribute to differential employment rates in some jobs too.

Consider the differences in physical strength -- can you at least understand how men can get more jobs in construction and loading/unloading/delivery?
And particularly dangerous jobs which also require substantial physical strength, and pay very well.

Now comes the social element, which you're right on: The managers in these jobs (like contractors) are also mostly men, even though this is a job women should be able to do equally well, because the male workers won't listen to women as well as to a male supervisor.
Women can't do these jobs as well in practice, simply because of the social attitudes of those who are under them not wanting to listen to a female supervisor, while they hop to and work harder under a male supervisor just because he's a man.
This isn't the fault of the company, or hiring, it's an inherent problem in the attititudes of an entire society of workers and manual laborers.

If I'm hiring a manager, I would hire a male manager over a woman, just because the employees will perform better under male management because they are sexist; I'm not going to take a productivity hit and lose money to hire a woman, even if it's not "fair", because it's not fair for me to lose money either.
It is perhaps a larger and deeper social issue than you understand. It's not an easy fix. It's not something you can just trivially legislate away.

And then there are possible cognitive differences that knot mentioned, although it's not as clear if those are biological or developed after the fact due to social differences in early childhood. Either way, it's pretty hard to change, and amounts of legitimate differences in job and educational performance.

Nope I never said it, that wasn't what I was referring to in intersectionality.

Then why do you refer to this as a problem that vegans should be concerned with?

That's daylight bigotry, pretty much dictionary definition.

No, it's my not considering bigotry an issue of veganism, or necessarily even a moral issue unless you have evidence of the negative consequences of this kind of passive (and non-institutional) bigotry.
I understand how deontologists may be concerned with the lack of "fairness", but without evidence of broad social harm there's no reason to believe this is a serious moral issue, but rather one of aesthetics.

Its like saying you are OK with the days when all women were forced to be housewives or blacks to very low paying jobs whereas all those opportunities were reserved for white men!

I'm saying I don't consider it a vegan issue, or necessarily a moral issue. That doesn't mean I personally like it.

Gender and race as the basis for discrimination is the thing that's intrinsically arbitrary, that should be obvious to anyone.

I recognize that it's at least partially arbitrary for sex, and even more so in the case of "race" (unless you're discriminating against somebody for being too white because it's an outside job and he'll get skin cancer).

That doesn't matter though. What you have failed to show is that it is harmful to overall suffering in the world, and that efforts to combat it yield good dividends. Those are not obvious, and if you fail to provide evidence for them, you can't be surprised if reasonable people disagree, and that condemning them for that disagreement only promotes ill will and divisiveness within the movement.

This is the same bs rhetoric that has always been prevalent.

It's not rhetoric, it's an economic fact. I am not a creature of rhetoric. If you think it's mistaken, then make a valid argument against it and provide evidence.

It's not just nicer to live for everyone, its also more efficient and better. Many societal issues have been resolved with more gender parity.

What issues, and why does it matter? I need concrete examples, and numbers. Show me a concrete improvement in quality of life for everybody, and show me analysis of the cost and benefit.

Nope its very definition is for equal rights and that is in fact what the overwhelming majority of the movement is pushing for. It's not for more rights for women or for depriving rights of men.

You just don't understand the concept of rights. I think I've already explained pretty well how rights are a trade off.

Women in first world countries already have equal legal rights as far as equality is possible/practical. Any more push is on asymmetrical issues, or forcing people to change their behavior, which is taking away rights from others.

"If they're not adversarial they're doing it wrong" is just incorrect. If its about equality of rights then there is only one objective that is arrived at rationally so it cannot be adversarial.

It's not about equality, as I explained, since that's not possible. You can't have equal reproductive rights, because sex and reproduction is an asymmetrical issue.

only gender supremacists aka sexists would be the adversaries because they would want to deprive the other group of rights and would oppose any pro equality reforms, which feminism in the whole overwhelmingly doesn't do.

You don't understand the difference between issues where there is a clear an uncontroversial imbalance, like voting rights, and those where there is no clear equal position, and men and women have conflicting interests like in reproductive rights.

Feminism doesn't at large support women over men in the obvious cases, like voting, because that would be bad for first world feminist rhetoric (which is just a lie) of trying to obtain equal rights (since they don't and can't exist).
It's their prerogative to lie to people, and be confusionist, like in any adversarial political issue, but it's not something I want to be involved in. The same with MRA. It's nasty, divisive, and intellectually dishonest.

Just be an equalist if you value honesty, and don't want to get in fights all the time and tear important movements like veganism apart.

It's about such concerned people criticising bigots wirhin a movement and trying to form a space that is more inclusive for all and tackles peoples intersectional issues (like how TVA, a privileged vegan and others have criticised irrational bigoted vegan youtubers).

It's fine to criticize people you see as being bigots if you actually have evidence of negative effects (in most cases these are witch hunts), otherwise you're just being divisive and throwing around faith based proclamations, and pissing people off when they (for good reason) disagree with you and you don't put up any evidence.

I understand your outrage at these perceived injustices and unfairness, but you need to understand that this isn't necessarily a consequential issue, and may ultimately have little to do with the suffering in this world. That is, all of your outrage may be aesthetic, and to rational people may look much like throwing a fit because somebody wore white after labour day and it's against some arbitrary rule set that declares that wrong.

Why is unfairness wrong? Without evidence, you have no argument.

Trying to make it about veganism does nothing but harm the movement. The obvious effects are that it isn't making things more inclusive, it's just generating bickering and making people want to leave. It's what happened with Atheism plus, and it's what will happen with Veganism if Feminism and SJWs take over.

Eg problems that a fat Muslim trans woman would have going vegan, wherein they aren't at the same level of freedoms as others and if the movement's prominent leaders are muslimphobic, fat shaming or transphobic it would be more difficult for such a person to find a space or community.

Excellent example! How many fat Muslim trans women are there who are interested in going vegan? Maybe dozens?

They can fuck off and keep eating meat. Veganism will be fine without them.

If my message is so diluted and politically correct that appealing to the 1% makes it harder to reach the 99%, that's counter productive. And that's my point. There is a cost to all of this social justice inclusionism, it just sounds moronic to most people, and alienates normal people and makes the message obtuse, as well as causes unnecessary infighting and division within the movement itself. I don't think it's worth the benefit of the minute margin of additional people who are hypothetically reached, and you haven't provided any solid evidence that suggests it is.

[brimstoneSalad]

For instance some individuals in feminism are only concerned about white women or about women from their own class (aka non intersectional feminists).

This is another bad analogy. This is akin to some animal rights activists only being concerned with dogs, and saying "fuck all the other animals, I don't care".
In terms of compassion for animals, all animals are in that wheel house. In terms of feminism, all women's issues should be considered.

That other women may have legitimate problems is something that they don't care about or are against providing a platform for discussing, so technically they do not actually care about gender equality for all.

Like people who only care about dogs don't generally care about all animals.

This doesn't compare with intersectional veganism. This is like ASPCA vs PETA stuff.
Intersectional veganism is not how to make the picture complete as you imply.

This is also in rationalist circles, for instance someone who Dawkins has talked about, Germaine Greer is a transphobe and is a trans exclusionary feminist afaik.

This is a slightly better comparison. And only slightly. That's more like vegans not caring about the suffering of starving Africans, due to semantics of humans not being "animals".

Can you show me somewhere this is the case in mainstream veganism? I will argue in favor of human welfare too, where there's evidence, since I not only see it as a moral issue, but one of perception too.

Also, do you have any evidence that this is harmful to feminism?

Similar case for veganism, where people aren't concerned about dismantling animal rights issues in another person's context. Such folks when given a platform can harm the movement. Like the fat shaming vegans (eg freelee), racist/rape apologiststs (yourovsky) .

Freelee is a problem for other reasons, like promoting pseudoscience, and just generally being nasty and saying carnists don't deserve to live. These ARE issues for the public face of veganism, but that's not what intersectionality is about.

Intersectionality is trying to make veganism PC and accepting on issues that even the public isn't keen on -- and moreover, to divert effort into these issues instead of to helping animals in the most effective means possible (and sometimes, like Yourofsky, that means being a highly effective asshole).

To give a personal example: I'm all about gay rights, and so is mainstream. If a popular vegan came out as anti-gay, I would be up in arms. But a hundred years ago, regardless of my passion, I might have kept that to myself to advocate my primary goal.

My issue is efficacy.

The whole umbrella that is Egalitarians shouldn't actively endorse/promote such people.

I'll promote them if their methods work. If Yourofsky put on blackface makeup, and put on an incredibly racist play parodying slavery and comparing it to animal agriculture, and it was WORKING, then sure.

I'm not terribly concerned with offending people if something is effective. Where the problem comes is if those methods are creating so much negative publicity that they're counterproductive.

Of course it's gynocentric doesn't imply its anti men or that men's issues don't matter.

Of course it does.

Non sequitur fallacy.

You don't seem to know what that means, or you're very confused...
I'm not sure what I can do to explain it more clearly.

When men's and women's rights are in conflict, feminism must favor the women. And no, feminism is not about men's issues.

You literally just did it based not on the actual evidence, not on what the overwhelming majority of people actually in the feminist movement believe and practice.

The majority is not always right.
I'm not strawmanning anything. This is just what feminism is in the first world. You're failing to understand the issue under contention between feminists and MRA.

By talking about equalism and objecting to the label of feminism you falsely perpetuate the feminism strawperson made by the anti-feminists.

I object to equalists labeling themselves feminist, because it's confusing. Just call yourself an equalist if you are one. OR take pains to specify that you're also an MRA. Otherwise, you're indicating a clear bias in favor of women's issues, and against men with your wording.

If you were in Saudi Arabia or another Islamic country, that bias is incredibly reasonable, because women's issues outrank men's in importance to such a magnitude it would be silly to worry about men's problems.
In the Western world, it isn't.

That's not to say feminists aren't important -- they are, and so are MRA. But as I've said many times, they're taking opposite sides on these contentious issues, and the relationship is inherently adversarial.

Don't pretend to be just a "feminist" and be all about equality -- that's the rhetoric: at best it's naive, and more likely it's just dishonest.

You could say you're for all sexualities so better say you're an equalist, that identifying as an GLBT activist means saying heterosexuality doesn't matter so better not give people the wrong impression. It's the same logic.

No, it isn't. See my comment about Islamic countries.

Its like saying freelee is fat shaming and yourovsky is a rape apologist/racist/ misanthrope/anti human rights, Pretty mainstream folks! Plus so much woo in the vegan movement. so better not label yourself a vegan, dont want to give other people the wrong idea.

Actually, yes. I often avoid the word "vegan" in outreach.
That's very reasonable. So do effective charities. Actual research shows that people make more change, and are more likely to go vegan, if we talk about vegetarianism instead.

That's not how it works IRL.

Your "IRL" clearly isn't reality. You need to look into MRA more. For somebody who cries strawman all of the time, you're building quite a fancy one.

Meanwhile there are other groups like the good men, a men's project etc. that are actually concerned with men's rights rather than being openly anti feminist and sexist organisations. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4037

You kind of need to stop getting your information from FTB...


You misunderstand three crucial points.

1. Adversarial nature
There is no true equality in asymmetrical issues. Matters like reproductive rights are inherently asymmetrical, and obtaining something that seems fair is about compromise; that means an adversarial negotiation. That doesn't mean people have to be unfriendly, but that they're advancing different and inherently opposing interests in negotiating that compromise.

2. FAIR doesn't mean GOOD
This is something many people misunderstand, because intuitively fair feels good, and unfair feels wrong. This is deontological nonsense, and you need to understand that in order to substantiate the wrongness of something you have to provide some evidence for the ultimate and global consequences being harmful.

3. Parsimony
This is as important in charity and activism as it is in science. If asking people to "go vegan" makes people less likely to actually go vegan, we should avoid it and do something more effective. If looking like morons by being obsessively politically correct makes our outreach less effective to the majority with only minor gains from minorities, we shouldn't do it. Cost and benefit analysis is essential to any situation where we have limited resources, and both human effort and compassion are in very limited supply.


If anybody else can think of a better way to explain these points, please do. Or if there are any questions, I'm glad to answer them.
I think I should let somebody else take over here, though, since at current I don't know how else to more clearly explain these points.

[garrethdsouza]

.

[garrethdsouza]

I believe in, what would probably be best defined, as Equality Feminism.

Do you mean equality feminism or equity feminism? The latter is the term more often used by anti feminists. http://www.shakesville.com/2007/12/expl ... s-and.html

Your choice in book on feminism incidentally was authored exactly by one such anti feminist champion who masquerades as a feminist. Christina Hoff sommers.

She's been the one giving legitimacy to anti choice/pro forced birthers, has been invited to give talks by the likes of conservative Republicans and suggests that there's things wrong with third wave feminism while prefers the haydays of first wave feminism - you know, the sort that was centred around middle and upper class cis gendered white women and was exclusionary to POC women, homosexuals and trans folk and anyone of the lower classes. Also some first wave feminists were also pro-forced birthers. Wonder why Republicans, sexists like some mras and individuals opposed to social justice issues like her.
https://hyasforchoice.wordpress.com/201 ... ray-women/

Her criticism of other issues in feminist work are in reality the sort of things that can be accurately said about her own work, sort of like the pot calling the silverware black as aron ra puts it in terms of creationism. Which is why I've also maintained that the anti feminist atheists are the creationists of the movement, their premise and toolbox is very very similar. Make strawpersons of what you're talking about and then bash the hell out of the strawperson, levy the very arguments that you are criticised for on others ("evolution is a religion", "feminism is sexist").

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers

She's also the sort to suggest biological differences as explanatory for different occupational segregation based on gender thereby reinforcing a status quo where high payed professions remain in the hands of men. There ARE biological differences between the sexes including in the brain, but theres no empirical evidence that these are causal in abilities specific for professions. Additionally at any point in history you could use the same trope to justify the contemporary occupation status of women. It's obvious there are differences but these aren't causal and its so convenient how so many would like to use these empirically bankrupt arguments rather than even contemplate that the major if not sole focus could be social conditioning. And perpetuating these baseless !yths contribute to it.

Any better examples of wolves in sheep's clothing?

In First World Countries like the USA, there are indeed still issues that many women face due to their gender, be it from the many attacks on Abortion legality to whether or not we should be able to walk around shirtless.

Yes these are issues, but that's not all as I pointed out before, I'll reiterate.

But in the USA, in England, etc, I don't believe that women suffer from a "patriarchal" system.

we, a feminists, need to DROP the wage gap. All studies show that the wage gap, when all factors are taken into consideration, narrow to the point of vanishing. I personally don't think that huge companies would openly pay female workers less than their male workers, and be able to just get away with it. And with this the same goes for race, I don't see how nobody would notice a company paying a black or hispanic woman in the same position with the same experience HALF of what they pay a white guy, because that's been highly illegal since the Equal Rights Act of 1963.

If your major idea of feminism is the one by the likes of CHS and lack of exposure to anything else, this is hardly surprising
This is why I refer to anti feminists as the creationists of the movement. One method in the madness that is creationism is denial of evidence, that's how the crazy conspiracy theory works and no matter how much evidence you show, they just shift the goalpost to something else.

There is a whole lot of evidence for gender inequality for women (but also for other genders including men, no assuming gender binary!).

Please read:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_ ... ted_States

Also,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dPwkvUfMWS0

Your idea of the pay gap is what I already addressed and debunkes before in my responses to others, that if you control for profession of course the differences will reduce dramatically, that's where the differences lie - in professions. It's currently structured in a manner where the high payed professions are male dominated. Apologists use empirically bankrupt theories by alluding to biological differences to conveniently explain away the differences. While of course there are biological differences, they are not linked causally to the professions in any meaningful way nor have peer reviewed studies shown this afaik and incidentally you can use the biological difference basis trope to justify such segregationist professional differences views at any point in history. Male and female brains are different, hence gender based occupational segregation is valid in the year 1800. Nice method for sexists to maintain the status quo at any time point.

There are many many gender inequalities that women (and men, transgenders, etc) face that is the consensus in sociological research right now as is shown in the wiki article. Saying otherwise is just denial of the evidence/flight from self knowledge. It's just plain disingenuous.

Denying consensus in scientific research makes one a science denier. Just like the anti vaxxers, creationists etc, except in the sociological research context. Is there any point in keeping a name that's not actually befitting. will you look at the research or will you have to change it to nerdy sociological research denier?

However, many women, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Malala Yousafsai, two of my favorite feminists of all time, do indeed come from a patriarchal society that needs to be abolished.

The other method apart from denialism and strawpersoning is goal post shifting. And what does the likes of CHS do there? Just deny the legitimate research at home and say we should focus on third world women etc, these are the problems of thirld wave feminists according to the likes of such anti feminists! Nice way to maintain the status quo on sexism at home. And this is all the more risible and ironic considering - that's exactly what third wave feminism is about and has been the difference between earlier waves, while ironically the wave she prefers, first wave feminism iS white middle/upper class women centric to the exclusion of everyone else, the very people who she says 3rd wave should be focusing on (who are already doing that!). Pot calling the silverware black again, As aron ra puts it for creationists.

And in terms of the parallel with creationism it also goes so far to become how when Ken ham was asked what will change your opinion he answered - nothing, as opposed to bill Nye's answer - evidence. Or as Sagan puts it, " One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." Here's hoping people haven't been bamboozled that much by the likes of CSH and the other anti feminists because the confusionism is really so damn high even among otherwise rational circles.

But in the USA, women's issues are no more severe than that of men's issues, as men are seen as disposable in our society, they can be forcibly drafted into war, they are the only ones who take up the high paying yet severely dangerous jobs, and they are the only sex in the developed world with no reproductive rights at all. They have no say in genital mutilation at birth, they have no say in whether or not they are even going to father children. Young boys, 12 years of age, are not even seen as victims of rape if an older woman forces themselves on them, and in some cases, the rape victim has to pay his rapist child support. So in terms of gender equality, it would behoove us as feminists to not ignore these, and other, issues that men face as well. Up to, and including the male school drop out rate, the male educational decline, and the male suicide rate.

Yes men certainly have issues as well as is clear also from the wiki article and there are perfectly legitimate organizations that are dealing with these that are not intrinsically sexist unlike much of the MRA:. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4037

But like I said before, modern feminism seems to be crazy with their inclusion of "Manspreading" and "Mansplaining" and the belief that books can trigger some kind of severe psychotic break in a sufferer of RTS.

Many of these are legitimate issues, there is literally sociological research on this and similar topics. http://huff.to/1NtwzBU

I am all for feminism, but not this current male-bashing anti-white, "Gay people are racist because they behave like black women", hate group masquerading as feminists, who believe they are the Prolateriot fighting against the evil white male Bourgeoisie.

This is what anti feminists like CSH ultimately achieve, even in women! Convince them that the strawperson is real. And that actual research on inequality is incorrect by confusing them about what the problem is and get them to deny it. Anti feminists like her get women to support positions that make women worse off/away from gender equality and campaign that others do the same!

Which is also why I dislike Intersectional Veganism, it's racist, and sexist, and trivializing. They claim that women earn less than men, but women make up about 80% of Vegans, which we all know can be really expensive if you add in organics, or meat substitutes.

First off people supporting organics are being irrational considering its more environmentally resource intensive, hence more damaging http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sci ... riculture/

The wage gap issue I already addressed.

Or it claims that people of color somehow can't be vegan because... reasons? Despite people like Fully Raw Kristina, Brown Vegan, Cheap Lazy Vegan, Vegan Gains, Happy Healthy Vegan, and Bite Sized Vegan, all popular non-white vegans, existing. Nothing is stopping people of all backgrounds, colors, creeds, or genders from joining Veganism.

That's like saying because a bunch of people in third world countries can go vegan, that means everyone out there can. Why cherrypiick the lived experiences of people that side with your position but neglect the opinions of POCs who actually report having issues that are making things more difficult for them to go vegan? Apart from issues like gentrification and food deserts that people like "a privilegwd vegan" have covered, there's also the mock meats (which make going vegan much easier for many) which AFAIK are not inexpensive and this would be one issue for any poor person.

We will be better off if we all, as feminists, or as vegans, were not separatist, elitist, segregationist, arseholes, and dealt with the fact that it's 2015 and there is little to no systematic sexism/racism going on.

The only systematic anything that is going on is a global systematic genocide of animals for consumption and use. Let's focus on that

That's like yourovsky saying f[*][*]k human rights while being a cis gendered heterosexual white male in america who is at least reasonably well off AFAIK. There are a whole lot of sociologically based bigotry that a lot of groups encounter, there's no point being privilege blind to the extent of sociological science and actual lived experience denialism.

And regarding separatist/segregationist, a claim levied on many people also in the atheist movement, there are a lot of people who are racist/sexist/irrational bigots in the movement and a lot of people find it a hard time interacting with such folks. Having groups that are exclusionary to irrationals and bigots isn't divisive, its a good thing. Just atheism is never enough, having groups that are more common on multiple issues can be a good thing. Like this group whose populace is more vegan atheist, it helps finding like minded people as friends, etc. there are still main vegan/atheist/feminist groups where everyone can interact if they are comfortable to.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

Huffington post, wikipedia, FreeThoughtBlogs... you are in this pretty deep, but I am not clicking any of those sources. And the fact that you call Christina Hoff Sommers "anti-feminist" means that you don't even know the definition of feminism.

I am sorry, but I am for real equality, not some "if you don't agree with me you're in denial!" bullcrap. And the fact that you are implying that I am not feminist, despite my work in helping women, especially my donations to SWOP and RAINN and others, because I call myself an equality feminist, and I care about the real and pressing issues women, and men, face, and not made up ones.

And high paying professions are male dominated? Why? Sexism? Marie Curie, Jill Bolte Taylor, Rosalind Franklin, there are tons of female engineers, female scientists, female game developers, female coders, Female CEO's, all dating back decades, so women CAN easily do this work, right? What's stopping them? 50% of gamers of women, so obviously not sexism there. The sciences are not hostile to women, regardless of what a few sensitive twits on Tumblr had to say about a single shirt by a single scientist worn once. I am a woman who has been talking about the sciences for how long now? 6 years? And how much sexism have I faced? None? Wow. So there must be some other cause, because sexism isn't it.

"while being a cis gendered heterosexual white male"

As a transgender, bisexual, white/mixed female, I kindly tell you to shove that statement up your nose, because all it is is sexist racism. I am doing rather well for myself, and I got here due to my hard work and determination, the same way Yourovsky got where we was not due to his race or sexuality, but because he is a shrilling psychopath.

But I am going to stop arguing this point, before someone tries to coddle me, thinking I am too delicate and fragile to stand up alongside and compete against the "white cishet male" demographic.

[garrethdsouza]

So outright denial without even willing to look at the evidence as in the wiki article? How is that even remotely the scientific method? Bill nye when asked what could convince him he's wrong said evidence, and if you're not even willing to look at the data then how is someone supposed to counter?

My only suggestion is ask pretty much any feministic rationalist/atheist circles what they think of Christina Hoff sommers and her brand of feminism - that's it. Id recommend - women without religion - facebook group but you can have your pick of feminist atheist group of your choice. Maybe you'll prove me wrong.

You may have not faced issues doesn't mean others havent - The plural of anecdotes isnt data.I know of people who have faced baseless bigotry in the sciences and the actual data does indeed allude to sexism of some form to a degree at least.

Also, as a transgender what pronoun would you prefer? Also what do you think of use of gender neutral pronouns like they, hir etc?

[brimstoneSalad]

And the fact that you are implying that I am not feminist, despite my work in helping women, especially my donations to SWOP and RAINN and others, because I call myself an equality feminist, and I care about the real and pressing issues women, and men, face, and not made up ones.

It's confusing; is he trying to have it both ways? Claiming feminism is only after equality, and then saying you aren't a feminist because you're for equality?

As a transgender, bisexual, white/mixed female, I kindly tell you to shove that statement up your nose, because all it is is sexist racism. I am doing rather well for myself, and I got here due to my hard work and determination, the same way Yourovsky got where we was not due to his race or sexuality, but because he is a shrilling psychopath.

Yourofsky isn't that bad. He talks a lot of shit and gets attention for it, because assholes are interesting and get free press. Which is why PC is so banal and useless.

Kudos to you for not being a delicate little PTSD flower. You're a chick who can stand up for herself. Anybody who falls over in defeat at the first sign of adversity probably doesn't deserve the job they're after.
Just because some rich people get handed things on a golden plate now and then doesn't mean we should all feel so entitled to not have to work for anything. Life isn't fair, so kick it in the balls and take what you're after.

The only thing whining about social injustice does is perpetuate this victim complex and make people feel better about being defeated; it doesn't endear people to the cause, it just makes people want to avoid the whole thing.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

So outright denial without even willing to look at the evidence as in the wiki article? How is that even remotely the scientific method? Bill nye when asked what could convince him he's wrong said evidence, and if you're not even willing to look at the data then how is someone supposed to counter?

When Bill Nye was asked what would pursuade him, he didn't reply "Well, A Wikipedia Article would suffice."

Wikipedia and Huffington Post are so full of misinformation and bias that I don't ever go there for ANY information. I only trust very few newspapers, and even then I try to check their sources. Gawker, Jezebel, Hufffington Post, Wikipedia, someone's random Tumblr blog, I won't even bother. To me it's like trying to gather health information from JunkfoodScience, NaturalNews, etc.

I stand by Bill Nye on science, because science is not news articles on shoddy websites that post tons of clickbait, or biased articles by anyone with a keyboard on Wikipedia. If you would not trust a Huffington Post article about how the Acai berry is the key to weight loss, why try to have me trust it's opinion on identity politics?

My only suggestion is ask pretty much any feministic rationalist/atheist circles what they think of Christina Hoff sommers and her brand of feminism - that's it. Id recommend - women without religion - facebook group but you can have your pick of feminist atheist group of your choice. Maybe you'll prove me wrong.

Ask any modern feminist group what they think about someone who disagrees with the wage gap and male privilege? Is that like asking a rationalistic creationist group their views on the Christian biologist Charles Darwin?

You may have not faced issues doesn't mean others havent - The plural of anecdotes isnt data.I know of people who have faced baseless bigotry in the sciences and the actual data does indeed allude to sexism of some form to a degree at least.

The plural of ancedotes isn't data, just because a vocal number of people claim to be victims doesn't mean widespread sexism is happening. And there is no real scientific peer reviewed studies that show that sexism is rampant in STEM, the only one I have seen paid people to take the survey, posted the results prior to publication, and misrepresented the skewed findings. And no, I won't take Wikipedia, Or Feministing, or whatever as a source. Sorry.

You'll have to link me to unbiased peer reviewed data of women being bullied out of STEM, or being refused promotions due to having a vagina instead of women simply not asking for one, before I will believe that systematic sexism is happening on a widespread scale. Maybe minor discrimination by certain employers, such as the female boss that fired all the male workers at my friends old job, but systemic? No.

Also, as a transgender what pronoun would you prefer? Also what do you think of use of gender neutral pronouns like they, hir etc?

As a Male to Female Transgender it'd only make sense for me to prefer female pronouns. A male to female transgender that prefers male pronouns would be odd, or a drag queen.

And to me, there are only 2 genders, Male and Female. Even societies that have "third genders" only truly have two, especially when "third gender" means a man who feels like a woman. I have not seen a single society ever that had more than Male or Female as genders until 21st century America came to be, now Mayonnaise is a gender and the use of more than 2 genders only hurts people like me. You can't be a gender that doesn't exist anymore than you can have the spirit of an animal residing in you that doesn't exist.

"Agender's", "Bigenders," "Third Genders" and "Otherkin" hurt my credibility and make my life harder as someone who just wants to be a regular woman. I don't even like Identifying as trans, as I am not trans, I am female. I am a woman. And I personally believe that if you identify as "trans" instead of simply as "male" or "female" than you are just an attention-seeking loser who needs to stop. The more people identify as "trans-woman" or "third gender" the more nobody takes me seriously, the more people view me as a freak. The more it harms me.

THAT is my views on people wanting to identify under a non-existent pronoun to feel like a f-cking snowflake.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

And the fact that you are implying that I am not feminist, despite my work in helping women, especially my donations to SWOP and RAINN and others, because I call myself an equality feminist, and I care about the real and pressing issues women, and men, face, and not made up ones.

It's confusing; is he trying to have it both ways? Claiming feminism is only after equality, and then saying you aren't a feminist because you're for equality?

I think he is O.o

As a transgender, bisexual, white/mixed female, I kindly tell you to shove that statement up your nose, because all it is is sexist racism. I am doing rather well for myself, and I got here due to my hard work and determination, the same way Yourovsky got where we was not due to his race or sexuality, but because he is a shrilling psychopath.

Kudos to you for not being a delicate little PTSD flower. You're a chick who can stand up for herself. Anybody who falls over in defeat at the first sign of adversity probably doesn't deserve the job they're after.
Just because some rich people get handed things on a golden plate now and then doesn't mean we should all feel so entitled to not have to work for anything. Life isn't fair, so kick it in the balls and take what you're after.

The only thing whining about social injustice does is perpetuate this victim complex and make people feel better about being defeated; it doesn't endear people to the cause, it just makes people want to avoid the whole thing.

Thankyou ^_^ and I agree, whining about Social Justice on Tumblr and whatnot and attacking people you believe are the "bourgeoisie" of our wonderful non-existent first world "caste system" is just bigotry. I agree with everyone when I say that Reverse-Bigotry doesn't exist, it's just Bigotry.

[brimstoneSalad]

When Bill Nye was asked what would pursuade him, he didn't reply "Well, A Wikipedia Article would suffice."

Wikipedia and Huffington Post are so full of misinformation and bias that I don't ever go there for ANY information. I only trust very few newspapers, and even then I try to check their sources. Gawker, Jezebel, Hufffington Post, Wikipedia, someone's random Tumblr blog, I won't even bother. To me it's like trying to gather health information from JunkfoodScience, NaturalNews, etc.

Huffington Post is terrible.
I have to come to Wikipedia's defense here, though, since they do require sources, and anything science based is actually really reliable there (I have rarely caught a mistake).

The thing with Wikipedia, is that it's only about as credible as the academic experts who are in charge of it.
Think of a college: You go to the physics department, and you get really rigorous and reliable information.
You go to the humanities, and you'll get a lot of nebulous fluff.

The same is true on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only as rigorous as the science of the topic itself is hard. Once it gets down to issues of "opinions" and rhetoric, it falls apart.

Physics and Chemistry are spot on, Nutrition is pretty good too, Psychology is a bit more dicey, and it goes on from there as the academic discipline itself the article is dealing with becomes softer.

So, if you go there for pop culture, you'll get out of it the same amount of rigor and accuracy that the topic deserves: Which is not a lot.

And in terms of political research like this? Well, it's not the hardest of sciences.
Wikipedia uses whatever sources are available, but who is doing research on gender pay gaps?

Anyway, the article actually isn't bad. It doesn't support his position as much as he thinks it does if you read it.

Look at the pay-gap section, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in ... es#Pay_gap

Pay gap
Main article: Gender pay gap in the United States

Women's median usual weekly earnings as percentage of men's, for full-time workers, by industry, 2009[17]
With regards to the gender pay gap in the United States, International Labour Organization notes as of 2010 women in the United States earned about 81% of what their male counterparts did.[18] While the gender pay gap has been narrowing since the passage of the Equal Pay Act, the convergence began to slow down in the 1990s.[19] In addition, overall wage inequality has been increasing since the 1980s as middle-wage jobs are increasing replaced by larger percentages of both high-paying and low-paying jobs, creating a highly polarized environment.[20]

According to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the primary cause of this gap is discrimination manifested in the tendency of women to be hired more frequently in lower paying occupations, in addition to the fact that male dominated occupations are higher paying than female dominated occupations, and that, even within comparable occupations, women are often paid less than men.[21]

In addition to the gender pay gap, a "family gap" also exists, wherein women with children receive about 10-15% less pay when compared to women without children.[15][22] According to Jane Waldfogel, professor of social work and public affairs at Columbia University, this family gap is a contributing factor to the United States' large gender pay gap.[22] She also noted that men did not seem to be affected by this gap, as married men (who are more likely to have children) generally earned higher than unmarried men.[15][22]

It's a fairly well rounded explanation. Most women with children don't get management jobs because they have other responsibilities, and won't put in the work of men. Since men stay at work and fulfill those responsibilities (at the cost of family obligations), they do.

The problem in the article is that it's primarily focused on Women's issues, but male issues are discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia quite well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement

This is more of a categorical problem than a content problem.
It's unfair for gender inequality to be in the Feminism portal, when it should be in the rights portal or something.
These issues should all stand side by side in a general article like that.

This is something that will likely be fixed at some point.