What has Feminism taken away from you?

Very good. I take it, then, that you oppose universal suffrage and would like to remove a woman's right to vote? As for 'feminists' allegedly preventing you progressing in your chosen career path, perhaps you just aren't good enough. Ever consider that? It's always an easy way out to blame someone else for your own failure.

 

For decades, sexism in higher education has been blamed for blocking women from landing academic positions in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields.

But a new study by Cornell psychologists suggests that era has ended, finding in experiments with professors from 371 colleges and universities across the United States that science and engineering faculty preferred women two-to-one over identically qualified male candidates for assistant professor positions.

Published online April 13 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the paper, “National Hiring Experiments Reveal 2:1 Faculty Preference For Women on STEM Tenure Track,” by Wendy M. Williams, professor of human development, and Stephen J. Ceci, the Helen L. Carr Professor of Developmental Psychology, both in Cornell’s College of Human Ecology, argues that the academic job market has never been better for women Ph.D.s in math-intensive fields

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

 

As an egalitarian, I believe women should have the same rights as men, including the right to vote.

 

The College Affirmative Action Plan and programs are established in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Federal Office of Contract Compliance Programs, Federal Executive Order 11246, Rehabilitation Act Section 503, Governor's Executive Order 93-07 Affirming Commitment to Diversity and Equity, Re-establishing Affirmative Action and Prohibiting Discrimination, Governor's Executive Orders 89.01, 96-04 and 98-01, RCW 28 B.10, 39.19, 41.06, 49.60, and 49.74. Consistent with Federal and State law, the plan provides for equal opportunity and non-discrimination in all aspects of college employment regardless of protected group status: race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, or veteran status.

The Affirmative Action Plan documents the College’s goals and strategies for the recruitment and retention of well-qualified members of affected groups as staff and faculty, specifically women, Blacks, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Vietnam Era veterans, disabled veterans and people with disabilities (the affected groups), where they are under-represented in our workforce. The plan does not establish quotas of any kind or timelines for the achievement of goals, but identifies the levels of diversity present in labor markets relevant to College recruitment and establishes those levels as goals the College aspires to in its employment of administrators, staff and faculty. The Affirmative Action Plan also outlines program activities and strategies the College utilize to retain its diverse employees.

The President of the College is responsible to the Board of Trustees and to the Evergreen community for implementation of the Affirmative Action Policy, and for recommending the resources necessary to make the policy productive and effective. The Special Assistant to the President for Diversity Affairs is the President's designee responsible for the Affirmative Action Plan and promoting equal opportunity, and is also responsible to provide guidance and support for management’s implementation of the plan.

All members of the Evergreen community are required to abide by the provisions of this policy. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
The addendum attached to this policy contains the college procedures for the implementation of this policy.
Copies of this policy are available to the public. The College’s Affirmative Action Plan is available for viewing upon request. For information regarding this policy, contact: The Evergreen State College, Special Assistant to the President for Diversity Affairs:

 

Very good, but as an egalitarian you therefore must welcome attempts at redressing historical inequality where men were favoured over women. That a woman gets a job where an equally qualified man does not tells us nothing more than the woman was preferred for the post, for whatever reason; maybe she was a better communicator or more personable. It does not indicate a bias. That perceived 'bias' might be viewed by some as an excuse for 'sour grapes'. It may come as a surprise but reams of qualifications don't automatically get you the job.

 

I presented my evidence from a peer reviewed scientific journal that women are preferred 2 to 1 over equally qualified men in a study with professors from 371 colleges and universities across the United States are you going to post your evidence for your claims that being preferred 2 to 1 does not indicate bias. Preferably this evidence would be a study from a peer reviewed scientific journal and a blog is not a study from a peer reviewed scientific journal by the way.

 

So, in other words, you believe in white male privilege. That white males today should be punished for what other white males did 100, 200, 300, 400 or more years ago before I was born?

As an egalitarian, I believe what Martin Luther King Jr believed that people should be judged based on the content of their chatracter, not their race.

Therefore, as an egalitarian, I believe that opportunities should be based on merit, not gender and/or race

As an egalitarian, I believe giving people opportunities based on their race and/or gender and not giving others opportunities based on their race and/or gender is racism and sexism.

As an egalitarian, I believe people such as yourself that support racism and sexism are racists and sexists.

 

Unless you can provide the reason why women are preferred I can't see any reason for accusations of bias, merely a preference for whatever reason. The perception of bias is nobody's but yours unless you have been told that a female candidate was preferred because she was a woman and for no other reason.

 

Who is being "punished"? Don't be ridiculous. Now, your next task is to show me where I have ever demonstrated either racism or sexism. Should be easy seeing as you're so convinced that I have. I think you also have to show why you believe you have been discriminated against. Fair enough?

 

When the findings of scientific studies don't support my beliefs, I don't reject the findings. I change my beliefs. You do the latter. When the findings of scientific studies don't support your beliefs, you don't change your beliefs. You reject the findings.

Your beliefs aren't supported by evidence, rather they're discredited by evidence,modus operandi for feminists...

 

Do you have reading comprehension issues because I've already stated the discrimination with evidence from a study from a peer reviewed scientific journal and the hiring policy of a university who's policy is to give preference to "affected groups" based on race and gender.

The only race and gender combination that have laws that actively discriminate against them today are white males. Note in the Universities statement that white males aren't considered an affected group and therefore aren't preferred.

As an egalitarian, I believe what Martin Luther King Jr believed that people should be judged based on the content of their character, not their race and gender.

It's pretty simple, you believe people should be judged based on their race and gender which is racism and sexism which makes you racist and sexist.

 

As a racist, I'm sure you also believe that African Americans who protested against the inequality of Jim Crow laws were because of, "sour grapes," too right???Disgusting.

 

You again choose to presume to put words in my mouth and decide what you think I believe. Where have I ever demonstrated either racism or sexism? Look, if someone got the job because they interviewed better what's the problem? Here's a tip; lose that chip on your shoulder.

 

Er, nope. The difference here is that black Americans aren't whining about not getting a job. So, because of some in-built prejudice toward women you grabbed at the first 'study' which conveniently fitted your agenda and now complain that it was 'feminists' who prevented you getting your job as your excuse?

 

It hasn't impacted me personally, but then again, it shouldn't because women are people and they have the right to be equal to men.

Nothing really.... Well, I guess I am now forced to pee standing up, but I don't think feminism has much to do with that.

In the abstract not much from what I can gather.

There are some things that men should not control. A woman's rights, freedoms, and life should be several of them.

I think whining is an ugly quality, in general. I can not stand a whiny conservative or a whiny liberal. Very grating to the nerves. Same for my gay counterparts, I can not stand it when they whine. For me, I live the "live and let live" mentality.

 

Affirmative action keeps males out of work, not only that but due to feminists now females INDEED make more than men...

Perhaps we can talk about college campuses where if a female claims she was raped the alleged "attacker" is automatically suspended and is kicked off campus all the while he has to prove his innocence. You know - presumption of innocence gets thrown out the window.. Lets also not forget all these cases where females have straight up lied about being raped while the alleged attacker(s) were put through the ringer... Perhaps screaming "rape" falsely should be a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing felony?

Or maybe we can talk about the fact females can beat the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of males and get away with it.

Of course their constant SJW crybaby bull(*)(*)(*)(*) pisses me off, and that affects my mood.. Oh then they want to talk about "trigger warnings"? yea? well feminists are nothing but one big trigger warning for me because they're drama queen liars that like to get all loud and physical, of course when you yell back or put them in their place they pretend like they're the victim...

The best part is - plenty of woman agree with me - you know normal woman and not psychotic nuts...

Here is a question for you?

How can you possibly take a fringe group like feminazi's seriously when they walk down the street half naked with "slut" written across their bodies and tampons hanging from their ears?

Do these people seem sane and rational to you?

 

Well the world feminism is a stupid word - I'd extent the same to all "identity based politics" as well - whether it's feminism, white rights, black rights, gay rights, etc.

When you divide political activism along the lines of physical characteristics like race, sex, etc it ends up leading to jingoism and favoring "the group" over any underlying principles - this is the same reason why the Founders were even against political parties.

Ideally all of the "rights" groups would merge into a group that is about defending equality based on real underlying principles, rather than them being divided along the lines of skin color, genitals, etc

That's a dishonest question since the majority of women in the 21st century USA have never been raped, denied the right to vote, had an abortion, etc but would still claim that "they" are personally affected by these issues.

Watching the far-left feminists takes away from my sanity because of the nonsensical nature of many of their arguments, but that's about it - unlike radical feminists I don't feel like I'm in any way oppressed by some vast matriarchial conspiracy:

*The unscientific idea that gender is solely a social construct, despite it being biological fact that there are different brain structures between men and women (yet at the same time they'll still oxymoronically say that being gay or transgender is genetic).

*Demanding both feminism and chivalry at the same time - ex. "women and men are equal, women can play sports just as well as men (feminism)... but you should NEVER hit a woman even in self-defense (chivarly)"

*Radical feminists promoting sexual repression very similar to that of the Puritans just with a slightly different twist (ex. promoting the idea that women shouldn't make themselves look attractive, but because it's making themselves submissive to patriarchal control, rather than because it's "harlotry")

*Wanting equal results rather than just equal merit and blaming all unequal statistics via affirmative action and political correctness, and blaming it on some "oppressive conspiracy" rather than male and female personality differences. ex. Believing that if computer programmer demographics are not 50/50% male to female then it must be "oppression" behind it rather than personality differences - while at the same time not being concerned with facts such as only 10% of registered nurses being male (for obvious reasons).

*And watching the minority of men who with Norman Bates syndrome who embrace radical feminist ideas (either out of fear of mommy's disapproval, or the delusion that it'll "make women like them") is just embarrassing.

And the radical feminists are basically white nationalists; since you could just replace "men" with "blacks" in their arguments (ex. "men/blacks are more prone to violence because of higher testosterone) and create arguments identical to ones used on Stormfront.

Since when is it not under "male control">

Single mothers on welfare are being provided for by rich, white male taxpayers. Even most female-centric media is produced by men.

And the majority of inventions which made equality possible in the modern world by leveling the playing field were created by men.

So some single mom claiming to be a "strong independent woman" while living off of Warren Buffet's tax dollars is pretty ridiculous.

 

Most likely the hiring manager is hoping he can score some poon