This assumes an equivalence between men and women that doesn't exist here. If both sides were equally put-upon, it'd be neutral to call for both sides to shut up. When one side has a clear advantage, it is not.
as a non-US, these topics are beyond ridiculous to me. some initial disclaimer - i am not very fond of usual loud-screaming-around feminists... nobody is for that matter, not even my fiancee.
if I ever witnessed any kind of discrimination in my 11 year long career, in 3 different countries, working for... 7 employers? but many more customers, if was POSITIVE discrimination against women. they were strongly welcomed into teams, cherished (in a positive way), their opinions mattered (if expressed, of course), they worked hard as hell, kudos to all of them. no idea how things work outside IT, but that's not the topic here.
equivalence between men and women in WHAT? I am not same as my male colleague next to me, we're far from equivalent, and anybody with at least a hint in team management knows that damn well. equivalence in thinking? no way, and I would call it a benefit. But only thing that matter job-wise is performance for tasks given, and in that, there should be rough equivalence. if not, somebody, doesn't matter who and what gender, is incorrectly hired.
I don't know where you live, but the US is incredibly backwards in many ways. Odds are you've had a female prime minister, you have paid maternity leave, etc. Yell at us about overcorrection when we can say the same.
1. The US had 3 females as Secretary of State almost in a row (M. Albright, C. Rice, H. Clinton). In the US, Secretary of State has a much higher significance/gravitas than Foreign Affairs.
2. The US is worker-hostile (no law-mandated vacation), not selectively female-hostile (lack of law-mandated maternity leave).
3. Most US companies have maternity leaves (typically 3 months). Not near quite enough, but not "incredibly backwards"
I suspect this is the big difference driving a lot of this debate. You see a clear advantage, I see a lot of small advantages in specific situations, along with personal preferences.
To a lot of us, it's not a clear advantage.
I definitely make more money, but I'm much more likely to commit suicide or become homeless. I'm a lot more likely to be injured on the job.
Using sarcasm to gloss over everything about a position and rebut a gross oversimplification of it doesn't exactly bolster your position, in my view.
I think the point the GP was trying to make was that while women face clear disadvantages in some contexts, they also have clear advantages in others. In many societies (but of course not all), women are a protected class of people. This comes with an assorted set of advantages (less strenuous work, better expected health outcomes, etc.) The argument is not that these advantages outweigh the disadvantages, or even that they necessarily even them out, but that to ignore them entirely in advancing an argument, and then to immediately attempt to draw (tenuous, at best) parallels to slavery is a disservice to serious discussion.
Also, apparently the Godwin's law corollary with regard to discrimination is slavery. :/
Unfortunately, I think people are interpreting this in the context of the reply (slavery), not your original point (advantages vs disadvantages of genders).
So then women are the ones who need to follow that advice. One only needs to look at CDC studies to see the socially wide preferential treatment they receive to see how great an advantage it is. Oh, it is called 'benevolent sexism' in an attempt to paint it as bad, but when you take a look at society as a whole, it is clear which group is actually better off.
If you're going to post an opinion that's a long way from other people's you need to step it out slowly and provide evidence for each mental leap.
If you don't do that you tend not to win many converts to your way of thinking.
A few examples:
So then women are the ones who need to follow that advice.
This is just confrontational, and seems to show resentment towards women. Women are the group you want to convince people to stop feeling sorry for, but you haven't done that yet. Peoples' backs are now up. You've already lost your audience.
One only needs to look at CDC studies to see the socially wide
preferential treatment they receive to see how great...
Here you're not properly identifying your new topic, but more importantly you're treating your conclusion as if it were so obvious it's not even worth explaining. This just makes you sound like someone suffering from confirmation bias.
Oh, it is called 'beneficial sexism' in an attempt to paint it
as bad, but when you take a look at society as a whole, it is
clear which group is actually better off.
I had to Google this, I assume you mean 'benevolent sexism', which I now understand to be the assumption that (for example) women need to be protected by men. Again, you jump straight to the conclusion without stopping to reason, which is the same symptom of confirmation bias as above.
>This is just confrontational, and seems to show resentment towards women.
It is only confrontational to those who are already biased. Now, had I said this statement in and of itself, with no prompting, and included the 'shut up', it would've been confrontational. Instead, I said it in response to a post that already had said that only one side needed to follow such advice and, while not explicitly stating such, did implicitly relay the gender basing off of social norms.
As far as resentment, seeing my statement as resentment but not the others is itself telling and, if I dare say, sounds of tone policing.
>Women are the group you want to convince people to stop feeling sorry for, but you haven't done that yet.
Or my audience would be the group already aware of the statistics. An already growing audience which is one reason that calling oneself a feminist is being avoided.
>Here you're not properly identifying your new topic, but more importantly you're treating your conclusion as if it were so obvious it's not even worth explaining.
It is pretty obvious to anyone who reads the full studies. Start with the 2010 report on intimate partner violence. Look at how they choose to define rape. Pretty obvious. Or look at numbers of which gender is more likely to be put in prison. I don't really need to point out a study that men are far more likely to end up in prison.
>This just makes you sound like someone suffering from confirmation bias.
And this sounds like rationalization of why an opinion should be dismissed.
>I had to Google this, I assume you mean 'benevolent sexism'
Yes, I did mistype that one and I'll go correct it.
>I now understand to be the assumption that (for example) women need to be protected by men.
That would be an attempt to give an example, though this could also be stated such as the assumption that a man should put a woman's safety before his own (not stated in the cost of not doing such, which is often that of not being a 'real man').
>Again, you jump straight to the conclusion without stopping to reason, which is the same symptom of confirmation bias as above.
And yet this is the behavior of many posts taking the opposite view point without their being called out on it. I find it interesting that the reactions to similar behavior differ.
Finally two points. First, if you want to get people to reconsider their position, logos and ethos will do little alone while relying only on pathos will get you much further. Evidence and logical arguments are second to emotional appeal.
Second, my original point of the post was not to actually say which group had it worse. Only to explicitly call out that there is not an agreement as to one group having it worse (no need to say which side in such a disagreement is right) so that the parent's implied response to both grand parents and great great grandparents point cannot be implied as was done. An actual discussion trying to determine which gender has it worse would get neither side anywhere unless hours were spent in a Socratic discussion of what worse actually means followed by even more time spent doing data comparisons to what ever agreed upon definition was decided upon.
It is only confrontational to those who are already biased.
Again, you're opening with a statement that will put peoples backs up before they've even heard your argument. If you want to make an accusation of bias you need to build up to it and back it up, otherwise nobody will listen.
seeing my statement as resentment but not the others is itself
telling and, if I dare say, sounds of tone policing.
No. Tone policing means to attempt to discount an argument because of the tone used to deliver it. At no point have I disagreed with the content of your comments, or attempted to devalue your opinion. In contrast, I'm trying to understand your argument and help you structure it more clearly.
And this sounds like rationalization of why an opinion should be dismissed.
That was my point, it's exactly the rationalisation a good proportion of your audience will make when you structure arguments in the way you have so far.
Confirmation bias means you start with a very slim chance of changing anyone's mind on this kind of polarising topic. Using poorly structured arguments reduces your chances to zero.
Or my audience would be the group already aware of the statistics.
Sure, if you like, but you also claim your conclusions are so obvious that anyone aware of those studies doesn't need an explanation. If your arguments are completely obvious to your target audience, why bother commenting at all?
Evidence and logical arguments are second to emotional appeal.
If the emotion you trigger is anger you'll get nowhere at all, or worse.
Second, my original point of the post was not to actually say which group had it worse.
Okay, that's not how it came across at all. You finished with "it is clear which group is actually better off."
... there is not an agreement as to one group having it worse.
There isn't agreement on whether Elvis is dead either. In order to make the existence of disagreement a credible argument you need to also demonstrate reasonableness.
A good tip there is to align yourself with moderates rather than partisans. Claiming that men have it harder than women doesn't help you there; the moderate perspective is to empathise with the problems faced by both sides rather than to compete about which has it worse. I know you've said that's not the main point you wanted to make, but you did make that point.
