A social justice warrior is...

[citation needed]

SJW is a term meaning "shit I hate on the internet", and is wielded as an insult by various people. As such is wildly inconsistent. If, however you look at people, real or imagined, that actually fight for social justice, then the picture is quite different.

It is entertaining that you try to blandly state universal truths without so much as a shred of evidence, but when I post counter examples, the onus is suddenly on me to prove that I'm disproving you.

Then you wall 'o text me a hundred reasons why sexism is justified and why it's not sexism because it's justified. Here's a clue for you bucko, it doesn't matter whether it's justified or not, this is literally the dictionary definition of sexism:

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Notice how the word "unjustified" never enters into is. What you're doing is strenuously arguing that discrimination based on gender is justified. You should stop being a coward and simply admit you're sexist, and then try to defend that, rather than tying yourself in knots trying to redefine a perfectly well defined word.

And this attempt to call pretty much all of society bigoted is offensive.

Here's how many shits I give about being offensive: .

You don't have a right not to be offended. Get over it.

As to bringing up gender all the time... Okay, all topics of gender are now forbidden then... We'll just shut this topic down and any like it ever again.

Ah taking words intentionally out of context. The lowest of the low. The quality of an argument has nothing to dowith the gender of the person making it. You tried to use the person's gender as a factor in the argument.

Yet another example of where you make value judgements based on gender.

I am intensely logical.

Well, I argue on the internet for entertainment. You have not disappointed me today :)

Yep, it was about academia, but it demonstrates that your claim that wage gaps is only due to years served is not universally true.

There was also no follow up to find out why any of that happened. The could be correlative problems associated with female applications.

So in other words, they're judging based on something other than their skills and experience but it's OK because reasons? A clue: whether or not it's OK it's still judging based on gender. That is more or less the definition of sexism. You're therefore not arguing that it's not sexist, you're arguing that sexism is OK.

That's a perfectly valid point to argue, even if I disagree with it, but I do wish you'd be honest about what you're actually arguing.

This recent lawsuit by a woman against a company has already been noted BY professional women to be damaging to women because it increases the RISK of hiring women.

Surely a logically made point wellsupported by evidence ought to be independent of gender? Why do you insist on bringing gender into things all the time?

You can't damn our entire society using that one flimsy study as evidence.

Again, you're obsessed with bringing in unrelated things such as wild claims about "everything". I'm simply debunking your claim that wage differences are only due to years served by finding an example where that's not true.

It is. E-mail is automatically backed up and leaves an electronic trail.

No it's not. It's only backed up if you make your mail server actually make backups. There is nothing in the email protocol which implies backups are made. In fact sorting out backups is something you have to deal with if you run a mail server.

Ah, so Martin Luther King and Gandhi are assholes and douchebags!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Well, if I have to be lumped together with those, well, that's a quite amazing complement and one I'm not sure I deserve, but what the hell!

This whole "equally skilled women are being paid less than equally skilled men" doesn't take into consideration years worked on the job.

Yes it does. I'm yet again going to crank out that PNAS argument that we argued over before. Last time you eventually conceded that the article was valid, yet here you are denying the same facts.

For those of you new to this: they made fake CVs with identical experience and the ones with female names attached were routinely rated as less competent and routinely offered less money. There is no way the women had "less years on the job" because the women and men in the study were all fake and otherwise identical.

I said to her, "Women often say they have trouble with unacceptable male attention." She told me, "They ask for it!" (Exact quote)

Nope, there's no problem at all with generalising what one woman said to 50% of the population. Nosiree, no stereotyping there at all. Anyway, I can duel with anecdotes and find women to say exactly the opposite.

Hell, I've observed exactly the opposite at a computer science.

One female presenter being followed round by a gaggle of lost puppies including one guy who waited for about 10 minutes[*] outside the toilet. Now that's some serious creeper stalking. How was that wanted exactly?

She always dressed in a way that made people respect her.

Oh yes the slutty harlot was dressed in jeans or possibly trousers and a shirt or t-shirt, just like everyone else.

[*] toiled was quite near the buffet, so I had the opportunity to observe him while I was talking to other people. He was still there when I wandered off about 10 minutes later, so he could have waited considerably longer.

What reasoning?

You just made up that ludicrous collection of logical fallacies all by your self. If it's anyone's reasoning therefore then it's yours.

Silicone Valley

That is something *ENTIRELY* different to Silicon Valley.

n the eyes of the investors the Silicon Valley no longer represents a place where technology means everything, where one can get the best talents to work

Is this the same silicon valley that has the quite astonishing ageism problem as well? Silicon valley has never been just about the technology.

My ex-employer had a zero-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment. Imagine this conversation:

Jim: "Hey, Dave. Where's Mary? She's supposed to be at the status meeting."
Dave: "She's got a cold and couldn't make it."

Result of this conversation: Dave and Jim are fired. According to the employee handbook, Sexual Harassment is defined and includes "Mentioning a coworker in conversation that said coworker is not involved in."

That's got nothing to do with sexual harassment. That's zero tolerance on misnamed, random shit.

Oh yes, must be the feminist conspiracy. I'm sure the rejection has nothing to do with the fact your submission was crap and didn't bother to link to anything at all.

Men also get offered lower salaries.

Not in this case.

http://www.pnas.org/content/10...

As someone who happens to have been born with a penis, if I so much as smile the "wrong" way, I am instantly a creep, marked a sexual predator, fired, sued into oblivion, and my life ruined - all with everyone immediately believing the woman.

Well, that's demonstrably not true: there are many penis equipped humans to whom that doesn't apply. Therefore the problem isnot with having a penis in general but something associated with you (e.g. you work with lunatics or you are a lunatic).

I seem to be perfectly capable of smiling at and talking to many people without being labelled a predator.

As an aside, there's that good looking men can get away with more. Please make that argument, as I've never experienced any of that. It would be nice for someone on the internet to imply I'm a studly, hunky Adonis lookalike.

Women make less than men over their careers because they have babies, and that process requires taking a lot of time off work.

Yep, sexism doesn't exist and any evidence that women with the same qualifications as men are offered lower salaries just doesn't exist. You know, except that PNAS paper, but we'll ignore that becaus it doesn't agree with the "sexism is fake" narrative.