Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (Score 1) 508

by serviscope_minor (#47786785) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

TL;DR you don't get to avoid having the burden of prrof yourself merely by making your argument first. To believe that is philosophically incoherent.

You have stated the existence of correlative statistics. Those are data, not a reason.

There are many possible reasons, such as it's genetic or environmental. You are under the misapprehension that your argument "its genetic" is somehow a default reason and therefore needs no proof.

You are mistaken.

In the future, should you desire a more productive and probing discussion...

With you? Seems very unlikely.

Comment: Re:A willingness to fight (Score 1) 508

by serviscope_minor (#47784827) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

Just wondering and applying Occam's Razor.

So either several thousand people would not admit they were wrong and insisted on being right. Or, perhaps it was you who were wrong all along and would not concede the point.

I've had plenty of arguments with friends. Sometimes one of us wins, sometimes another and sometimes we reach a stalemate and have to agree to differ.

Comment: Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (Score 1) 508

by serviscope_minor (#47784793) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

You should try reading OP's post again. He said there was no "crusade" to address the imbalance in female dominated industries. "Crusade" is much stronger than your response of "there are some programs to help men." And if you look at the coverage given to things like these diversity numbers from tech companies, and all the coverage and programs to get women in STEM, it is much more widespread than the programs to help men.

No, if you read the OP's post (and I mean actually read it rather than randomly jump to conclusions), he claimed there was no "crusade" to get women in to less prestigious male dominated industries.

Mindless pedantry about the word "crusade" aside, there are drives to get women into mining. I demonstrated their existence. I don't know why you find this hard to accept?

It may be provable, but you did not prove it. A handful of crappy websites does not a "drive" make,

OK, you're somehow very biased against the idea. If you read those "crappy" websites you will see that they are part of a drive.

, otherwise like I said we can all stop talking about women in STEM because I can also Google for 30 seconds and find a few websites. The drive exists. It's good enough. We don't need more. Right?

Wrong, and you have some mighty bizarre logic there. It's you who claim the current drive is "good enough" not I. The mere existence of a drive does not mean it has been successful or sufficient. The lack of success of a drive however also does not mean the drive does not exist.

No... that is wrong... the people giving the speeches about equality need to believe it, otherwise they are hypocrites. This isn't complicated. When a handful of rich, powerful, or famous women go out and say "I'm going to do something today about.. INEQUALITY!" and the result is "So I'm going to start pushing purely on behalf of women in a select few fields that I'd like to see more women in" that is hypocrisy. This is not hard to understand.

No it's not hipocracy. No one is going to uniformly stand for all that is good and against all that is bad. The time simply does not exist. No one can actually do anything about all forms of equality in all things as you demand. To demand that is to effectively demand that no one does anything.

All anyone can do is pick one small battle relative to the whole and fight it.

The only ones you hear about are in the (male dominated) tech industry because you're reading slashdot not mining/nursung/lumberjacking/nannying/teaching news.

The reason you don't hear about those in the mainstream media is because they exist to sell newspapers etc and nothing sells well like attacking one of the largest and most visible companies in existence. So they're not exactly an unbiased source of anything.

It would also be annoying and pointless to prefix everything by "I stand for equality and I'm going to to X about it but don't worry I also stand for equality in all this $VERY_LONG_LIST of other things too and ought to do $EVEN_LONGER_LIST of things about them but aren't going to because I don't have time but perhaps you should consider doing something about them or raising money or something".

People don't talk like that.

Furthermore, if I was to do something for equality it would have to be in the tech industry because I simply don't know the other industries well enough to do anything. That would mean doing something pro-women because that's where the inequality is. Man, it would be great to so something to get more male teachers except I know fuck all about teaching, have no contacts and no interest in school teaching.

Well technically it's not, because I expect the same thing from men.

OK not sexist then. That wasn't very clear seeing as you singled out women in your writing. OTHO, it's still completely unrealistic.

You probably don't agree that sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on sex.

I know exactly what it means. You seem to however seem happy to invent meanings in order to apply them to me.

Comment: Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (Score 1) 508

by serviscope_minor (#47783893) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

The argument is that a concerted push to end sexism *just for women* is itself sexist.

It's also a straw man because there are plenty of drives in other, female dominated industries to get more men in.

Ah, the old: There are some movements to help men, so it's all about the same I guess.

Never said it was the same. The OP claimed it was not the case. That is false, as I have demonstrated.

Wow there are a few websites for women in mining! I guess there's no problem!

What the fuck are you on about? No one's claiming there's no problem. The OP was calaiming there was no drive to get women into male dominated industries like mining. That is provable false.

Otherwise what exactly was your point?

Seriously try actually reading the post I was replying to as well as my replies. It will be entirely obvious at that point.

Umm yes they

Wow, so ALL women have to do something to gether as a united group before you'll have patience for speeches of equality from some of its members. You don't see that requiing all women to act together as a single entity is a sexist point of view?

A clue: women are not a single homogeneous group.

For what it's worth, I think you are sexist,

I do not think that means what you think it means.

Comment: Re:Simply (Score 1) 508

by serviscope_minor (#47783377) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

You realise that just because you (for example) are unable to hold a neutral point of view, it does not mean that your brain is necessarily inferior.

Pretty much yes it does because it shows you are unable to reason in a certain way.

Do you also translate "more men are incarcerated" into "more men have an inferior brain"?

What's that got to do with reasoning?

Comment: Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (Score 1) 508

by serviscope_minor (#47783161) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

There are professions women tend to dominate and there is no crusade to get equality there.

Ah the old: It's worse elsewhere ergo nothing is wrong here argument.

Total bullshit.

Also, it turns out there are movements in nursing and teaching to get more men.

There are also low status male jobs that women don't seem interested in doing. Garbage men. Lumberjacks. Fishermen. Coal miners.

Well, you've managed to pick a selection of jobs where men do have a real, measurable advantage which is physical strength. Except it turns out with increasing mechanisation of mining, physical strength is not needed. So, I give you this:

All from using 30 seconds of google.

Until women are willing to take up these jobs in equal numbers I really have zero patience for their equality crap.

Wait, so your argument is that until we have perfect equality everywhere we shouldn't try to get any anywhere? FFS you're a moron.

They have equality already. They just don't have equal interest or in many cases ability. Deal with it. We're not all the same. Stop whining about it.

And this is where your burning underlying deepseated sexism finally bubbles up to the surface.

They, the other, all women together "must" do something before you're prepared to have patience for "their equality crap".

They just don't have equal interest or in many cases ability.

Ah yes. Women just don't have the ability. That's why it's a man's world, right?

We're not all the same

Quite. Some of us are colossal sexist raging morons. Others of us can use our brains and powers of observation.

Comment: Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (Score 1) 508

by serviscope_minor (#47783113) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

What you have is a hypothesis.

So do you. Your hypothesis is merely that women are choosing not to because they are women.

But it has ZERO evidence. None. Nothing.

Well apart from that there's no evidence that the difference between men and women is that great. Hell, if you look at the thing where men are clearly physiologically at an advantage (sports) the differences is often not that great.

So are you a transsexual vampire from mars or do you now understand how utterly baseless your point is here?

How did you guess?? I've managed to keep this secret from the whole world until now :'( :'( :'(

How many women fly fish? Not many. Guess how much sexism there is keeping women from fly fishing? Zero.

I've no idea. You're plucking examples out of the air without actually bothing with the examples. Do you have numbers or are you just assuming that no women go fly fishing? A quick google search yields no shortage of clubs, websites and so on.

The thing is you seem to base your discussions here entirely on the idea that all differences between men and women are due to innate factors and that society, cultures and so on don't have any effect. I have no idea why you cling so desperately to this idea.

Yes, innate differences between men and women exist. But also, socity has been ragingly sexist for quite a few thousand years---and there is plenty of evidence for that. And no, I'm not going to provide links.

You appear to believe that all trace of that vanished from the world at some point and that therefore every remaining difference must just be because "men are simply different".

You then accuse everyone else of being an idiot for not seeing the "grand vision" of your "obviously correct" view.

Comment: Re:A willingness to fight (Score 4, Insightful) 508

by serviscope_minor (#47782745) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia


I am.

Have you ever dated??


Women are the single most argumentative, must be right, cant change their minds, NEEDS AN APOLOGY EVEN WHEN PROVEN WRONG group out their.

Once you move into the realm of "all women are X" for some attribute like that you're essentially engaging in textbook sexism. All women are not like that. Some are, some aren't. Some men are, some aren't. There are plenty of tales of (male) bosses at work who must always be right no matter what.

Comment: Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (Score 1) 508

by serviscope_minor (#47782657) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

No, he is not right. Because his assumption is based on the idea that if women -choose- not to participate it must be all on them because there could be no unpleasantness which dominates that choice.

Karamshock is basically an idiot. He generally spams any thread like this with poorly reasoned arguments as to how the status quo is fine, nothing is wrong and nothing should ever be done.

Comment: Re:Discrimination (Score 1) 508

by serviscope_minor (#47782639) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

Ah yes, the old "bias doesn't exist because men and women are different" argument.

Yes, I agree, the one defining characteristic definition of how women differ from men is the propensity to edit wikipedia articles. As we have seen, this is one of the most gender imbalanced places around so it this must be the canonical difference, with other, lesser differences such as professional sports[*] being mere shadows.

[*] Yep. Going by the results in the last Olympics, if women and men raced in the same marathon race and were cut off merely by time, there would be less gender imbalance than there is on wikipedia.

Comment: Re:Angry mob vs Professional victim. (Score 1) 1181

He's not trying to claim it as fact, he's saying he thinks.

Yeah and he's not justifying why he thinks that. I can genuinely believe in unicorns and faries. You'd rightly think me an idiot if I did.

You didn't tell him what he thought was crap, you told him to shut up.

Yeah I did: what do you think the well known expression "put up or shut up" means? Or for that matter the common use of [citation needed] on slashdot (derived of course from wikipedia).

It's not free speech if he has to shut up.

You seem to be under the impression that I wield more power than I actually do. All I can do is tell him he should shut up instead of spouting unsubstantiated crap.

"Our reruns are better than theirs." -- Nick at Nite