Then we have to narrow down what YOU think feminism is.

i provided a definition

ok

it's not needed

Wait, we can use dictionary definitions now?

I thought the whole "but that's not racism" argument invalidated all dictionaries.

I don't make that argument daniel

don't strawman me daniel.

don't true scotsman then

how about that?

no true scotsman doesn't mean what you think it means.

strawman doesn't mean what you think it means

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I have qualified "feminism" as the same thing throughout this discussion

therefore: no true no true scotsman

Do you agree with the oxford dictionary definition of feminism? @méep

yes

Alright. So you're an equal rights advocate

so you're really an egalitarian

or that lol

but "IMa feminist"

sure

guysz

however: women are systematically disadvantaged in american society

ok

how

fuck that shit

no

prove it

k

@méep So you don't agree with most people who call themselves feminist now?

so they can send 2 identical resumes

I lov e being able to sleep my way up the ladder

GEEZ I WISH MEN COULD DO THAT

HIMMMMMMMMMM

Are you in favor of enforcing equality in these jobs?

@Durtle02 the burden would be on you to prove most feminists disagree with me i guess, I don't really care what "most people" think

oh fuck off

Because it looks like we'll have to fire quite a bit of women from comfy jobs.

@DanielKO nope, I am in favor of everyone acknowledging their biases, then it won't be a problem

@DanielKO 👍

Okay, so you don't want gender quotas?

let's force women into garbage collection and shitcleaning guys

since

If the majority of feminist were identified in modern day they would be classified as a anti male group

muh equality

you do realize that the methodology for proving subconcious bias is very much flawed and has failed to be repeated in studies multiple times

subconcious bias is unscientifc horse shit

In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume.

Woman working at Argonne Labs
Woman working at Argonne Labs (Source: Argonne, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant. Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager. They also recommended paying her a lower salary. Jennifer was offered, on average, $4,000 per year (13%) less than John.
http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

and they did this once

Is this a quote or a <#382984642300477444>

nice

one study

https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/938091350100185090

that proves everything

just a sample size of one

no need guys

wow

How about this

@franti gender biases undoubtedly oppress everyone of all genders.

you have to prove it first

lol

@meratrix did you read the quote you retard

Since when is beeing a veterinarian opresed

yes I did

they had a sample size of 100+

Wait a second, didn't Australia just try the whole "resumes can't have gender information", only to find that women got hired even less?

It is a hard proffesion

i.e. before, they were being hired for their vagina points.

KEK

@DanielKO yes

They didn't give the same people both resumes because that would be obvious

guess what

what about vagina point hirings @méep

oh wait

different people will offer different salaries

@DanielKO australian government already was hiring women for falsely inflated reasons

@méep

innoveint through huh?

@méep prove it then

you fuck

vagina hiring points aren't good

I'm not a fan

what ever you say

everyone should just become educated to remove their biases

So you'd rather them not have a job? /s

Well, then I don't see why you would call yourself feminist.

^

@DanielKO because I want to fix gender discrimination

Because that's definitely not what's taught in Gender Studies departments.

of which I have provided a yet to be refuted source that it exists

@méep The quote said that they didn't give both resumes to one person, because of course they wouldn't, but, the problem is then that different people will offer different salaries to the applicant because they are different fucking people

how about your source sucks

is that good enough?

thus, it is a shit study

@meratrix individual quirks are factored out when you account for sample size dipshit

you wouldn't see replicable trends if it was just human error

Give us one example of discrimination you're fighting against.

you source is shit

um, no dipshit. It's still diferent people, and because the sample size is one fucking resume, it's worthless