Debunking gender ‘facts’

[jellyfrizz]

This looks like a positive initiative: www.theguardian.com/education/2018/aug/10/scientists-launch-campaign-to-overturn-gender-stereotypes

Has anyone here read Inferior?

WTF?

I am beginning to wonder if there is a reason a certain poster has decided that "selfish and disagreeable" are not necessarily insults

Why don't you go away and read the book?

What's so and so like?

Well, he's selfish and disagreeable.

He sounds great - definitely a person I'd like to do business with! When can I meet him?

Said no-one ever.

I am proper lol @ this poster TBH.

Our visitors are usually better quality than this

Well if you could explain why I'm wrong that would be great, you know do a bit of feminist activism and educate the un-enlightened?

Because as massive, lacking in evidence, sweeping generalisations based on stereotypes go, you're winning the internet today.

Disagreeable doesn't again mean that they disagree with everything everyone says/does it means that they are more likely to disagree openly with someone when they disagree, not keep it to themselves. It's a spectrum, not that person is agreeable/disagreeable, they are more or less agreeable/disagreeable.

Well silly season posting makes a change from midnight GFs I suppose.

Disagreeable doesn't again mean that they disagree with everything everyone says/does it means that they are more likely to disagree openly with someone when they disagree, not keep it to themselves. It's a spectrum, not that person is agreeable/disagreeable, they are more or less agreeable/disagreeable.

It doesn't mean that they 'disagree' with people at all. It means they're bad-tempered, unfriendly, unpleasant. You ought really to look at definitions of words before using them when you opine on the issue of 'gender'.

"Disagreeable doesn't again mean that they disagree with everything everyone says/does it means that they are more likely to disagree openly with someone when they disagree, not keep it to themselves. It's a spectrum, not that person is agreeable/disagreeable, they are more or less agreeable/disagreeable."

That's not what it means.

I literally posted the disctionary definition a few posts up

Either you didn't read it (safe in the knowledge of your own rightness when in fact you are very very wrong) OR didn't understand it.

Neither of those possibilities leads me to believe it would be positive to spend my time on some "feminist activism" with you.

Try it again.

"Disagreeable:
"unfriendly and bad-tempered.
"Henry was always a very disagreeable boy"
synonyms:bad-tempered, ill-tempered, ill-natured, ill-humoured, curmudgeonly, cross, crabbed, irritable, grumpy, peevish, snappish, petulant, sulky, sullen, prickly;"

OR are you incpapable of reading / consuming information provided to you by women posting on this thread.

In short:

You've made a bit of an arse of yourself.

Neither of those possibilities leads me to believe it would be positive to spend my time on some "feminist activism" with you.

Don't let the door hit you on the arse on your way out, then.

Who me?

OR are you incpapable of reading / consuming information provided to you by women posting on this thread.

Thing is, your most recent use of it suggested you interpret it otherwise, my disagreeable friend.

See what I just did there?

I'm very confused now.

He's talking to me, NothingOnTellyAgain

Having misused a word, he then pointed out rudely he'd previously posted up the definition; unfortunately, he'd subsequently used the word incorrectly.

But you're quoting my posts?

Re. work, this round up of studies is interesting:

hbr.org/2017/12/what-research-tells-us-about-how-women-are-treated-at-work

Interesting round up - thanks!

I wonder how many studies have been made about marriagability of men around this topic.

Just an observation that the round up seemed quite focussed on that -

Which in turn gets read and subsumed into assumptions.

A woman who had never thought "I'll never pull if I come across as ambitious" might read that and think oh - is this something I should hav known about? Shoudl I act on it?

It's a bit chicken and egg, to me.

I wonder how many studies have been made about marriagability of men around this topic.

Yes, that one made me too.

I thought the VC one was really interesting and shows the damage gender stereotypes do.

And the sensor one.

“Our analysis suggests that the difference in promotion rates between men and women in this company was due not to their behavior but to how they were treated. This indicates that arguments about changing women’s behavior — to ‘lean-in,’ for example — might miss the bigger picture: Gender inequality is due to bias, not differences in behavior.”

Yes which brings us full circle as the article hints at a "lean in" approach.

In my youth everyone took the 11+ exam which determined whether you would go to a grammar school or a 'technical' secondary modern school. Results were on a bell curve depending on the number of places available rather than (as I think we all assumed at the time) on the basis of whether you passed or not. Turns out there were fewer grammar school places for girls so fewer girls were allowed to pass. Systematic inequality that impacted on all aspects of women's lives (on top of the class-based inequality that determined kids futures at the age of 11).