What is the root cause of misogyny?

[LuckyR]

Taking my emphasis on the word "root" cause the answer is simple enough.
The answers lies between the basic differences between the male and female of the species, and that is all about the act of sex.
Some point of difference:
1) Males are ready everyday, every minute of the day
2) The erge to copulate is strong.
3) Males are more aggressive and stronger (on average)
4) In the female monthly cycle there are times when the erge to copulate is strong and changes to negative.
5) Women are more likley to rejet the advances of a male they think unfit, than a male of a woman.
6) There are times in the womans cycle where they are likley to reject ANY advance regardless of a males fitness.
7) This obviously leads to tension and frustration in a male.
the combination of 1 and 7 in the face of 6 and in the condition of 3 and expecially with the realisation of 5, it a potent mix and explains why nearly all cases of rape perpetrated by men.

This tension has existed since the dawn of time in humans. Most mammals are spared (1), and (3) is often minimised in most sepcies.
Since the is a common feature of human society it is likley to engender a control of women by men.

Nice, all true points.

Is number 5 what you intended?

5) Women are more likley to rejet the advances of a male they think unfit, than a male of a woman.

If yes that's some deep wisdom and very true.

If no mistake in the verbiage, I translate that to mean women would prefer to get with a man that is married instead of a man that is single if they think the married man is better.

Or did you just mean that men are more forgiving of faults than women?

But is the act of rape equal to misogyny? My understanding is that the glass ceiling is closer to misogyny than rape based on sexual frustration.

not sure I get your idea, can you tell more ?

I don't see rape as equal to misogyny. rape comes with lots of different detailed reasons. girls in house parties get raped and gang-raped all the time, but those guys don't hate women. perhaps if the guy is trying to punish women by rape then yes, but if he is just looking to satisfy himself and just doesn't care about the woman, it doesn't mean he hates her, he just doesn't care or is greedy.

and no.. for those of you that will jump on that, I don't think rape is a good idea and those that are truly guilty shall have more terrible punishment than is currently allowed starting with forced castration together with a significant financial penalties that will cripple them. I find NO possibility of redemption for this crime. At the same time, a false accusation is just as serious and should carry a similar penalty.

I find this crime has the same root as selling drugs to kids. Uncontrolled greed.

Glass ceiling.. not that long ago someone had to explain to me what this was because I didn't know the term. Glass ceiling is a sub topic for equaility. People are not equal.. we can agree to have equal rights but we are not equal. For sure you have some skill or skills that I do not, we are not equal you are superior to me in some skill or skills. I am likely better at some other skill that you may not have any ability in. We are not equal, but we can agree to treat each other in an equivalent way.

We have certain skills that the biology of men is better at than women. In all cases, exceptions exist, but in general, we have patterns that exist. I have tried in the past to artificially push equality and it is a disaster to try to force equal ability onto an unequal person. everyone suffers.

The way the laws work in the west, anyone today has the right to start a business and run it however they want. The best skill shall rise.

A glass ceiling is really an ability ceiling.

Sure.

First of all a glass ceiling is specifically a limit on how far women can be promoted within a company. Thus it is institutional sexism. It is a workaround to promote hiring of women (into entry level positions), to meet government quotas, but to stop their promotion at a certain level because the Old Boy's Club of executives wants to preserve the lucrative spots for their members.

Thus the glass ceiling is formal sexist prejudice based in a belief in women being inferior or lesser than. Could that rise to the level of hatred? It can, but not always. But it is specifically directed at women, because they're women.

Secondly, I agree with your experience that it is an error to assume that all or even most rapists hate women necessarily. Do robbers hate store clerks or do they just want the money? No doubt some rapists hate women, which drives them to rape. But the majority of sexual assaults/rapes are not from strangers, they are of the date rape or the "no" means "no" variety.

Long story short sexist discrimination is misogyny 100% of the time and rape is rooted in misogyny <<50% of the time. We need a better example of misogyny than rape.

[mystery]

Taking my emphasis on the word "root" cause the answer is simple enough.
The answers lies between the basic differences between the male and female of the species, and that is all about the act of sex.
Some point of difference:
1) Males are ready everyday, every minute of the day
2) The erge to copulate is strong.
3) Males are more aggressive and stronger (on average)
4) In the female monthly cycle there are times when the erge to copulate is strong and changes to negative.
5) Women are more likley to rejet the advances of a male they think unfit, than a male of a woman.
6) There are times in the womans cycle where they are likley to reject ANY advance regardless of a males fitness.
7) This obviously leads to tension and frustration in a male.
the combination of 1 and 7 in the face of 6 and in the condition of 3 and expecially with the realisation of 5, it a potent mix and explains why nearly all cases of rape perpetrated by men.

This tension has existed since the dawn of time in humans. Most mammals are spared (1), and (3) is often minimised in most sepcies.
Since the is a common feature of human society it is likley to engender a control of women by men.

Nice, all true points.

Is number 5 what you intended?

5) Women are more likley to rejet the advances of a male they think unfit, than a male of a woman.

If yes that's some deep wisdom and very true.

If no mistake in the verbiage, I translate that to mean women would prefer to get with a man that is married instead of a man that is single if they think the married man is better.

Or did you just mean that men are more forgiving of faults than women?

Not exactly.
Here's what I mean by 5. A woman is more likley to reject an unfit mate (either for permanent arrangement or causual). A male is less likley to reject an unfit mate. Males are not as choosy.
I was not think about "marriage" as such as I was more interested in the basic cauality due to base human behaviours. Marriage is a variable cultural contract that is different across culture. For example women in some cultures are allowed zero choice.

I'd definitely not say men are more forgiving. Women tend to be more forgiving, but that does not mean she will consider you for sex.
Men will take sex from a woman they think unworthy.

Hope that clears things up.

nothing to disagree with, that's all true.

[mystery]

Nice, all true points.

Is number 5 what you intended?

5) Women are more likley to rejet the advances of a male they think unfit, than a male of a woman.

If yes that's some deep wisdom and very true.

If no mistake in the verbiage, I translate that to mean women would prefer to get with a man that is married instead of a man that is single if they think the married man is better.

Or did you just mean that men are more forgiving of faults than women?

But is the act of rape equal to misogyny? My understanding is that the glass ceiling is closer to misogyny than rape based on sexual frustration.

not sure I get your idea, can you tell more ?

I don't see rape as equal to misogyny. rape comes with lots of different detailed reasons. girls in house parties get raped and gang-raped all the time, but those guys don't hate women. perhaps if the guy is trying to punish women by rape then yes, but if he is just looking to satisfy himself and just doesn't care about the woman, it doesn't mean he hates her, he just doesn't care or is greedy.

and no.. for those of you that will jump on that, I don't think rape is a good idea and those that are truly guilty shall have more terrible punishment than is currently allowed starting with forced castration together with a significant financial penalties that will cripple them. I find NO possibility of redemption for this crime. At the same time, a false accusation is just as serious and should carry a similar penalty.

I find this crime has the same root as selling drugs to kids. Uncontrolled greed.

Glass ceiling.. not that long ago someone had to explain to me what this was because I didn't know the term. Glass ceiling is a sub topic for equaility. People are not equal.. we can agree to have equal rights but we are not equal. For sure you have some skill or skills that I do not, we are not equal you are superior to me in some skill or skills. I am likely better at some other skill that you may not have any ability in. We are not equal, but we can agree to treat each other in an equivalent way.

We have certain skills that the biology of men is better at than women. In all cases, exceptions exist, but in general, we have patterns that exist. I have tried in the past to artificially push equality and it is a disaster to try to force equal ability onto an unequal person. everyone suffers.

The way the laws work in the west, anyone today has the right to start a business and run it however they want. The best skill shall rise.

A glass ceiling is really an ability ceiling.

Sure.

First of all a glass ceiling is specifically a limit on how far women can be promoted within a company. Thus it is institutional sexism. It is a workaround to promote hiring of women (into entry level positions), to meet government quotas, but to stop their promotion at a certain level because the Old Boy's Club of executives wants to preserve the lucrative spots for their members.

Thus the glass ceiling is formal sexist prejudice based in a belief in women being inferior or lesser than. Could that rise to the level of hatred? It can, but not always. But it is specifically directed at women, because they're women.

Secondly, I agree with your experience that it is an error to assume that all or even most rapists hate women necessarily. Do robbers hate store clerks or do they just want the money? No doubt some rapists hate women, which drives them to rape. But the majority of sexual assaults/rapes are not from strangers, they are of the date rape or the "no" means "no" variety.

Long story short sexist discrimination is misogyny 100% of the time and rape is rooted in misogyny <<50% of the time. We need a better example of misogyny than rape.

I mostly agree but will offer another viewpoint also.

what do you think about ability discrimination? Should the best ability get an available promotion regardless of sex or race? I will guess you will tell yes. But if not, pls tell about why.

The issue is that when discriminating based on ability, other patterns emerge that relate to things like gender, race, and culture. This is why we ended up with terrible ideas like affirmative action. How can it be justice for someone to lose because they are not considered a minority and or a woman. What do we give children that are restricted because they do not qualify based on race or gender for additional help or points?

I have personally seen and been party to promotion based only on skill and ability together with dedication. The results look exactly like sex and race discrimination.

Politics is a huge part of advancement. Often women will get a promotion or better situation because they have attracted the attention of a more senior male. This is very unfair to the other men. The point being that many blades cut in more than one direction. Just as often a less qualified man will get promoted over a more qualified one due to soft skills (politics).

[LuckyR]

But is the act of rape equal to misogyny? My understanding is that the glass ceiling is closer to misogyny than rape based on sexual frustration.

not sure I get your idea, can you tell more ?

I don't see rape as equal to misogyny. rape comes with lots of different detailed reasons. girls in house parties get raped and gang-raped all the time, but those guys don't hate women. perhaps if the guy is trying to punish women by rape then yes, but if he is just looking to satisfy himself and just doesn't care about the woman, it doesn't mean he hates her, he just doesn't care or is greedy.

and no.. for those of you that will jump on that, I don't think rape is a good idea and those that are truly guilty shall have more terrible punishment than is currently allowed starting with forced castration together with a significant financial penalties that will cripple them. I find NO possibility of redemption for this crime. At the same time, a false accusation is just as serious and should carry a similar penalty.

I find this crime has the same root as selling drugs to kids. Uncontrolled greed.

Glass ceiling.. not that long ago someone had to explain to me what this was because I didn't know the term. Glass ceiling is a sub topic for equaility. People are not equal.. we can agree to have equal rights but we are not equal. For sure you have some skill or skills that I do not, we are not equal you are superior to me in some skill or skills. I am likely better at some other skill that you may not have any ability in. We are not equal, but we can agree to treat each other in an equivalent way.

We have certain skills that the biology of men is better at than women. In all cases, exceptions exist, but in general, we have patterns that exist. I have tried in the past to artificially push equality and it is a disaster to try to force equal ability onto an unequal person. everyone suffers.

The way the laws work in the west, anyone today has the right to start a business and run it however they want. The best skill shall rise.

A glass ceiling is really an ability ceiling.

Sure.

First of all a glass ceiling is specifically a limit on how far women can be promoted within a company. Thus it is institutional sexism. It is a workaround to promote hiring of women (into entry level positions), to meet government quotas, but to stop their promotion at a certain level because the Old Boy's Club of executives wants to preserve the lucrative spots for their members.

Thus the glass ceiling is formal sexist prejudice based in a belief in women being inferior or lesser than. Could that rise to the level of hatred? It can, but not always. But it is specifically directed at women, because they're women.

Secondly, I agree with your experience that it is an error to assume that all or even most rapists hate women necessarily. Do robbers hate store clerks or do they just want the money? No doubt some rapists hate women, which drives them to rape. But the majority of sexual assaults/rapes are not from strangers, they are of the date rape or the "no" means "no" variety.

Long story short sexist discrimination is misogyny 100% of the time and rape is rooted in misogyny <<50% of the time. We need a better example of misogyny than rape.

I mostly agree but will offer another viewpoint also.

what do you think about ability discrimination? Should the best ability get an available promotion regardless of sex or race? I will guess you will tell yes. But if not, pls tell about why.

The issue is that when discriminating based on ability, other patterns emerge that relate to things like gender, race, and culture. This is why we ended up with terrible ideas like affirmative action. How can it be justice for someone to lose because they are not considered a minority and or a woman. What do we give children that are restricted because they do not qualify based on race or gender for additional help or points?

I have personally seen and been party to promotion based only on skill and ability together with dedication. The results look exactly like sex and race discrimination.

Politics is a huge part of advancement. Often women will get a promotion or better situation because they have attracted the attention of a more senior male. This is very unfair to the other men. The point being that many blades cut in more than one direction. Just as often a less qualified man will get promoted over a more qualified one due to soft skills (politics).

I have an interest in the topic you bring up (which has nothing to do with misogyny, BTW).

Basically you, and others who complain about AA are correct at first glance at the micro level. Clearly there is a stated adjustment that has almost nothing to do with the on-paper "qualifications" of the candidates.

However at the macro level there are several issues beyond what you brought up. Let's use the most litigated topic as an example (though the issues are universal), medical school admissions.

Three of the most important yet least appreciated (or discussed) issues are the following:

1) There is little to no data that the standard qualifications that are the majority of the choice of candidates for acceptance, predict the quality of the doctors who graduate.

2) Secondly, there is data that the customers (patients) of the medical system get better service from providers with whom they relate. Thus if 11% of patients are Black, as a large community, better quality will be delivered overall by a community of doctors who are 11% Black, than 100% White (and 0% Black).

3) Lastly, it is an error to think of candidates as 100% perfect, 99%, 98% etc through 100 candidates down to zero percent. Rather candidates for most positions are either qualified or not. The reality is that there are many more perfectly qualified candidates than there are available positions. Thus the search for the "best" candidate is often (especially in the glass ceiling example) a smoke screen to choose men over perfectly qualified women (in that particular example, or white students over blacks in the medical school example, especially before the 1970s).

[mystery]

not sure I get your idea, can you tell more ?

I don't see rape as equal to misogyny. rape comes with lots of different detailed reasons. girls in house parties get raped and gang-raped all the time, but those guys don't hate women. perhaps if the guy is trying to punish women by rape then yes, but if he is just looking to satisfy himself and just doesn't care about the woman, it doesn't mean he hates her, he just doesn't care or is greedy.

and no.. for those of you that will jump on that, I don't think rape is a good idea and those that are truly guilty shall have more terrible punishment than is currently allowed starting with forced castration together with a significant financial penalties that will cripple them. I find NO possibility of redemption for this crime. At the same time, a false accusation is just as serious and should carry a similar penalty.

I find this crime has the same root as selling drugs to kids. Uncontrolled greed.

Glass ceiling.. not that long ago someone had to explain to me what this was because I didn't know the term. Glass ceiling is a sub topic for equaility. People are not equal.. we can agree to have equal rights but we are not equal. For sure you have some skill or skills that I do not, we are not equal you are superior to me in some skill or skills. I am likely better at some other skill that you may not have any ability in. We are not equal, but we can agree to treat each other in an equivalent way.

We have certain skills that the biology of men is better at than women. In all cases, exceptions exist, but in general, we have patterns that exist. I have tried in the past to artificially push equality and it is a disaster to try to force equal ability onto an unequal person. everyone suffers.

The way the laws work in the west, anyone today has the right to start a business and run it however they want. The best skill shall rise.

A glass ceiling is really an ability ceiling.

Sure.

First of all a glass ceiling is specifically a limit on how far women can be promoted within a company. Thus it is institutional sexism. It is a workaround to promote hiring of women (into entry level positions), to meet government quotas, but to stop their promotion at a certain level because the Old Boy's Club of executives wants to preserve the lucrative spots for their members.

Thus the glass ceiling is formal sexist prejudice based in a belief in women being inferior or lesser than. Could that rise to the level of hatred? It can, but not always. But it is specifically directed at women, because they're women.

Secondly, I agree with your experience that it is an error to assume that all or even most rapists hate women necessarily. Do robbers hate store clerks or do they just want the money? No doubt some rapists hate women, which drives them to rape. But the majority of sexual assaults/rapes are not from strangers, they are of the date rape or the "no" means "no" variety.

Long story short sexist discrimination is misogyny 100% of the time and rape is rooted in misogyny <<50% of the time. We need a better example of misogyny than rape.

I mostly agree but will offer another viewpoint also.

what do you think about ability discrimination? Should the best ability get an available promotion regardless of sex or race? I will guess you will tell yes. But if not, pls tell about why.

The issue is that when discriminating based on ability, other patterns emerge that relate to things like gender, race, and culture. This is why we ended up with terrible ideas like affirmative action. How can it be justice for someone to lose because they are not considered a minority and or a woman. What do we give children that are restricted because they do not qualify based on race or gender for additional help or points?

I have personally seen and been party to promotion based only on skill and ability together with dedication. The results look exactly like sex and race discrimination.

Politics is a huge part of advancement. Often women will get a promotion or better situation because they have attracted the attention of a more senior male. This is very unfair to the other men. The point being that many blades cut in more than one direction. Just as often a less qualified man will get promoted over a more qualified one due to soft skills (politics).

I have an interest in the topic you bring up (which has nothing to do with misogyny, BTW).

Basically you, and others who complain about AA are correct at first glance at the micro level. Clearly there is a stated adjustment that has almost nothing to do with the on-paper "qualifications" of the candidates.

However at the macro level there are several issues beyond what you brought up. Let's use the most litigated topic as an example (though the issues are universal), medical school admissions.

Three of the most important yet least appreciated (or discussed) issues are the following:

1) There is little to no data that the standard qualifications that are the majority of the choice of candidates for acceptance, predict the quality of the doctors who graduate.

2) Secondly, there is data that the customers (patients) of the medical system get better service from providers with whom they relate. Thus if 11% of patients are Black, as a large community, better quality will be delivered overall by a community of doctors who are 11% Black, than 100% White (and 0% Black).

3) Lastly, it is an error to think of candidates as 100% perfect, 99%, 98% etc through 100 candidates down to zero percent. Rather candidates for most positions are either qualified or not. The reality is that there are many more perfectly qualified candidates than there are available positions. Thus the search for the "best" candidate is often (especially in the glass ceiling example) a smoke screen to choose men over perfectly qualified women (in that particular example, or white students over blacks in the medical school example, especially before the 1970s).

should we have a new thread for this one? it's likely been discussed but it's one of those topics that we never will get agreement on w/ all. but it's fun to think about.


I challenge your position 3. For-profit business is a priority on profit as mandated by investors; period. If hire men only achieve that better than with women included it is the right choice for the charter of increasing the investment; period... When and if I ever find that a man was chosen when a woman could get a better return I would immediately replace whoever made that choice. The law of the jungle. Bottom line (according to me and paying attention to results) is that in some situations the biology of men can get a better return.

I have to think about your position 2. Because of the mind of the one being served perhaps this is true. If the mission is to provide the best care, using racism to its value, in this case, might make sense. this is a perfect example of cutting out the bull, and working with the truth. I probably after thinking about it would support this one. For example: the request for candidates can tell that we must have 2 black and 8 white. If three black are the very best qualified, one of them will be not accepted and in place a less qualified white so as to keep the desired ratio. The bad news is that this is forced segregation; exactly what some claim to fight against. Is it hypocrisy???

Position 1, not relevant. it is creating doubt without any fact. Making mud in the water to confuse and twist. I don't accept it.

[Leontiskos]

Basically you, and others who complain about AA are correct at first glance at the micro level. Clearly there is a stated adjustment that has almost nothing to do with the on-paper "qualifications" of the candidates.

So the argument against affirmative action is that relevant qualifications should be the criteria for selection rather than incidental qualities like skin color or sex.

However at the macro level there are several issues beyond what you brought up. Let's use the most litigated topic as an example (though the issues are universal), medical school admissions.

Three of the most important yet least appreciated (or discussed) issues are the following:

1) There is little to no data that the standard qualifications that are the majority of the choice of candidates for acceptance, predict the quality of the doctors who graduate.

Are you claiming that the doctors who would not have been able to attend medical school without the help of affirmative action are of equal or higher quality than the doctors who were admitted on the basis of legitimate qualifications? This is an odd claim that seems incredible. I actually don't believe it, but if it is true then it evidences a problem with the standard admissions criteria more than anything else.

For example, suppose competence in biology is a prerequisite for medical school, and 10% of candidates are admitted without this competence. Your claim is that the 10% of underqualified candidates become higher-quality doctors than the 90% with a greater competence in biology. Like I said, it is hard to make sense of this claim.

2) Secondly, there is data that the customers (patients) of the medical system get better service from providers with whom they relate. Thus if 11% of patients are Black, as a large community, better quality will be delivered overall by a community of doctors who are 11% Black, than 100% White (and 0% Black).

The first problem I have with this claim is that it is based on a racist premise, namely that relatability is race-based.

Second, the service of medical care should not be assessed on the basis subjective emotions, but rather on objective, testable data. The true purpose of a doctor is to attend to a patient's physical and physiological health, not to make the patient feel that they were "related to."

Third, schools are naturally grouped by quality. Ivy League schools like Harvard have high admissions criteria, and this contributes to the excellence of the school, the students, and the education. This is because one must learn with students of a similar intelligence level if the education is to be effective.

Fourth, your argument is not an argument for affirmative action. It is an argument for altering the standard admissions criteria. That is, you are claiming that race is a relevant qualification, and this is because your yardstick for a successful doctor includes relatability. This is very different from affirmative action.

3) Lastly, it is an error to think of candidates as 100% perfect, 99%, 98% etc through 100 candidates down to zero percent. Rather candidates for most positions are either qualified or not. The reality is that there are many more perfectly qualified candidates than there are available positions. Thus the search for the "best" candidate is often (especially in the glass ceiling example) a smoke screen to choose men over perfectly qualified women (in that particular example, or white students over blacks in the medical school example, especially before the 1970s).

The false premise here is the idea that candidates are either qualified or not. If some field receives an overabundance of "qualified" candidates, then the threshold for qualification gets shifted upwards, as happens with a grading curve. This is because the goal is not merely to have "qualified" doctors, but to have the best doctors possible who are also qualified. Qualified candidates ought to be rejected if there are better-qualified candidates and there is not enough room in the program to accommodate the lesser-qualified candidates.


If you haven't guessed by now, I am not a fan of affirmative action. This is because it is prima facie unreasonable, and because it brings with it so much strange post hoc rationalization. That said, I wonder if a better approach to solving the problems that affirmative actions attempts to solve is to found individual schools that are devoted to the demographics that are struggling. That way they can receive a quality education with their peers in a shared cultural environment and nourish an institution that is devoted to their own demographic. A primary goal of such institutions would be to educate and develop some demographic that is in need. Schools like Harvard would then not have to sacrifice excellence for the sake of affirmative action, and the goals of affirmative action could be accomplished in other ways. Further, there is no reason these new schools could not uphold a standard of excellence, but it would be intentionally directed to a particular demographic.

[LuckyR]

Sure.

First of all a glass ceiling is specifically a limit on how far women can be promoted within a company. Thus it is institutional sexism. It is a workaround to promote hiring of women (into entry level positions), to meet government quotas, but to stop their promotion at a certain level because the Old Boy's Club of executives wants to preserve the lucrative spots for their members.

Thus the glass ceiling is formal sexist prejudice based in a belief in women being inferior or lesser than. Could that rise to the level of hatred? It can, but not always. But it is specifically directed at women, because they're women.

Secondly, I agree with your experience that it is an error to assume that all or even most rapists hate women necessarily. Do robbers hate store clerks or do they just want the money? No doubt some rapists hate women, which drives them to rape. But the majority of sexual assaults/rapes are not from strangers, they are of the date rape or the "no" means "no" variety.

Long story short sexist discrimination is misogyny 100% of the time and rape is rooted in misogyny <<50% of the time. We need a better example of misogyny than rape.

I mostly agree but will offer another viewpoint also.

what do you think about ability discrimination? Should the best ability get an available promotion regardless of sex or race? I will guess you will tell yes. But if not, pls tell about why.

The issue is that when discriminating based on ability, other patterns emerge that relate to things like gender, race, and culture. This is why we ended up with terrible ideas like affirmative action. How can it be justice for someone to lose because they are not considered a minority and or a woman. What do we give children that are restricted because they do not qualify based on race or gender for additional help or points?

I have personally seen and been party to promotion based only on skill and ability together with dedication. The results look exactly like sex and race discrimination.

Politics is a huge part of advancement. Often women will get a promotion or better situation because they have attracted the attention of a more senior male. This is very unfair to the other men. The point being that many blades cut in more than one direction. Just as often a less qualified man will get promoted over a more qualified one due to soft skills (politics).

I have an interest in the topic you bring up (which has nothing to do with misogyny, BTW).

Basically you, and others who complain about AA are correct at first glance at the micro level. Clearly there is a stated adjustment that has almost nothing to do with the on-paper "qualifications" of the candidates.

However at the macro level there are several issues beyond what you brought up. Let's use the most litigated topic as an example (though the issues are universal), medical school admissions.

Three of the most important yet least appreciated (or discussed) issues are the following:

1) There is little to no data that the standard qualifications that are the majority of the choice of candidates for acceptance, predict the quality of the doctors who graduate.

2) Secondly, there is data that the customers (patients) of the medical system get better service from providers with whom they relate. Thus if 11% of patients are Black, as a large community, better quality will be delivered overall by a community of doctors who are 11% Black, than 100% White (and 0% Black).

3) Lastly, it is an error to think of candidates as 100% perfect, 99%, 98% etc through 100 candidates down to zero percent. Rather candidates for most positions are either qualified or not. The reality is that there are many more perfectly qualified candidates than there are available positions. Thus the search for the "best" candidate is often (especially in the glass ceiling example) a smoke screen to choose men over perfectly qualified women (in that particular example, or white students over blacks in the medical school example, especially before the 1970s).

should we have a new thread for this one? it's likely been discussed but it's one of those topics that we never will get agreement on w/ all. but it's fun to think about.


I challenge your position 3. For-profit business is a priority on profit as mandated by investors; period. If hire men only achieve that better than with women included it is the right choice for the charter of increasing the investment; period... When and if I ever find that a man was chosen when a woman could get a better return I would immediately replace whoever made that choice. The law of the jungle. Bottom line (according to me and paying attention to results) is that in some situations the biology of men can get a better return.

I have to think about your position 2. Because of the mind of the one being served perhaps this is true. If the mission is to provide the best care, using racism to its value, in this case, might make sense. this is a perfect example of cutting out the bull, and working with the truth. I probably after thinking about it would support this one. For example: the request for candidates can tell that we must have 2 black and 8 white. If three black are the very best qualified, one of them will be not accepted and in place a less qualified white so as to keep the desired ratio. The bad news is that this is forced segregation; exactly what some claim to fight against. Is it hypocrisy???

Position 1, not relevant. it is creating doubt without any fact. Making mud in the water to confuse and twist. I don't accept it.

Oh there have been many, many threads and as I mentioned this is not about misogyny and I don't want to hijack this one. I will say this though, what you call position 1 has been studied thus it is not "without any fact" and thus is relevant.

[LuckyR]

Basically you, and others who complain about AA are correct at first glance at the micro level. Clearly there is a stated adjustment that has almost nothing to do with the on-paper "qualifications" of the candidates.

So the argument against affirmative action is that relevant qualifications should be the criteria for selection rather than incidental qualities like skin color or sex.

However at the macro level there are several issues beyond what you brought up. Let's use the most litigated topic as an example (though the issues are universal), medical school admissions.

Three of the most important yet least appreciated (or discussed) issues are the following:

1) There is little to no data that the standard qualifications that are the majority of the choice of candidates for acceptance, predict the quality of the doctors who graduate.

Are you claiming that the doctors who would not have been able to attend medical school without the help of affirmative action are of equal or higher quality than the doctors who were admitted on the basis of legitimate qualifications? This is an odd claim that seems incredible. I actually don't believe it, but if it is true then it evidences a problem with the standard admissions criteria more than anything else.

For example, suppose competence in biology is a prerequisite for medical school, and 10% of candidates are admitted without this competence. Your claim is that the 10% of underqualified candidates become higher-quality doctors than the 90% with a greater competence in biology. Like I said, it is hard to make sense of this claim.

2) Secondly, there is data that the customers (patients) of the medical system get better service from providers with whom they relate. Thus if 11% of patients are Black, as a large community, better quality will be delivered overall by a community of doctors who are 11% Black, than 100% White (and 0% Black).

The first problem I have with this claim is that it is based on a racist premise, namely that relatability is race-based.

Second, the service of medical care should not be assessed on the basis subjective emotions, but rather on objective, testable data. The true purpose of a doctor is to attend to a patient's physical and physiological health, not to make the patient feel that they were "related to."

Third, schools are naturally grouped by quality. Ivy League schools like Harvard have high admissions criteria, and this contributes to the excellence of the school, the students, and the education. This is because one must learn with students of a similar intelligence level if the education is to be effective.

Fourth, your argument is not an argument for affirmative action. It is an argument for altering the standard admissions criteria. That is, you are claiming that race is a relevant qualification, and this is because your yardstick for a successful doctor includes relatability. This is very different from affirmative action.

3) Lastly, it is an error to think of candidates as 100% perfect, 99%, 98% etc through 100 candidates down to zero percent. Rather candidates for most positions are either qualified or not. The reality is that there are many more perfectly qualified candidates than there are available positions. Thus the search for the "best" candidate is often (especially in the glass ceiling example) a smoke screen to choose men over perfectly qualified women (in that particular example, or white students over blacks in the medical school example, especially before the 1970s).

The false premise here is the idea that candidates are either qualified or not. If some field receives an overabundance of "qualified" candidates, then the threshold for qualification gets shifted upwards, as happens with a grading curve. This is because the goal is not merely to have "qualified" doctors, but to have the best doctors possible who are also qualified. Qualified candidates ought to be rejected if there are better-qualified candidates and there is not enough room in the program to accommodate the lesser-qualified candidates.


If you haven't guessed by now, I am not a fan of affirmative action. This is because it is prima facie unreasonable, and because it brings with it so much strange post hoc rationalization. That said, I wonder if a better approach to solving the problems that affirmative actions attempts to solve is to found individual schools that are devoted to the demographics that are struggling. That way they can receive a quality education with their peers in a shared cultural environment and nourish an institution that is devoted to their own demographic. A primary goal of such institutions would be to educate and develop some demographic that is in need. Schools like Harvard would then not have to sacrifice excellence for the sake of affirmative action, and the goals of affirmative action could be accomplished in other ways. Further, there is no reason these new schools could not uphold a standard of excellence, but it would be intentionally directed to a particular demographic.

I was concerned that this thread on misogyny was going to get side tracked by my earlier posting responding to mystery's comment on AA. I am not a cheerleader for AA, rather an appraiser of the overly simplistic criticism this admittedly imperfect program attracts.

Perhaps you are familiar with the criticism that the SAT and ACT have received in recent years for their poor ability to predict success in college. In response now a majority of universities have made them optional for admissions. Thus it should suprise no one that the ability to memorize undergraduate biochemical formulae is a poor predictor of the ability to acquire the skillset to tell someone you met 20 minutes ago that they have cancer, assist them in grieving the loss of the good health they thought they had and give them hope for the future purely through conversation.

As to labeling Black patients preferance for Black doctors, racist, you are free to do so but it isn't really about pundits, it's about the patients.

[mystery]

I mostly agree but will offer another viewpoint also.

what do you think about ability discrimination? Should the best ability get an available promotion regardless of sex or race? I will guess you will tell yes. But if not, pls tell about why.

The issue is that when discriminating based on ability, other patterns emerge that relate to things like gender, race, and culture. This is why we ended up with terrible ideas like affirmative action. How can it be justice for someone to lose because they are not considered a minority and or a woman. What do we give children that are restricted because they do not qualify based on race or gender for additional help or points?

I have personally seen and been party to promotion based only on skill and ability together with dedication. The results look exactly like sex and race discrimination.

Politics is a huge part of advancement. Often women will get a promotion or better situation because they have attracted the attention of a more senior male. This is very unfair to the other men. The point being that many blades cut in more than one direction. Just as often a less qualified man will get promoted over a more qualified one due to soft skills (politics).

I have an interest in the topic you bring up (which has nothing to do with misogyny, BTW).

Basically you, and others who complain about AA are correct at first glance at the micro level. Clearly there is a stated adjustment that has almost nothing to do with the on-paper "qualifications" of the candidates.

However at the macro level there are several issues beyond what you brought up. Let's use the most litigated topic as an example (though the issues are universal), medical school admissions.

Three of the most important yet least appreciated (or discussed) issues are the following:

1) There is little to no data that the standard qualifications that are the majority of the choice of candidates for acceptance, predict the quality of the doctors who graduate.

2) Secondly, there is data that the customers (patients) of the medical system get better service from providers with whom they relate. Thus if 11% of patients are Black, as a large community, better quality will be delivered overall by a community of doctors who are 11% Black, than 100% White (and 0% Black).

3) Lastly, it is an error to think of candidates as 100% perfect, 99%, 98% etc through 100 candidates down to zero percent. Rather candidates for most positions are either qualified or not. The reality is that there are many more perfectly qualified candidates than there are available positions. Thus the search for the "best" candidate is often (especially in the glass ceiling example) a smoke screen to choose men over perfectly qualified women (in that particular example, or white students over blacks in the medical school example, especially before the 1970s).

should we have a new thread for this one? it's likely been discussed but it's one of those topics that we never will get agreement on w/ all. but it's fun to think about.


I challenge your position 3. For-profit business is a priority on profit as mandated by investors; period. If hire men only achieve that better than with women included it is the right choice for the charter of increasing the investment; period... When and if I ever find that a man was chosen when a woman could get a better return I would immediately replace whoever made that choice. The law of the jungle. Bottom line (according to me and paying attention to results) is that in some situations the biology of men can get a better return.

I have to think about your position 2. Because of the mind of the one being served perhaps this is true. If the mission is to provide the best care, using racism to its value, in this case, might make sense. this is a perfect example of cutting out the bull, and working with the truth. I probably after thinking about it would support this one. For example: the request for candidates can tell that we must have 2 black and 8 white. If three black are the very best qualified, one of them will be not accepted and in place a less qualified white so as to keep the desired ratio. The bad news is that this is forced segregation; exactly what some claim to fight against. Is it hypocrisy???

Position 1, not relevant. it is creating doubt without any fact. Making mud in the water to confuse and twist. I don't accept it.

Oh there have been many, many threads and as I mentioned this is not about misogyny and I don't want to hijack this one. I will say this though, what you call position 1 has been studied thus it is not "without any fact" and thus is relevant.

how is it ever fair to discriminate against a child, man, or woman based on race? are you telling that it is ok to discriminate against based on race as long as it is a white male that is on the losing end? if so that is the most horrible hypocrisy ever. AA does exactly that. I agree that expanding on this topic would distract from this original thread looking for information about what causes misogyny.

[LuckyR]

I have an interest in the topic you bring up (which has nothing to do with misogyny, BTW).

Basically you, and others who complain about AA are correct at first glance at the micro level. Clearly there is a stated adjustment that has almost nothing to do with the on-paper "qualifications" of the candidates.

However at the macro level there are several issues beyond what you brought up. Let's use the most litigated topic as an example (though the issues are universal), medical school admissions.

Three of the most important yet least appreciated (or discussed) issues are the following:

1) There is little to no data that the standard qualifications that are the majority of the choice of candidates for acceptance, predict the quality of the doctors who graduate.

2) Secondly, there is data that the customers (patients) of the medical system get better service from providers with whom they relate. Thus if 11% of patients are Black, as a large community, better quality will be delivered overall by a community of doctors who are 11% Black, than 100% White (and 0% Black).

3) Lastly, it is an error to think of candidates as 100% perfect, 99%, 98% etc through 100 candidates down to zero percent. Rather candidates for most positions are either qualified or not. The reality is that there are many more perfectly qualified candidates than there are available positions. Thus the search for the "best" candidate is often (especially in the glass ceiling example) a smoke screen to choose men over perfectly qualified women (in that particular example, or white students over blacks in the medical school example, especially before the 1970s).

should we have a new thread for this one? it's likely been discussed but it's one of those topics that we never will get agreement on w/ all. but it's fun to think about.


I challenge your position 3. For-profit business is a priority on profit as mandated by investors; period. If hire men only achieve that better than with women included it is the right choice for the charter of increasing the investment; period... When and if I ever find that a man was chosen when a woman could get a better return I would immediately replace whoever made that choice. The law of the jungle. Bottom line (according to me and paying attention to results) is that in some situations the biology of men can get a better return.

I have to think about your position 2. Because of the mind of the one being served perhaps this is true. If the mission is to provide the best care, using racism to its value, in this case, might make sense. this is a perfect example of cutting out the bull, and working with the truth. I probably after thinking about it would support this one. For example: the request for candidates can tell that we must have 2 black and 8 white. If three black are the very best qualified, one of them will be not accepted and in place a less qualified white so as to keep the desired ratio. The bad news is that this is forced segregation; exactly what some claim to fight against. Is it hypocrisy???

Position 1, not relevant. it is creating doubt without any fact. Making mud in the water to confuse and twist. I don't accept it.

Oh there have been many, many threads and as I mentioned this is not about misogyny and I don't want to hijack this one. I will say this though, what you call position 1 has been studied thus it is not "without any fact" and thus is relevant.

how is it ever fair to discriminate against a child, man, or woman based on race? are you telling that it is ok to discriminate against based on race as long as it is a white male that is on the losing end? if so that is the most horrible hypocrisy ever. AA does exactly that. I agree that expanding on this topic would distract from this original thread looking for information about what causes misogyny.

Funny how frequently "fairness" gets brought up when the idea of addressing past blatant unfairness is the topic.

[mystery]

should we have a new thread for this one? it's likely been discussed but it's one of those topics that we never will get agreement on w/ all. but it's fun to think about.


I challenge your position 3. For-profit business is a priority on profit as mandated by investors; period. If hire men only achieve that better than with women included it is the right choice for the charter of increasing the investment; period... When and if I ever find that a man was chosen when a woman could get a better return I would immediately replace whoever made that choice. The law of the jungle. Bottom line (according to me and paying attention to results) is that in some situations the biology of men can get a better return.

I have to think about your position 2. Because of the mind of the one being served perhaps this is true. If the mission is to provide the best care, using racism to its value, in this case, might make sense. this is a perfect example of cutting out the bull, and working with the truth. I probably after thinking about it would support this one. For example: the request for candidates can tell that we must have 2 black and 8 white. If three black are the very best qualified, one of them will be not accepted and in place a less qualified white so as to keep the desired ratio. The bad news is that this is forced segregation; exactly what some claim to fight against. Is it hypocrisy???

Position 1, not relevant. it is creating doubt without any fact. Making mud in the water to confuse and twist. I don't accept it.

Oh there have been many, many threads and as I mentioned this is not about misogyny and I don't want to hijack this one. I will say this though, what you call position 1 has been studied thus it is not "without any fact" and thus is relevant.

how is it ever fair to discriminate against a child, man, or woman based on race? are you telling that it is ok to discriminate against based on race as long as it is a white male that is on the losing end? if so that is the most horrible hypocrisy ever. AA does exactly that. I agree that expanding on this topic would distract from this original thread looking for information about what causes misogyny.

Funny how frequently "fairness" gets brought up when the idea of addressing past blatant unfairness is the topic.

very true, it is often that unfairness is promoted as just revenge for past unfairness of ppl that are long dead. I think it's hogwash and all about getting any advantage possible in the competition of life.

[LuckyR]

Oh there have been many, many threads and as I mentioned this is not about misogyny and I don't want to hijack this one. I will say this though, what you call position 1 has been studied thus it is not "without any fact" and thus is relevant.

how is it ever fair to discriminate against a child, man, or woman based on race? are you telling that it is ok to discriminate against based on race as long as it is a white male that is on the losing end? if so that is the most horrible hypocrisy ever. AA does exactly that. I agree that expanding on this topic would distract from this original thread looking for information about what causes misogyny.

Funny how frequently "fairness" gets brought up when the idea of addressing past blatant unfairness is the topic.

very true, it is often that unfairness is promoted as just revenge for past unfairness of ppl that are long dead. I think it's hogwash and all about getting any advantage possible in the competition of life.

If only the glass ceiling only applied to women "long dead". Alas, it's still going strong.

[Belindi]

I think the cause of historical relegation of women is that men are usually better at defence because they are never pregnant or nursing, and have bigger bones and more muscle than women.

The importance of defence originated in ownership of property.

In economic circumstances where women earn more than men the women's power status goes up to equal the men's.

The modern glass ceiling originates in a tradition which will fade away all the faster with legislation against it.

[3017Metaphysician]

A recent topic about what we inherit from our mothers spurred this thought.
Every religion, and every society, in all times have demonstrated hatred of women in vile to subtle ways. Yet women are one half of the human race, and importantly the only means of propagating the species as possessors of a uterus.
Racism, and caste, as evil as it is, is ultimately, in truth, a convenient construct as a means of exploitation. Female sex is not a construct. They have always worked as hard as men, even through pregnancy, And bear children, the future farm hands. What was the natural benefit in the hate and oppression?
What is the pay off?

A few things I can think of that spurs this hatred:
Vagina/uterus envy.
They are property that can be stolen, elope, and thus a liability.
They can seduce one to lose his senses.
Men are naturally gay, and thus women are competition.
We hate that which we fear. What is the cause of fear?
What do you think?

AK!

In a word: emotion. Unlike pure reason, emotions are a bitter-sweet phenomena.

What kind of emotion, I suppose, probably relates simply to one's insecurity and ego. But as you so well pointed out, fear is very likely to be driving much of it. It's very sad and despicable to observe the 'childish behavior' that manifests...not to mention certain violent behavior and related mental abuses. Too, some of that behavior results from dysfunctional childhood experiences. Perhaps the abuser was belittled as a child and never recovered from the trauma. Or maybe they've been in an environment that encouraged misogyny itself.

In any case, it's very very sad, and pathetic. Shame on those who should know better. One could argue that that behavior is much like the old Ad Hominem/ Ad Hoc logical fallacies. As such, it reminds me of a quote from a fellow philosopher:

The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

[Astro Cat]

If only the glass ceiling only applied to women "long dead". Alas, it's still going strong.

People think total gender equality was solved eons ago, but most people don't realize women weren't guaranteed the right to open a credit card until the 1970s. That's only 50 years ago, that's not even two generations.

When people think about things like diversity with AA and the like they aren't thinking about the fact that everyone else got up on the backs of marginalized people and broke the ladder rungs on the way up. Then they ask, "why can't you just get up here yourself?" (This is obviously an oversimplification, but there it is).