Ghastly weather in The Village today, eh?

Be seeing you!

Asehpe, you're the non-traditional, level-headed, egalitarian father we never had.

Thanks for keeping the topic civil.

...that confirmation bias and actual sexism both exist?

Agree that it would be helpful if these articles on studies helped establish what's what when it comes to topics such as pay differences between men and women working the same jobs.

But frankly it's a complex topic that one study (or one hundred) is probably never going to fully resolve or prove one way or the other. Very sad for the hardcore idealogues in both camps I'm sure. And for all those who insist that quantifiable data is the only route to objective truth.

I'm inclined to take mccfan at his word. TCF should have done the heavy lifting herself and investigated the piece. She didn't and leaves it up to us to either speculate as to the cause of her journalistic laziness or do the investigating on our own. I really hope that by the time I hit publish on this letter that we'll know for sure, one way or the other, how flawed this study truly was. This doesn't change the fact that it should have been vetted, by someone at Salon, well before TCF was allowed to publish it.

I could run with this and, unfortunately, argue that in many ways this corroborates some of the more vitriolic polemics that appear on the comments threads, but it's a waste of time.

Just because you contribute to a blog as opposed to an actual publication, doesn't mean you're free of certain responsibilities (be they journalistic, moral, ethical etc.). There are other blogs on salon where the author/contributor wouldn't dare post a piece (even if the results confirmed his assumptions) without doing a bare minimum of investigating.

Instead, we get a blog that is little more than a list of links for the day. Rarely do posts surpass the five paragraph mark. To borrow the verbiage of Broadsheet's editor from earlier in the week, no, this doesn't offend me as an internet surfer, it offends me as a feminist.

What is up with your unnecessarily vicious rejoinder to Asehpe? Do you always hurl such hysterical vitriol at everyone who disagrees with you, or do you just hate feminism/women?

1. Asehpe is not female.

2. Asehpe is hardly a "typical feminist", as his previous posts on porn, sexism, and objectification make clear.

3. Asehpe is one of the few posters here who has consistently evinced objective, level-headed analysis of the issues, and has insisted that we debate the issues in a civil, non-hateful manner, and that we try not to perceive and respond to each other as if we were stereotypical gender role/ideological caricatures.

Asehpe and I do not always agree on the issues, but he almnost always conducts himself in a civil, intelligent, mature, and thoughtful manner. His behavior has helped persuade me to more seriously consider the logic and veracity of some of his points which I would normally disagree with. You could learn a lot from him, if you want your words here to be well received and to have an impact. But if you could just came here to post nasty hateful little responses then I guess that is what you will keep doing, instead of behaving like a civil and intelligent adult who has a legitimate point to make and is grown up enough not to make it personal. Funny, a lack of objectivity and a predisposition to making things personal is what men are always accusing women of. Projection, much?

Is it possible to find a copy of the original paper somewhere? If what you say is accurate, mccfan, then I would agree with btrader that confirmation bias is probably ripe in the paper (cf. e.g. the possibly ignored endogenous relations that ProfOtto mentioned). Didn't the authors deal with these issues? Did you happen to ask them about it, and did they give an answer? This might suggest that the whole study needs to be redone.

I actually agree with your first post. The second one, however, raises a few doubts.

Attributing liberal bias to all major academia, media and organizations is a little too much, especially in the absence of evidence for such a claim. In my view, there are lots of conservative media outlets (Fox News comes to mind), research centers (the Creation Museum in Kansas(?) comes to mind), etc. which throw results out with what you might call a conservative bias.

Usually, it's a better to look at who is giving the funding to try to guess possible political bias. Right-wing religious groups, for instance, usually give money to support the kind of research that proves their points.

But all in all, academia has people with lots of different orientations. The amount of discussion and even sometimes vehement fight within academia shows that it can hardly be seen as showing a monolithic viewpiont on these issues. There's a lot more going on that simple political bias (which does also play a role).

You said: "I have no need for academic disinformation to tell me the whole of society is constantly biased AGAINST the needs of men."

I'm curious: how does that follow from the article or from any of the letters in the thread? I don't see what in the article or in academic information suggests that society is constantly biased against the interests of men.

I want to thank you Scobbatee for making my point so eloquently when she started such a transparent, laughable ad hominem attack:

"I sure paid attention to this laughable and ludicrous cheap shot, in which Ashapee proved my point: she ignored the arguements I made,"

Which arguments? Care to name them? They weren't on your post. (By the way, it's "he", not "she").

"diminished the arguements by accusing me of resenting CF (I don't resent her, I just think she hates men, is grossly sexist, dishonest and a lousy reporter)"

I said you didn't read what she wrote, I didn't say you resent her. But if the shoe fits...

"and as a typical feminist, launches a personal attack rather than discuss the reality of gender conditioning and how it plays out in the marketplace."

I'm not a feminist. And it's not an ad hominem. It's a true claim: you seem not to have read neither what Ms Clark-Flory wrote, nor the other letters. Can you show any evidence that you did? Something other than ideology?

"Here's a clue, Ashapee. I don't see anything that requires me to read every inane letter before I post a critique of CF's sexism."

I'm sure you don't see anything. That's my point! You should though, if you want to understand what's being talked about.

"And while I am calling you dishonest and manipulative, please point out to me where the points I made were discussed in the article."

Not in the article; in the letters thread. Didn't you read my letter before criticizing it? Gee...

OK, here is one example:

You said: " men of more traditional views subscribe to a self-valuation system that only judges them by their ability to produce."

I said: "One possibility is simply that the 'retro' men are more aggressive and more likely to impress a vision of themselves as indispensable or hardworking;"

KelliG said: "Men and women who make less may downplay the importance of the “provider” role and increase the importance of caregiving."

Canuckistan Bob said: "it may be that the non-traditional views are part and parcel of a larger set of attitudes towards work and money that make them less eager to make a buck."

Similar points, basically: traditionally-minded = produce/provide = work harder = bigger salary; egalitarian/non-traditional = work less = get fewer rewards.

Now you'll probably try to insist your point is totally different from the ones I compared yours with. OK, the floor is yours. Let's hear it.

But before, let me point out that calling others "dishonest and manipulative" isn't really what is meant by the phrase "making a point". You have to do something else.

"Oooops, forgot. Those points weren't made. I guess you didn't pay attention."

I think you need to buy a new pair of reading glasses. Go easy on the bad emotions and hurt feelings, stick to facts, make your points with good arguments. You'll earn respect that way.