Who's responsible for gender roles? Biology or Society?

[PointOfViewGun]

Exactly his whole calculation is pointless, as his assumptions are wrong.
There were only a few hundred applications, which must meet some high criteria (for eample A - exam and not many from their verdicts as judges repealed/annulled).
The 33 were all at least equal qualified to their male competitors.
But pointless. Sexists will come with every kind of pseudoscience, that women are inferior and only unjustified preferred by liberals.
So the discussion has reached its end for me.

There are actually virtually no requirement for a federal judge to meet. Senators can nominate anyone they'd like. There are more than enough women in USA with commonly highly qualifying judicial knowledge and experience to nominate from.

You have never shown where the issue is. You simply said "this is not true".
You fall into a trap of "the pot calls the kettle black". I am not the one that is unable to address criticism, I pulled up graphs and equations to show you that it is impossible to get 33/41 without discrimination.
Then, I showed you the quote directly out of Biden's mouth: He said openly he will promote a black woman.
How can you still say that Biden's "I will give the post to a black woman" does not show he is willing to discriminate in favor of women is beyond me.
And on top of "Even if Biden says that he discriminates in favor of women, I don't think he does! Your analysis is wrong because I consider it irrelevant without proving how." argument of yours...
we have the cherry on the top:
"It's shameful that people have been subjected to this charade."
Yes, it is very shameful that people have been subjected to this charade you put up. Your arguments reflect the arguments of creationists and flat earthers at this point. Please, either find something to say that addresses my arguments or admit that Biden is discriminating in favor of women and apologize for wasting my time with empty arguments.

Arguing as if something doesn't exist doesn't really invalidate its existence either. You shouldn't spend pages on ignoring what people point at only to accuse them of not making any points. This has been one of the stupidest exchanges I have ever had on this forum. I see that you have resorted to lying about what I said as well as every statement, save the last one, you're making here about what I said is false. Such intellectually bankrupt arguments to avoid admitting the failure of an initial point is abysmal.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

There are actually virtually no requirement for a federal judge to meet. Senators can nominate anyone they'd like. There are more than enough women in USA with commonly highly qualifying judicial knowledge and experience to nominate from.

Still there will be some kind of filtering out criterias as cum laude exam or successfull statistic before probably candiates are presented finally to the President. The President is not checking the vita of all candidates, someone is doing a prechoice.

[alhoon]

Thats not what i said, i said this 33 women were equal qualified as men (same cum laude exam, good statistic of uphold verdicts) and then Biden appointed them.

But as expected lies and smearing like in the hate speech threads.

That is not the only thing you said though, Morticia. When I pointed out that you cannot promote 80% women out of a population of 70% men without discriminating towards women - and I even pointed to Biden's words that he would promote a woman to the SC - you called me sexist.
Again: I never said the women were not qualified for the position. I said that promoting 80% women shows pro-women bias.

There are more than enough women in USA with commonly highly qualifying judicial knowledge and experience to nominate from.

And I didn't deny that. What I said is "Promoting 80% women shows bias."
Why? Because there are also more than enough MEN in USA with highly qualified judicial knowledge and experience to nominate from.

Arguing as if something doesn't exist doesn't really invalidate its existence either. You shouldn't spend pages on ignoring what people point at only to accuse them of not making any points.

You simply said "your point is irrelevant" at any time I brought up the numbers, without saying why. The above one liner of "There are enough qualified women" is the only argument you brought forth which I have addressed time after time, with equations, histograms etc.

Yes, there are enough qualified women, but to end up with 33/41 qualified women and 8/41 qualified men, instead of 15/41 qualified women and 26/41 qualified men, you must strongly discriminate towards women.
And you have yet to refute that, instead saying that my equations, histograms and arguments are irrelevant, without showing us why or how.

Then we had Biden clearly state that he will promote ONLY from Black Women for the opened SC position and you still refuse to admit that this is discrimination.

I see that you have resorted to lying about what I said as well as every statement, save the last one, you're making here about what I said is false. Such intellectually bankrupt arguments to avoid admitting the failure of an initial point is abysmal.

Where did I lie? Quote the lies please.

On the other hand, you are the one that accuses me of lying without ANY evidence.
You are also the one that has been mathematically proven wrong, and avoids to admit the failure of your arguments.

Still there will be some kind of filtering out criterias as cum laude exam or successfull statistic before probably candiates are presented finally to the President. The President is not checking the vita of all candidates, someone is doing a prechoice.

And when the PotUS says "I will promote a black woman to the SC" he is discriminating towards women.

I could understand if you said "He is right to discriminate towards women" or, as Kissaki more or less said "He is discriminating towards balance, and he was elected by saying he would promote a black woman to the SC, so he's following his election promises."
But that's not what you're saying.

[Infidel144]

Thats not what i said, i said this 33 women were equal qualified as men (same cum laude exam, good statistic of uphold verdicts) and then Biden appointed them.

Can you show the "33 women" qualifications, "cum laude exam" and "uphold verdicts" and that of the men in possible consideration?

[swabian]

The lie is that it is a mathematical proof of your claim. It's not. It doesn't even have anything to do with individual's qualifications. You have acknowledged that it has nothing to do with people's qualifications yourself. Yet, you are claiming that it is mathematical proof of your claim about individual's qualifications. Your insistence, the time you took to cook up that experiment is mind boggling. Making a tomato soup proves as much that some of the female picks were less qualified than other potential male picks as your "statistical" mumbo jumbo.

You're getting pointlessly worked up about the word "proof". What alhoon has provided is strong statistical evidence that there was most likely bias or favoritism involved. It's a small sample of course, but the strong deviance from what would expected to be an unbiased outcome is legitimate grounds for suspicion.

Of course Biden is a slimy politician who spits in the face of his old macho self on a regular basis, of course these decisions of his are more or less tactical. What a funny discussion this is.

[PointOfViewGun]

You're getting pointlessly worked up about the word "proof". What alhoon has provided is strong statistical evidence that there was most likely bias or favoritism involved. It's a small sample of course, but the strong deviance from what would expected to be an unbiased outcome is legitimate grounds for suspicion.

Of course Biden is a slimy politician who spits in the face of his old macho self on a regular basis, of course these decisions of his are more or less tactical. What a funny discussion this is.

You might have missed the scope of his charade. What alhoon initially said:

There is also no reason to promote people based on their gender over other people that are more qualified.

I asked how he knows all those candidates were less qualified that which he responded with his cooked up statistics:

Statistics.
You have ~20000 judges. 14000 of them are men, 6000 are women.
You have 41 positions.
Out of the 14000 men you promote 8. Out of the 6000 women you promote 33.
For every 1750 men, you promote 1.
For every 181 women, you promote 1.
Do you see the huge disparity there? Men have to be 10 times better than their peers compared to women to be promoted.

That's his statistics that he keeps claiming that it proved him right. It's quite self-explanatory.

[ggggtotalwarrior]

Sure he doesn’t exactly provide proof they were less qualified, but the people who usually are on the opposite side of Alhoon on this issue almost without fault will cite the historical numbers and hiring disparity as irrefutable proof women were discriminated against. Some will argue that this newer trend of “reverse” discrimination is needed to create suitable outcome but to deny it is happening altogether is essentially the same as arguing women weren’t historically discriminated in hiring over the previous several decades.

Regardless, fighting historical discrimination with essentially a quote system that amounts to more discrimination only begets more discrimination, as opposed to trying to start at the bottom and reform these systems that created such inequality from the ground up.

[alhoon]

Regardless, fighting historical discrimination with essentially a quote system that amounts to more discrimination only begets more discrimination, as opposed to trying to start at the bottom and reform these systems that created such inequality from the ground up.

Which is what I have been suggesting.

Something I would applaud (and neither party wouldn't pass) is to re-examine the qualification of lower lever courts. Force the governors to check those appointments made 30 years ago. Let's see if that 65 years old judge IS STILL the best for the job or that black female attorney is better alternative.

Do not promote based on gender to correct past wrongs.
Simply check past appoints to correct past wrongs.

You might have missed the scope of his charade. What alhoon initially said:


I asked how he knows all those candidates were less qualified that which he responded with his cooked up statistics:


That's his statistics that he keeps claiming that it proved him right. It's quite self-explanatory.

Yes, it's quite self-explanatory. Indeed, those statistics prove me right.

Now, let's make it more apparent for those that want to pretend I am wrong. As said in the post you helpfully quoted so people can see that I am right and you are wrong,
We have about 20000 Judges, 70% men and 30% women. Let's say that the top 1% are A-class. And A-class is divided in "A++: best of the best, the uber-awesome" which is the top 0.1%, "A+: Excellent" that is below 0.1% to 0.5% and "A: the very good" which are below 0.5% to 1%

So, going for the top 1% of judges you would have 20 A++ judges, 80 A+ judges and 100 A judges.
If you promote based on merit alone, you would promote 20 A++ judges and 21 A+ judges for your 41 positions.
If you decide to promote 33 women though, the issues start. Why? Because you have (on average) 6 women A++, 24 women A+ and 30 women A, because you have 30% women.
So, you take 6 A++ women, 24 A+ women and then you pass over 3 A++ male judges to promote women with a score A.

You don't pick from the 0.1% because there are not enough women there, you promote from 1%. So... yeah, men in the 0.1% are passed over for women in the 1%.

In the more recent Biden example, where he said he would promote a black woman, the two judges suggested seem very very good and qualified. But we don't know whether there is an Asian man that is better. Or a White woman etc. Guess what? My statistics, the one you don't like? Well, they show quite clearly that probably there is a more qualified person that is not a black woman.

Now, Kissaki argued that the appointments are political and as long as the judge is in the top tier, whether she is the best of the best of the best or simply one of the very best, doesn't matter. I think @Morticia also alludes into that amidst her hater-charade with the "they have qualifications".
This doesn't mean there is no discrimination though. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Kissaki also mentioned that Biden wants equality in the SC, which I believe AND that Biden was elected for saying things like that. Well... if people elect the PotUS to pick up candidates and he has been crystal clear he will discriminate towards women... then he's doing what he has been elected to do.

So... Yeah, my statistics prove me right. And you have said nothing to explain why you think my statistics are irrelevant except say I am "lying" (?) without any evidence. You just bring up my posts, the ones that prove me right.


FURTHERMORE:

The statistics that prove me right that Biden is discriminating pro-women are here and here.

[PointOfViewGun]

Oh, now you're making up entire qualification standards that does not exist in real life to dig your hole deeper... Your charade have just gotten beyond pathetic.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Honestly i don't care, what you or any right-winger is thinking or if they believe your calculation, which is based on nothing more than some random picked numbers, as we don't know how much judges were really nominated for this draft.

Were it 1000, 10000 or only 500?

[swabian]

I think powerful males often reject other males and unfairly prefer females sometimes to show that those competitive minded douchebags (who usually despise women) really are the douches they portary themselves to be. It is after all a male world that has been partially handed over to women, because it is just too pleasant to thwart these annoying individuals this way

No, seriously. It is just one man deciding. If it was many, many people (mixed 50:50) resulting in 33:8 when it should have been 30:70, then this would be representative of auto-misandry and other things, but it is not so.

What was the topic actually about and why don't i care beforehand?

[alhoon]

Oh, now you're making up entire qualification standards that does not exist in real life to dig your hole deeper... Your charade have just gotten beyond pathetic.

Wow, I see you continue with the Trump tactics. Call it names without arguments and dismiss it. Well, if you use fake tan too, I would suggest a different brand than Trump's orange. He doesn't like competition and he would call you names too.

It's called "math". Using math for proof is not "beyond pathetic". You sound like a Flat-Earther.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's called "math". Using math for proof is not "beyond pathetic". You sound like a Flat-Earther.

Throwing the word "math" around doesn't make your deceptive arguments any more valid.

[Ludicus]

Originally Posted by Ludicus
(Let's say, treating objects like women and treating women like objects). What you are saying is a very reductive view of the human species.
When we start talking about women's rights, conservatives start talking about hormones.

What the are you even taking about mate?

Well, because I said what I said- where is my post? And yet, I gave a possible answer to the question:who is responsible for gender roles. Society, of course. There are matriarchal societies around the word, with women at helm for centuries. Ask any social anthropologist. Let me try again.The conservative right prefers to speak of "biological differences". The underlying message is to convey the idea of women's inferiority. Therefore, they are not in love with the concept of equal rights for women.

Year 2020 of the Lord,The History of the Equal Rights Amendment | Time

In Wednesday, Virginia became the 38th state to vote to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment — thus fulfilling the requirement that three-quarters of the states must approve an Amendment in order to add it to the U.S. Constitution. Since the Amendment was proposed a century ago, the U.S. has never been so close to enshrining the equality of all people, regardless of sex, in its bedrock legal document.But that doesn’t mean the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) will be added to the Constitution any time soon

As a conservative, Phyllis Schlafly (who died 8 years ago) advocated for women to stay out of politics and the workplace. She is best known for her successful campaign to block passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s What's Wrong with 'Equal Rights' for Women? – 1972

If you don’t like this fundamental difference, you will have to take up your complaint with God because. He created us this way

It’s painfully obvious that religion is the social determinant, not the genes.
100 Bible Verses about Women Inferior To Man
Women in Rabbinic Literature

“Women are a secondary conception, unalterably other from men and at a further remove from the divine” ; “The voice of a woman is indecent”

Muslim Women Fight to Redefine Islam as a Religion of Equality

“If we are equal before the eyes of God, why not before the eyes of men?”

Therefore, we cannot be surprised when we read that, One in five say women are inferior to men, global study reports

On average, one in five believe that women are inferior to men, or that women should not aspire to do anything outside of the household

This is what we are really talking about.

[swabian]

It's not all society and culture over genes. There are differences. But these differences can be and usually are being overemphasized.

[alhoon]

Throwing the word "math" around doesn't make your deceptive arguments any more valid.

It is not throwing the word "math" that makes my correct arguments valid. It is ... the math that does and the thought process you have yet to come up against.

Throwing the word "deceptive" doesn't make my arguments any less valid.

[Basilius]

So much of this discussion is a waste of time. Judges are not assigned letter grades or numerical points for their quality. When they're looking at the most qualified judges for selection, and there is a large talent pool with exquisite credentials, picking one is basically arbitrary at that point, and often done for political or ideological reasons.

And when the decision is based on politics or ideology, I think choosing under-represented identities is an acceptable choice to the alternative.

[swabian]

It's not a proof though. Not at all and not by a large margin. Let go, alhoon.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Forgive me if I missed it in the back and forth but what alternative are you referring to?

[Basilius]

Forgive me if I missed it in the back and forth but what alternative are you referring to?

Picking a white male, again, and claiming you're being unbiased.