Without an accurate overlay, it is dishonest to proclaim 69% of women are forced into gender roles, hell it is dishonest to say that to begin with as the claim removes their sense of freewill and ability to choose what they want; instead pushing this idea that they are brainwashed into doing it.

As I said, you're setting up a false dichotomy/dillema: It's either "people do things because of their own free will and its entirely their choice" or "people do things because they're brainwashed" for you.

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

People do things because of their own free will, *and* because of external pressures of all kinds. The reality right now is that more women do the majority of household tasks(as in, average time spent per day) than men. The raw data that shows that, without any interpretation about the causes, are right there in the survey you yourself cited. Your false dichotomy argument is "if you don't think they're doing that entirely out of their own freewill, you think they're brainwashed drones. If I can prove they're not brainwashed drones, then only my interpretation remains. Therefore, they're doing it entirely out of their own free choice.". Which is BS. There is a continuum. It's not black and white. It's not "either-or". Hell, right now there is even growing societal pressures, depending on country and culture, that husbands should help with the chores more. That's why see the percentage of men doing them increasing with time.

Love all the debate people.

Seems the USC made a good decision after all. Getting industry people talking about the problem is the first step to solving it.

11 steps to go.

Seems the USC made a good decision after all. Getting industry people talking about the problem is the first step to solving it.

Those two sentences don't necessarily go together -- unless you believe in 'the end justifies the means'. You can have some good come out of a bad decision, and it still be a bad decision.

Seems the USC made a good decision after all. Getting industry people talking about the problem is the first step to solving it.

Those two sentences don't necessarily go together -- unless you believe in 'the end justifies the means'. You can have some good come out of a bad decision, and it still be a bad decision.

The École Polytechnique massacre caused a lot of conversations in the last few decades... "The end justifies the means" is a very dangerous road to go down, especially when there were so many more options.

What if all those men at that event got together and maybe spoke about the issue, in addition to talking about what they were there for first and foremost: Helping students learn and gain advantage in the industry.

Define W, w1, w2, and N as sets of visibly different people.
Suppose all people in w1 are in W.
Suppose all people in w2 are in W.
Suppose all people in W are privileged over all people in N.
Suppose all people in w1 are privileged over w2.

Therefore, because w2 is in W, all people in w2 are privileged over people in N, irrespective of the fact that w1 is privileged over w2.

I don't see any epicycle-level faffing around here.

I'm trying to make this work:

Let W = white people
Let w1 = middle class white people (including police officers, college professors, geeks etc)
Let w2 = poor white people (including homeless, struggling students, unemployed & newly poor)
Let N = all non-white people (including homeless, poor, police, professors, investors, technology professionals, millionaires & billionaires)

So maybe we reason that w1 is oppressing w2, possibly directly using police and government resources or indirectly through economic policies. But do you actually believe that the homeless, struggling students and the unemployed & newly poor who are white are oppressing the non-white investor class, non-white technology professionals and non-white millionaires and billionaires?

Forget epicycles. We're gonna need phlogiston, luminous ether, homunculi and turtles all the way down to explain this stuff!!!

Seems the USC made a good decision after all. Getting industry people talking about the problem is the first step to solving it.

Those two sentences don't necessarily go together -- unless you believe in 'the end justifies the means'. You can have some good come out of a bad decision, and it still be a bad decision.

This.

So maybe we reason that w1 is oppressing w2, possibly directly using police and government resources or indirectly through economic policies. But do you actually believe that the homeless, struggling students and the unemployed & newly poor who are white are oppressing the non-white investor class, non-white technology professionals and non-white millionaires and billionaires?

Now you're conflating privilege and oppression. They aren't the same thing. I misspoke earlier when I used the word "oppression," and thereafter used only the word privilege. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Also, "privilege" isn't only "economically better off." There's more to a person's quality of life than the numbers in their bank account. "<adjective> privilege" simply means not being born into a certain set of disadvantages that others do. So yes, poor whites are still privileged over non-whites. It's perfectly possible to be a part of the investor class, or even the celebrity class, and still suffer disadvantages. Privilege that comes from being economically better off is called "class privilege." There are multiple kinds of privilege.

Now, I don't think that being privileged automatically means one has to self-flagellate. I was born to a family that could relate to my career path; I grew up in an environment where taking an interest in the sciences and technology was encouraged. I don't so much feel guilty for having those advantages, as have more respect for people who got to the same place that I did (or better places) without those advantages. Furthermore, when one is privileged over another, that means that one has more to consider when trying to empathize with that other if we want to empathize accurately. Practically, this has value in that better (or more) empathy helps us better interact with people.

For instance, when I see a strange woman walking alone, I tend to keep my distance even if it means slowing myself down. This is because I value not making others uneasy or uncomfortable unintentionally, and I have been made aware of the Shröedinger's rapist phenomenon (an aspect of male privilege that every woman I've spoken to about it has confirmed) and I don't want to contribute to the general unease she is probably feeling. I don't have to worry that random strangers will assault or rape me, so by and large avoiding that doesn't factor into my thought process, but chances are very good that the strange woman in this story will see me as a potential threat, just because of my gender and behaviour. One of those I can change, the other I cannot.

Seems the USC made a good decision after all. Getting industry people talking about the problem is the first step to solving it.

We need to talk about this, sure, but to what degree do you think progress is blocked by the loss of support of those who would otherwise agree with you but find the means by which this was done immoral?

Because I am one of them. Watching those who I would consider on my own side blasé about punishing others to achieve ideal social goals makes me oppose both THEM and those who are truly against diversity. I admit the reason for this is wholly self-serving: There is every possibility that those who do not care about achieving universal, blind justice will one day turn their tender mercies on ME once they dispense with my enemies. I don't have to wait or theorize. This is already being done to gay men, who some have declared as too 'privileged' to enjoy LGBT protection and support. It is by no stretch of the imagination that I may be next on the ideological chopping block.

The philosophy that excuses and backs this behavior is the philosophy of the Red Queen. It is arbitrary and illogical. It uses real injustices to invent injustices out of thin air (microagressions, invisible, unverifiable privileges). Dissenters are ensnared in ever more elaborate Kafkatraps which see the act of objecting as a sign of irrefutable sin. And proponents are distressingly comfortable with all of this because they have been told that yes, the ends DO justify the means because they are, without question, on the "right side of history."

Is it forgetting history that makes us ignore that this has also been the reasoning of despots and tyrants? They were wrong but you are right? How do you test that?

Funny thing; I'm at a hack week right now, around 300 people from the same company from all over the world (fun fact; there is nothing more distracting than people speaking French when you are trying to focus when you know a tiny amount of the language and keep trying to scan for words you know).

Most of the people are, of course, white and male.
Followed by white and female.

Black people? Vanishingly small... like maybe 3 people in the whole group?

Thinking back over the last 8 years my own experience mirrors this to some degree; I've worked with more women ( both as artists and coders) and more people from the LGBT community than I have black people.

So, this event was canned because 'no women' but was fine despite 'no blacks'?
Me thinks people are focusing on the wrong things...

Funny thing; I'm at a hack week right now, around 300 people from the same company from all over the world (fun fact; there is nothing more distracting than people speaking French when you are trying to focus when you know a tiny amount of the language and keep trying to scan for words you know).

Most of the people are, of course, white and male.
Followed by white and female.

Black people? Vanishingly small... like maybe 3 people in the whole group?

Thinking back over the last 8 years my own experience mirrors this to some degree; I've worked with more women ( both as artists and coders) and more people from the LGBT community than I have black people.

So, this event was canned because 'no women' but was fine despite 'no blacks'?
Me thinks people are focusing on the wrong things...

Actually, that's the plan.

But you need to search and learn this on your own...

something something intersectionality something something wealth transfer from middle class to rich people of different gender something something so on and so forth

there was actually a research on this topic

these link can help you start:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/affirmative-action-white-women_us_56a0ef6ae4b0d8cc1098d3a5

now when you read loudly what you've written - you will understand why things are the way they are.

edit:

also, if you look at the picture here, you will also notice something....

http://www.etonline.com/news/170667_the_ghostbusters_reboot_girl_power_is_at_an_all_time_high/