Slashdot Mirror
Google's Diversity Chief: Mamas Don't Let Their Baby Girls Grow Up To Be Coders
theodp writes: Explaining the reasons for its less-than-diverse tech workforce, Google fingered bad parenting for its lack of women techies. From the interview with Google Director of Diversity and Inclusion Nancy Lee: "Q. What explains the drop [since 1984] in women studying computer science? A. We commissioned original research that revealed it's primarily parents' encouragement, and perception and access. Parents don't see their young girls as wanting to pursue computer science and don't steer them in that direction. There's this perception that coding and computer science is ... a 'brogrammer' culture for boys, for games, for competition. There hasn't been enough emphasis on the power computing has in achieving social impact. That's what girls are interested in. They want to do things that matter." While scant on details, the Google study's charts appear to show that, overall, fathers encourage young women to study CS more than mothers. Google feels that reeducation is necessary. "Outreach programs," advises Google, "should include a parent education component, so that parents learn how to actively encourage their daughters."
Feminism is a belief system. The primary tenet of this belief system is that men and women have on average, exactly the same brains, interests, capacities, goals, desires and approaches to work.
This tenet is absurd and provably false. ...But logic and feminism have never mixed anyway.
heard this last millennium: little boys want a place to 'perform', while little girls want a place to 'relate'.
I'm sorry, but talking like that is a form of assault. Please identify yourself so I can know who comment-raped me.
C'mon, you can troll better than that!
there is no power in being a corporate droid programmer, what a load of bullshit. So corporate america wants to increase the number of coders and we should change our child rearing accordingly? And this STEM push is bullshit also, why are they not also having advanced classes in the fine arts and humanities? neither my son nor daughter are being encouraged to be coders, if they desire that on their own that's fine
Feminism ultimately *is* socialism.
And since men are net contributors to social services via taxes, and women are net recipients of social services -- women now extract from men via legislation what they used to extract via marriage. ... And women wonder why men have picked up their ball and left the game.
or it could be the influnce of testosterone during early development of the child. Harald Eia made an excellent documentary on that topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE
Same as for males, actually.
Human beings in general aren't very rational, even though we may think we are. Those who have these grand notions of purpose behind their actions are usually merely very good at rationalising.
not that they are incapable of logic, but emotion is their fundamental mental underpinning
Really? And that must be why there are more battered husbands shelters than battered wives shelters ... oh wait ...
And why most murders are committed by women ... darn, again not true ...
How about most recipients of the darwin awards being women? ... oops -
Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period (1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females
So, women are more emotional and men are idiots?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
From now on, I'm modding up any troll posts in these bs threads. This is beyond ridiculous.
The only thing my dad encouraged me to do was learn to operate heavy machinery, which to an 8 year old, was pretty cool. Other than that, I got no such encouragement to go into any other field. It was assumed I'd either work in an oil field, drive trucks or dig ditches for a living. Now of course this probably has more to do with where I live and my family history, but I still found programming (can't stand the word 'coder') at the age of 18 and a few years later I have my very first job doing it. No one pushed me, no one taught me anything. I have no degree and no real world experience. But I still did it, I signed that contract and now for the first time in my life I am an employed programmer. (code monkey more like it, but whatever)
What I do have is a deep seated love for computers and engineering. It just makes sense to me and I love doing it. Sometimes I feel like I want to climb up to my roof and rabble on about how great hash maps are or explain a complex problem that I overcame to someone who just gives me a blank stare.
You don't just 'encourage' a deep passion like that. It doesn't just come from nowhere, it has to be there to begin with. I'm not saying women aren't capable of this passion, but I am saying we shouldn't just assume that programming is something you can just pick up and do, and do it well. One thing I have seen in my few years is that there's so many people in these communities who just straight-up love what they do, and that's one of the main reasons they're so damn good at it. No matter how much encouragement these little girls get it won't matter if their heart isn't in it. That, or they'll be half in it and be terrible.It won't be their fault, but they'll just go along with it, and in the end when every other line is a bug the rest of the world will suffer.
I understand the feeling of wanting everyone else to get into what your doing, since you love doing it and it makes you happy, you want to share it. But god damn, it just doesn't matter to some people. Don't force it.
Society forced her to like ponies. And conversely, society rewarded you for spending hours with computers.
This is *so* obviously true: Don't you remember in high school, all the computer-club guys getting all the girls and being invited to all the cool parties?
Oh wait...
I thought this was true for all genders and species. I'm constantly pushing myself to be more logical and have more control over my emotions, but I'm nowhere near completely there. And some of that might also aid in social awkwardness.
For the record, in regards to the post, I didn't learn how to use Linux extensively through playing around with Gentoo or learn to program C and whatnot because my parents encouraged it. Having said that, my mother bought me an HTML book when I was young, and only after seeing that I was starting to make my own websites. Now I'm studying electrical engineering at school, and my parents never told me or suggested what I should do. It was entirely my choice driven by what I found to be my own interests. So having said that, why must we assume that women don't participate in STEM as much due to outside influences?
Anyway, someone said something about Feminist Friday... It's been what, 3 days?
So you and your brother were interested in computing, but your sister wasn't? Dude, you were literally brogrammers! It's your fault your sister wasn't interested!
Why would *anyone* encourage their child, regardless of gender, to spend a decade or more training for what is quickly becoming a minimum-wage job at best.
We should instead be encouraging kids to become investment bankers, hedge fund managers or politicians.
Actually, men do get raped far more often than women. Just clearing that one point up.
(Real rape, that is. Not this silly "new" rape concept).
And the rest of your points seem to assume that crime is inherently emotional. This is a highly questionable thesis.
And... I've never seen a man cry at work btw. ...Just saying.
You complain, but these articles get 1000 posts. Your corporate overlord is doing exactly as expected.
Google fingered bad parenting for its lack of women techies.
More like: Google disagrees with their parenting.
Just because their values as parents didn't agree with your values today, Or your general desire to have more people in computer science, in order to reduce wages, Or your desire to have more diversity among computer scientists to help you comply with arbitrary government-imposed regulations on your employee population : does not make them bad parents.
I'm sure the feminists will find a way to spin this so that its the fathers fault.
"His name was James Damore."
There's good studies that there are as many male victims of battering as there are female. Males are less likely to get hurt when battered by a female, obviously, and are less likely to report battering, so there is far less need for a 'battered male' shelter. Just remember it's not because females are any less likely to resort to violence than males are.
A great documentary about how biology (not culture) effects genders and differentiates males/boy from females/girls, so that males/boy choose masculine jobs/toys (e.g., coding... yes, its "masculine"!) while females/girls choose feminine jobs/toys (e.g., nurses... good for them!) - a great point was that the most "free" a society is, the more those gender differences will be observed: Brainwash: The Gender Equality Paradox (note: i watched it just yesterday, thanks to user "popo" posting it in the "Science Still Seen As a Male Profession" story - by the way: ENOUGH WITH ALL THE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES)
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
Although GP is clearly a troll, you are attacking his point fallaciously.
1. Even if men were by far the most emotional irrational beings on earth, that would not disprove "emotion is [females'] fundamental mental underpinning"
2. Risk taking, murder and aggression are not necessarily driven by emotion. It's a fine line, but technically those behaviors can be (and might often be) about attaining social status or power.
3. There is evidence that there should be many more 'husband shelters' and that their lack is driven largely by a culture of (implicitly) shaming 'weak men', not by a lack of battered husbands.
Let me state clearly that I do not agree with the GP. The only thing I'm trying to do here is point out some logical fallacies in the hope that this will improve the quality of the discussion.
Seems like the days of 1000-post articles on /. are well behind them.
Really? And that must be why there are more battered husbands shelters than battered wives shelters ...
60-70% of domestic violence is initiated by women. The reason we don't have "battered men" shelters is that it is socially acceptable for women to be violent, and that any man that "can't handle it" isn't a real man, and should be ashamed of himself. In the media, when women are depicted as violent toward their partners, it is almost always supposed to be funny.
It would seem to me that if you need to be "reeducating" kids about what they want, you're doing something wrong. Let's examine a few of these points in the summary.
Parents don't see their young girls as wanting to pursue computer science and don't steer them in that direction.
And... should they be? You seem to be coming at this from the perspective that it doesn't matter what the individuals want, there should be more women in tech because reasons.
There's this perception that coding and computer science is ... a 'brogrammer' culture for boys, for games, for competition.
A couple thoughts on this point. This retarded "brogrammer" media push has happened much more recently than 1984. I seriously doubt that people perceived it the same way back then. And even if they do now, you seem to gloss over the fact that it could simply be the result of this shrieking media push about the culture. In other words, it may be that this push has caused the results that you're looking at now.
There hasn't been enough emphasis on the power computing has in achieving social impact. That's what girls are interested in. They want to do things that matter.
Okay, you raging sexist. Let's take it down a notch for a second here. We'll just assume for a moment that you're right and that's what girls are interested in. How is it the case that "achieving social impact" and "things that matter" are the same? What a ridiculous conflation. First off, you assume that social impact is always good. Secondly, you assume that nothing else matters besides social impact. Could these be, I don't know, products of your bias?
Q. What explains the drop [since 1984] in women studying computer science? A. We commissioned original research that revealed it's primarily parents' encouragement, and perception and access.
And now for this point. I looked at the linked abstract and it only focuses on the individual's decision-making process without taking into account factors that the individual may use. For example, it doesn't even bother to look at hours worked. And then has the gall to call the perceptions of the field "flawed." It still blows my mind that every time this comes up, almost nobody talks about the elephant in the room: Women are smarter and value their time better than men in general.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/11/19/gifted-men-earn-more-than-gifted-women-and-they-value-time-differently-but-both-report-being-happy/
http://www.bentley.edu/centers/center-for-women-and-business/millennials-workplace
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/professional-women-time_n_1068291.html
There are more if you're curious about this phenomenon.
If we look at the numbers for women in CS, we see:
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/10/21/womencoding-d463ab944849ed2fce2df3d7d27d2f1c4daa7689.jpg?s=1400
I looked pretty deep trying to find a graph of hours worked in the sector since the mid-1980s (or earlier too), but couldn't find anything. The closest thing I could find was "services" sector hours worked, which I assume includes things like restaurants and so on. Not very useful for this purpose. If hours being worked was a part of the discussion at all, you would think that information would be a bit easier to find. But it's not, despite the fact that it's probably kind of important. If anybody can wrangle that info somehow, I'd love to see it.
That said, if we look at when the Internet hit big (circa 1995), we see a lag time before the sharp dropoff. Once the Internet became popular, 24/7 on call became a common thing and hours worked went way up. If the industry is the input and schooling is the output of that industry, you would expect something like this.
Pissing and moaning about "the culture" doesn't seem all that useful, especially because it paints women as delicate beings that need everyone around them to give them big toothy smiles and pats on the head. I don't deny that there is likely to be a perception problem (or more than one perception problem), but the question is whose perception problem(s) it is/they are.
The spokesperson at Google making these claims, is not a tech. She is a lawyer. So there is likely no connection between what she says, and what she actually believes. Anyway, since she is a lawyer, her parents clearly didn't raise her right, so she may just be projecting the failure of her own parents onto others.
Disgusting straight white cishet male shitlord here.
My parents, particularly my dad, discouraged me from pursuing any kind of work with computers. He wanted me to go into trades (blue collar, not Wall Street) like he did, specifically to follow in his footsteps and continue his one-man business as a painter. Then you've got the whole NEEERRRRD thing from the jocks in schools. In short, many males aren't particularly pushed into STEM either. They take it upon themselves, under their own agency, to pursue those goals. I wonder how so many boys who got bullied for their STEM related interests throughout their young lives managed to stick to their interests and goals. It must be the penis.
Except that women who enter STEM (to actually WORK in a field) are in the same boat. They see past any discouragement from their families/pees, and they ignore all the "I deserve a free-ride into the field" rhetoric from gender ideologues, and they put in the time and effort to become proficient with whatever it is they want to do. Granted, there's fewer of them than men ...BUT DON'T YOU EVEN TALK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT EACH GENDER MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT CAREER PROCLIVITIES.
Not hard to find on Google.
But the "more male rapes" fact should say: More men than women are raped IN THE USA. ( Globally more women are raped. )
And the reason more men are raped in the USA is because the US has an absurdly large prison population.
And that must be why there are more battered husbands shelters than battered wives shelters ... oh wait ...
Did you know most domestic violence in initiated by women? Did you know that by far lesbian relationships have more physical abuse than any other gender pairing? Abused men are just SOL - why do you need support or a shelter? Just man up! Perhaps not an argument for rationality, I'll grant you.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'm actually curious to know why that was modded down. It's a point that many have made.
Including women ... https://youtu.be/w__PJ8ymliw?t...
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Seems like the days of 1000-post articles on /. are well behind them.
What if they figure out how to combine H1-B, GamerGate, systemd, and US Presidential politics into one story?
Google presumes to know what is good for boys and girls. They presume to know better than the parents of those boys and girls. They presume to know more than the boys and girls themselves.
I'm sick of all this social engineering. I just want to barf.
What is WRONG with little girls who just want to be girls? Why does every girl have to grow up to compete with the boys for a job? What if she doesn't WANT a job?
Like Obama, Google doesn't WANT women to have the traditional occupation of "home maker". Like Obama, Google places no value on those home makers.
Arrogant SOB's.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
So, women are more emotional and men are idiots?
Yes! But it's not our fault. Evolution has hardwired male brains such that we experience a 20-30 point drop in IQ whenever we see boobs.
In fact, we don't even have to see boobs to start drooling with stupidity...just thinking about them makes us dull-witted morons - albeit to a lesser extent that when we see a fully exposed rack in all its glory.
So you see, Evolution (in its infinite wisdom) has ordained that women have boobs, and men are thus rendered idiots for the majority of their lives.
Now if you'll excuse me, I feel a strange urge to go make one of those "hey guys, watch this!!!" videos that often precede receipt of a Darwin Award.
p.s. BOOBS!
You have to be intelligent to code well, and it is a very specific form of intelligence that often comes with weakness in other areas. So is it genetics or nurture that is responsible for that particular gift/curse? I say it is genetics and that it is also probably x-linked therefore more males are affected by it in the same way they are far more likely to suffer from x-linked disorders too. Why had this not ever occurred to people before I do not know but if you can have an x-linked disability there is the same chance that you can have x-linked abilities that are exceptional. Why are autism spectrum disorders correlated with programming skills and with being male, because they are both x-linked!
For the record my oldest girl can code like a kid twice her age can, sure I encourage her because it is a form of literacy that scientists need but she will never be somebody else's "programming slave", she will use the skill as just one facet of her projects.
Can I claim credit where others have received blame from Nancy Lee? No, my kid is just very intelligent and that is as much or more her mother's fault and if you say otherwise you are being (how ironic!) sexist.
I'm actually curious to know why that was modded down. It's a point that many have made.
Because half of slashdotters lose their god damned minds as soon as the belief system that they put only shallow thought in proves to be completely irrational even at a shallow level.
"His name was James Damore."
Parents don't see their young girls as wanting to pursue computer science
OR
and don't steer them in that direction.
Which is it? I get the feeling it's that girls just aren't that interested. People like to point out that more girls were interested in the 80s but that was a very different era. Few people actually knew what was involved with "programming computers".
All of this effort reminds me of a similar misunderstanding that I came across years ago. In the 50s Lionel decided that girls didn't play with trains because they weren't "girly" enough. They were black and steel and perhaps too boyish. So the genius marketers came up with this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadsh...
http://www.lionel.com/Products...
Should you wish to see one in person go to Holiday World and check out the old toy museum.
It flopped badly. The reason was simple: girls generally don't like trains, but those who do want an authentic train. Black, steel, menacing - a real train.
Every time I see people trying hard to make computer science appeal to girls I see the same thing. It simply doesn't appeal to most girls, and to those to whom it does appeal it will have that appeal without any sugar coating.
Ultimately, the SJW crowd needs to understand that men and women - and boys and girls - are very different creatures who aren't interested in the same sorts of things. The roots of this are genetic and stem from the social order tens of thousands of years ago. Nothing's going to "fix" it, but, then again, there's nothing to fix.
Do you have ESP?
Your 95% stat, if corroborated anywhere, was not based on accurate data. Men are ashamed to come forward as victims of domestic abuse.
it's that you are still actually a Man, and transpeople should be treated for their unfortunate mental illness instead of getting pandered to?
I'm just ask saying.
Everytime I see a woman programmer with a long history and go on wikipedia, they were inevitably born with a name like David.
We're so busy trying to play the blame game that nobody has actually asked the young girls what they want to do with their lives.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
In the USA, men are just as likely to be domestically abused, but less likely to ask for help and when they ask for help, rarely given help. Pretty much every bad thing that happens to women also happens to men.
I hate to say this, but I would steer her away from computer science as well. Simply put, I saw too much sexual harassment during my undergraduate days to even harbour the thought that this is a safe environment for young women. If she's interested in coding, there are plenty of other career paths that allow for it. Most of the sciences offer a much safer environment for women, while offering the possibility to delve more deeply into computer science than many computer science programs. Ditto for mathematics.
"girls are interested in. They want to do things that matter." And boys don't? fuck you, I am tired of male hate everywhere. Be mad more we tend to just be better
(Full disclosure: I am neither female nor a parent; I'm a male who studies physics.)
There are too many links in the summary. The most relevant one is the google study, which has some interesting data and is fairly neutral. I don't think the study supports the flamebait headline, but instead paints a complicated picture. In particular, see the charts on page 5 of the study.
The story headline is in the same style as this interesting article titled "Papas, please let your babies grow up to be princesses". That article makes the case that interests in "girly" things are not mutually exclusive with interests in STEM fields. There are anecdotes in the above comments about girls being pressured by parents into STEM activities (like robotics clubs), and how it often doesn't work. Perhaps this is because some parents push STEM at the expense of "girly" things rather than simply encouraging STEM without taking a hostile stance towards "girly" things.
Just a thought.
I see you've never had to live with a vindictive woman. They can abuse the crap out of you and nothing you can do about it. Just stupid little shit. They're really good at staying on the fine line of being a bully without quite being assault. Women that I know who were in an abusive relationship just left and that was that. But men in a abusive relationship, no matter where they went in the country, the woman was great at making their life a living hell.
I've seen women call in false reports over and over and over and over. The police don't seem to care. I got to listen in on one first hand when I was voice chatting with a friend for almost 8 hours about how his wife was abusing him, when she suddenly came home, I could hear her screaming and yelling in the other room. She threatened to kill him several times, then she called the police on him, they showed up, and she immediately began crying and told the police how she was home all day and her husband just came home and started to beat her. Lucky for him, the police saw the bruises on him and she was fine. The police actually talked to us on mumble.
He wasn't so lucky the next week. she called the police, got a temporary restraining order just before the weekend, and the police kicked him out of his own house. He was homeless for the weekend, no money, no phone. Welcome to the USA.
Eventually we had to take him in to help him get back on his feet. We had her calling police on us, making false reports. Police refused to do anything about it. We were able to get a restraining order, but it took several months of constant harassment and a few death threats. Eventually what it took was my wife to call in and fake cry just like the other woman. That seems to get shit done.
Police do not respond well to yelling and they don't take being calm seriously. Wife calls police, talks to them in a pissed off tone, they think you're crazy. She calls the police and talks to them calmly, they don't think anything is really happening. Call them and be crying like your child died and you get somewhere. You need to be crying. How often do you see a man bawling his eyes out? A lot of women can do this on demand.
I know a lot of women in non profits. Generally "being interested in social change" is code for "shit pay".
Nobody steered me. The opposite is true, i had strict times for pc usage. I learned the whole programming stuff by myself, using not more than some turbo pascal book.
I steered myself, because i knew what i liked.
So, nobody should steer anyone. People just need to open opportunities. The rest will come by itself.
and use a php project as prime example m(
You literally just made up the 95% number. How does it feel to be a victim of cognitive dissonance? To know that you're so scared of the truth you twist reality to fit your biases?
And since men are net contributors to social services via taxes, and women are net recipients of social services -- women now extract from men via legislation what they used to extract via marriage. ... And women wonder why men have picked up their ball and left the game
The reason that was modded down was *probably* because gross generalizations usually don't get much bonus points for being insightful. Especially when it's also a case of blaming the victim. Just look at the history of how women were forcibly removed from the labour force after WW2. I'm sure some didn't mind, but others did. Like my mother, who really wanted to hold her job, but was automatically fired when she married. And if you factor in the fact that women get paid less for the same work, the picture is even worse.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Research indicates women use tools and weapons far more than men, which make up for their physical limitations. They also carry grudges for far longer than the male partner and will re initiate the violence at a later date.
Hmm I never thought of the social services argument. That's an interesting way of looking at it.
To ensure a statistically relevant study with a high level of confidence (95% or better) and a small margin of error (5% or less), 1000 women and 600 men were surveyed in partnership with the research firm Applied Marketing Science, in accordance with the following:
I guess diversity means different things to different people. Although, I should have gotten the hint from the first page:
Editor’s Note: Throughout this white paper we report findings ...
So both men and women operate emotionally, contrary to the post that I replied to.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It's Friday already? Shit, why am I getting ready for work.
Stop this bullshit SJW slashdot.
I'm very upset about the lack of diversity in the waste removal profession. I hope there will be programs to help and help encourage women to get into this field!
That initiated is physical as well as mental. Please link to those studies instead of a promotional site. When the woman can hit her boyfriend/husband and he calls the police and *HE* is arrested for domestic violence even when witness support the events, all the stats are suspect.
Don't be a useful tool.
I actually know something about the material at hand. The meta-studies of sources reveal that most of the data about who initiated the conflict is BS: http://www.domestic-violence.m... see page 20 (table 5) and further. It turns out that men under-report it (duh) and so you can't rely on that data.
And even your article shows that men are more likely to inflict serious injuries or use weapons.
Yeah, and I'm sure that 140 lb male is going to fare well against that 180 lb female mixed martial artist.
How about you stop being a dumbass and bring things to reality rather than making up exaggerated claims. The average man weighs about 35lbs more than the average woman.
https://www.google.com/webhp?s...
There's also the testosterone benefit.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
That is total bullcrap. Instead of repeating the big lie, you could have just searched for it and found this study
While the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are men, women are arrested in three of every 10 incidents and men in only one of 10, a study says
Men are responsible for most cases of domestic violence, but women are three times more likely to be arrested for incidents of abuse, research reveals today.
A report into domestic abuse and gender by Bristol University found that the majority of cases involved alcohol misuse, that women were more likely to use a weapon to protect themselves and that children were present in the majority of cases.
Previous research has shown that the vast majority of domestic violence perpetrators recorded by the police are men (92%) and their victims mainly female (91%), with many more repeat incidents recorded for male than female perpetrators. While the majority of incidents of domestic violence recorded by the police involve male-to-female abuse, little is known about the nature of incidents where men are recorded as victims and women as perpetrators, nor about the circumstances where both partners are recorded as perpetrators.
The new study, by professor Marianne Hester of the University of Bristol's school for policy studies and carried out on behalf of the Northern Rock Foundation, looked at 96 examples from 692 "perpetrator profiles" tracked from 2001 to 2007.
The research looked at 32 cases where women were the aggressors, 32 where men were in that role, and 32 where it was both partners.
It found that 48% of the cases were related to couples still in a relationship, 27% involved violence after separation and the rest involved couples in the process of splitting up.
Some 83% of men had at least two incidents recorded; one man had 52. In contrast, 62% of women recorded as perpetrators had only one incident recorded, and the highest number of repeat incidents for any woman was eight.
Men were significantly more likely than women to use physical violence, threats and harassment, and to damage the women's property; women were more likely to damage their own.
Men's violence tended to create a "context of fear and control", the researchers said, whereas women were more likely to use verbal abuse or some physical violence.
But women were more likely to use a weapon, although this was often to stop further violence from their partners.
All cases with seven or more incidents, most of which involved men, led to arrest
But in general, women were three times more likely to be arrested: during the six-year period, men were arrested once in every 10 incidents and women arrested once in every three.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
When women use tools and weapons, it's often to stop further violence from their partners.
Also:
Some 83% of men had at least two incidents recorded; one man had 52. In contrast, 62% of women recorded as perpetrators had only one incident recorded, and the highest number of repeat incidents for any woman was eight.
52. That guy sure held a grudge. That most men have two or more incidents, and most women one, kind of shows who's the more forgiving (and ends up returning to get beaten again), and it ain't men.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women
and
National estimates indicate that approximately 25% of women report being victims of a partner’s physical or sexual violence at some point in their life, and approximately 1.5 million women and 835 000 men are physically assaulted or raped by intimate partners in the United States annually
So, almost twice as many women in relationships are victims than men.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Why can some people not accept that other people make choices that they don't necessarily approve of? Why do we have to assume that half the software developers SHOULD be women? Why can't we simply let people make the choices that make the most sense to them and their own interests? It's insane to pretend that it's a problem when an industry has a gender disparity. As long as everyone has the ability to choose a field if he wants it, that's all that matters. After that point, you're trying to force people into making decisions that you think they ought to make. It's just another form of idiotic social engineering. Just let individuals decide what's best for themselves.
So, almost twice as many women in relationships are victims than men.
No, twice as many women report being victims. The men are shamed into silence.
Instead of repeating myself ad nauseum, just follow this link and this one :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Without some proof, that's just an anecdote with no backing. If you want to get into anecdotal evidence, I've never sexually assaulted anyone, but I have been sexually assaulted a few times. And no, I didn't report them (though the first one was reported by hospital staff after admitting me, and the medical secretary at the hospital said I should report the second one after I told her about it).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
He's just saying that making the choice to be home-maker should be just as valid for women as any other choice they could make. And he's right; it's not even close currently, as many look down on "homemaker" almost as much as they would "prostitute" or "stripper".
Why should choosing to be a home-maker be a choice any less honorable? And YES that also goes for Men, though if you think about it there's less of a societal stigma for men becoming a house maker than a woman!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While I agree that domestic violence is a bigger problem for women and am not supported the grandparent poster, I think the higher arrest rates are likely to be a function of men only reporting the more severe incidents to the police due to the humiliation/emasculation factor. If men wait to only call the police when they have visible bruises/cuts, that makes it a lot more likely that the police visit will result in an arrest than when there's no readily obvious physical evidence. This is likely a factor in why 62% of female perpetrators were only reported once as well.
This space intentionally left blank
Coding jobs can be easily outsourced to wherever the going rate for labor is cheapest.
SOME coding jobs can be, but many cannot - there is aways going to be a market for good coders that pays far above minimum wage, and is also vastly more enjoyable than most other jobs.
At the very least we should not steer people away from a career than can be very enjoyable, even if you are right about pay dropping (which I see no sign of for good coders)...
I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't push girls into programming exactly but we should present appealing options for them to learn (like all girl coding camps), just for the sake of more women making a more informed choice as to what to study in college.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And sexual violence on women (and men) is vastly under-reported. We have to work with the hard data we've got. And that data shows that there's way too much violence, period.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
We have men's shelters here, and nice big posters on the walls in the waiting rooms of the local health centers advertising them. Women's shelters get pamphlet space. This is because unlike women, men don't know there are domestic violence shelters catering to their needs so there's a push to inform the public.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Aehm, you did it to yourself?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Really? And that must be why there are more battered husbands shelters than battered wives shelters ... oh wait ...
Yeah, because when a woman beats a man, the guy gets told to "Man the fuck up." I had an run with a physically abusive woman. The one time she called the cops on me for "beating her up" (read: restraining her from harming me any further), the cops showed up, saw she didn't have a single mark on her and I was covered in blood. They STILL treated me like I was the abuser in the situation when they showed up.
Im going to reply to you again, but man, I wish I could find the study that shows that queer women in particular are actually more likely to be the victims of rape by another queer women (stat was something like 1 in 3, vs. 1 in 5 for male raping females)
If you can find it, I'd be interested in reading it :-) I'm not an SJW, so I can change my mind when presented with facts.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
That fence post won't move itself. Nobody implied it was okay.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
And even your article shows that men are more likely to inflict serious injuries or use weapons.
You must be a weightlifter. Those goalposts are heavy and difficult to move. I have no dog in the fight but I do see a lack of logic. 15 yard penalty and a loss of the down.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I am sorry you had to go through that and I wish the world were a better place. I haven't experienced either, I have walked out on a woman who was threatening violence. I paid the police to escort me back to retrieve my belongings. I am not criticizing when I say that it may have been better for you (and potential future victims) if you had reported it. Your choices are your own and I am in no position to judge. Thus the statement is my own thoughts as to what I would suggest if asked. I don't call the cops when there are issues. I did bring one with me to ensure I was not blamed for anything when I retrieved my belongings but I had to pay his salary to get him to do so. It took a half hour but they demand a full hour minimal so it was $35, nothing major.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I had replied to comment that someone had linked to it on Reddit, but Im on a work PC and reddit is blocked. Thank god they leave /. open.
What I find really funny is that I'm pretty hardcore anti-SJW (with the recent GamerGate happenings) even though I would have been considered one until recently. I did work with the GSA when time would permit (new job doesn't allow me to), and I had started two GSA chapters at my old HS, and was active at the one at my community college. Of course, when a group of people start calling you a "Cisgender, heteronormative, misogynistic white man of privilege" for no reason other than who you associate with, you start to get a bad taste in your mouth.
Ill post the study when I can find it, it was quite the interesting read. I had no idea it was a problem.
So you don't have anything to counter? Ok.
Seriously? Have you ever tried to have a discussion with a (third-wave intersectional) feminist? First they yell mansplaining, then they yell derailing, then they yell for the authorities, and if that doesn't work they cut off communication.
I guess in your trailer park life is different? Just how bad was that public beat down from that mother to be princess barbie twelve year old?
... because that won't go anywhere and we can drop the whole subject.
People enter the careers they want to enter and they don't enter the careers they don't.
Why do you even want women in tech? I see no outcry for women to enter industrial mining or the lumber industry...
Here someone will say "but those require physical strength"... not really. Mining is increasingly being done with robots or very large machines. No one in the first world is going into a mine shaft with a pickaxe to chip rock.
And even if they were, if feminists are pushing women to be marines and special forces people then clearly the physical aspect is not something that daunts them in all cases.
And as to lumber... again, there are plenty of jobs using big machines that don't take any strength to use really.
So why this insistence on coding for women when they clearly aren't interested in it?
Listen, a lot of coding involves sitting alone and explaining things to a computer in extreme technical detail. There is very little socialization in it. And the computer isn't going to appreciate your social skills any more than your semi autistic coworkers. You're going to sit there... alone... arguing with a computer. And whether you're good or bad is going to be determined on little more than how logical and rational you are. I'm not saying women aren't logical or rational... but they tend to get burned out if that is how they have to think and operate 100 percent of the time. Some women can handle that without a problem. And some women are better at it then most men.
But most women are not. And since we're talking about statistics, it is unlikely you're ever going to get real parity here.
Here is what we need... "equal opportunity"... be willing to hire women or men with the same qualifications. But do not favor either. And don't worry about whether your office is 100 percent one gender or the other. It doesn't matter. What matters is IF you would be just as happy to hire either gender if they have the right skills.
Take the special forces issue above... if I were a general, I'd be just as happy to allow a given woman into the special forces IF she passed the same tests the men passed. If she does... she's in. And she'll there after have to keep passing the same tests the men pass.
Basically, you need to be gender blind. You judge things on an individual by individual basis and put the mission first.
If I'm running a coding outfit, then my issue is not your vagina or penis. My issue is the code. If you can code and you don't cause problems for my organization, then welcome to the team.
If you either suck at coding or you're a problem maker... then fuck off. I don't need you screwing up my operation.
End of issue.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If you can find it, I'd be interested in reading it :-) I'm not an SJW, so I can change my mind when presented with facts.
Hell I forgot about that study - quite recent too - It's in the CDC site somewhere (I trust you'll find it if you look :-) Basically as a woman your highest risk of domestic violence is *from* SO woman, not SO man. If you're a man your highest risk of domestic violence is *from* SO woman, not SO man.
In short, if you're a female you're safest living with a man; if you're a man you're safest living with a man too. If you're living with a woman your odds of getting seriously hurt and/or raped doubles (yes, literally doubles) over those that result from living with a man.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
males/boy choose masculine jobs/toys (e.g., coding... yes, its "masculine"!) while females/girls choose feminine jobs/toys (e.g., nurses... good for them!)
This is just an anecdote (and thus worthless as data), but I have a family friend -- a female -- who earned a B.S. in chemical engineering. Dad was an engineer, and I think mom was a scientist, so she was highly encouraged (well, pressured) to go in a STEM direction. And she did it, she managed to pass all the math courses and crunch all the equations, earned her degree. And as a newly-minted female Chemical Engineer, I"m guessing a lot of companies were interested in hiring her, as they have been making intense efforts to fix the gender imbalance in their workforces.
Guess what happened next? She then proceeded to go back to Nursing School, and has since graduated and now does clinical nursing work. Basically, she paid four years of hard study and tuition to make other people feel good about make the "right" decisions for someone else's life, and only after satisfying them did she get to live her own life doing what she wanted to do.
The year is 2015... calling women victims is a gross generalization. Men and women are each thoroughly capable of being supreme assholes. Women get paid less on average for many reasons. Applying some common generalizations which contribute :
1) Women tend to want to be rewarded and recognized for their achievements and hard work.
2) Men typically will make moving a pencil look like a 4 person task they did all by themselves.
3) Women do their jobs without advertising to the universe they did.
4) Men place billboard advertisements on their bosses street to brag that they did what they were being paid to do and it's time for a bonus.
5) Women are far less likely to counter-offer a job offer than a man.
6) Women will refuse on principle to sell their souls to get a raise. Men will beg and grovel if they think it will work.
7) Women will wait for raises, men will calculate the opportune moment to ask for one and spring it.
It's not a mans world because of misogyny. Men are paid more because daddy taught us the principles don't mean shit if they inhibit putting food on the table. There is only one reason why women don't get paid the same as men. :
Asshole bosses who love the power of being in charge of your life. It seems the only way of expressing their manly dominance is to try and put their penis to work. Men can joke with other men about blow jobs... with a woman, it's harassment. So how can that loser express his dominance and feel the power without crossing lines? Remember, there's a good chance he had to yield to the supreme manliness of someone else to get there.
Women want to have babies.
Men want to have sex.
If all things go right, women get a man who not only does the 5-minute job but also is a provider.
If all goes well for the man, he gets good sex regularly.
That's a broad simplification, but that's what it boils down to on an evolutionary scale.
It is this that determines our behaviour on a broad range, at least with the majority which are heterosexuals.
I see it every weekend when I go out Tango dancing - saw again and everywhere just this pentecost weekend on a Tango retreat in fact. Career power women who earn thrice my paygrade dressing up all girly-like and melting away in those awesome dance-teachers arms (meh!) or in mine (huzaaa!) when the best where taken. Me, an insecure geek/nerd with social issues going all manly and cool and feeling like a god, embracing women so beautyful you wouldn't believe it. It's a formalised environment where I can't go too wrong if I follow the rules.
Don't get me wrong, a huge part of the way things are is a grown culture that could use some fixing, but the essence is pretty much evolutionary biology at work. I wouldn't say it's all that bad and I wouldn't say it's a disaster if my daughter doesn't go into tech.
I would love to see it, but I won't force her.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I like socialism. I pay 49.6% federal income tax in a socialist country on about $250,000 U.S. and if someone needs some, they get some and the 24 hour gas stations don't have locks on doors or fancy windows to protect the clerk. We have the highest standard of living in the world. We also always score way above the US in every category except military spending. We even recently learned that 70% of the population is atheist or agnostic.
I'm guessing you live where people consider it a status symbol to live where there are security gates and your housemaid's children are dressed in rags and in school with torn up 20 year old books.
The U.S. is the only socialist country in the world hellbent on proving it doesn't work... so much so, they'll make their own people suffer to prove it. The civilized countries attempt to manage cost control, but no one would ever consider medical care or education as optional. What kind of a moron would ever want to pay 50 years of taxes for supporting a sick guy who can't work instead of paying his doctors bill and getting his ass back to the work. Also what kind of an idiot would want to retire in a country full of fast food clerks draining the economy when you could instead have educated people feeding into the social security system?
2. Risk taking, murder and aggression are not necessarily driven by emotion. It's a fine line, but technically those behaviors can be (and might often be) about attaining social status or power.
And what is the desire for social status and power, if not emotional?
3. There is evidence that there should be many more 'husband shelters' and that their lack is driven largely by a culture of (implicitly) shaming 'weak men', not by a lack of battered husbands.
How is that not an example of emotion trumping rationality? Shame is precisely an emotion.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I have no idea on the background and if it is reasonable, but:
for no reason other than who you associate
who you associate with is part of who you are and it's entirely reasonable to judge someone by who they keep as friends. If a person for example spent a lot of time hanging with Neo-Nazis or Klansmen, you can be I'm going to make judgements based on thatn.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well slashdot, fuck you. I do not support sexist outlets.
And what is the desire for social status and power, if not emotional?
Rational.
How is that not an example of emotion trumping rationality? Shame is precisely an emotion.
1. That wasn't the point. I was pointing out the fallacious reasoning.
2. It is rational to not want to be ostracized by society as being a weak man. But there is a fine line here as well. A lot of our emotional behavior has a basis in rationality. You could say that if someone does (or doesn't do) something out of shame, but doesn't think about the rational part of doing so, it is purely driven by emotion. To return to your question: only when emotion leads someone to doing something that they wouldn't have done had they rationally looked at it does it become a problem.
I'm not doing this again with you. You consistently ignore my points and just change the subject.
Goodbye.
Men commit murder at a much higher rate than women. Ergo all men are murderers. Amirite? Point: you shouldn't take aggregate trends and pretend that they apply to all members of a group.
I've attempted to teach my elementary school daughter about computers. I understand that she is still young, but I would like to think that there would be a chance that she might be interested in programming or something related to computers. I tried to start teaching he some things at a young age in order to see if there was any chance of her being interested in computers before being influenced by society. So far, she only wants to know enough about a computer to open Netflix to watch her cartoons (usually My Little Ponies). She has no interest in learning anything else about a computer. So far, I don't think that my daughter's lack of interest in computer is due to lack of encouragement, her parents, or society. I think there are real gender differences that a minority of people are trying to ignore and are causing a problem for the younger generation. There is nothing wrong with mutual respect between genders, but I think it's disrespectful to keep attempting to force certain gender roles upon the opposite gender. If a little girl wants to play with ponies and dolls, I think it's disrespectful to try to force her to do otherwise just to fulfill someone else's agenda of blurring the line between gender roles.
And that must be why there are more battered husbands shelters than battered wives shelters
Nah, that's just because feminists threaten violence and murder the dogs of people who try to open them
Thanks. The problem is that when either side threatens, the other side usually forgets that the smart option is to walk away. Of course, the same is true for the person making the threats - if it's that bad that you feel you have to make threats, it's time to walk away.
People are so anxious to try to "fix" things, they perceive the emotional stakes as being so high, that they don't really see it as an outsider would (see "distorted thinking").
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I can understand distorted thinking and it is an unfortunate (or maybe not) human trait. I have tried so hard to be logical in my dealings that I don't get attached and fear I have missed out on many warm experiences because of this. Yet, when I think back, I have been highly illogical. It is quite a dilemma. The pragmatism, stoic even, traits of my belief system do not help, I am a Buddhist which does not help much.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Took a while to godwin this one, didn't it? :-) If I spend time with christians, that doesn't make me a christian. Same with muslims. Same with jews. Same with the french. Same with people of colour. Same with gays. Same with lesbians. Same with the cisgendered.
Do you believe that all the Irish who voted for same-sex marriage are gay or lesbian?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Why didn't she go into STEM? Does she regret that decision? Would her life have been better if she had dropped all this diversity nonsense and pursued a career in programming instead? Or is this not really about the girls and women, but rather about benefits to the company? Note that I actually believe there is a practical benefit to the company from genuine diversity.
Whether the stats are accurate or not shouldn't be the issue. I totally get why they don't report it to police, because there's still a lot of denial that it's even possible, and "excuse-making" that blames the victim, same as "were you dressed provocatively" for other rape victims.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Your best bet is to leave, at least temporarily. It takes 2 to fight, and your presence is enabling her to continue to play the victim at your expense. Your continued presence is, in fact, ruining her life (and yours) because just your presence enables her to keep playing the "you gave me cancer" card, knowing that you'll try to "sooth things out". When you do that, you're rewarding her behaviour.
It's said that absence makes the heart grow fonder - it also gives both sides time to decompress instead of being caught up in the day-to-day drama.
On the question of morals, the right thing to do is to break the cycle. It may help her, and it will definitely help you. Right now she has no incentive to seek how she may be part of the problem or to get help. We have short-term mens shelters here - maybe you have one in your area?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Sure they do.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
How is pointing out that testosterone has a very heavy influence on how men react changing the subject - which was the claim that women act emotionally, as if men don't just as much, if not more?
One really good example:
while divorce and separation are linked to suicide risk in both sexes, divorced/separated men seem particularly vulnerable to suicidal “ideation” (thoughts and planning) and to suicide itself
That's a highly emotional response, and it's weighted more towards men than women.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Calgary was, until the last provincial election, full-on right-wing conservative, same as the feds are. We have shelters for men who are victims of abuse in Quebec, so I don't see why they report that "the only shelter for abused men has closed."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Distorted thinking (or cognitive distortion) is something we all do. It's really bad when you fall victim to trying to apply logic to a situation that is not based (or resolvable) by logic. The therapist who helped me deal with PTSD made a good point - you can't understand crazy unless you're crazy yourself. Sometimes there's just no logical understanding for a situation, and that's okay.
The belief that if you try enough you can fix something is one example. And when you fail, you end up feeling guilty for not trying hard enough. When you realize that you can't "fix" someone else (women are stereotypically portrayed as being guilty of this) that takes a lot of pressure off, because instead of trying to fix them, you can do something more constructive, such as trying to accept the reality of it and modify your actions accordingly.
Feelings are feelings. I don't know why I like ice cream, but I do. I can give reasons for it, but that's just post hoc rationalization. My liking ice cream wasn't a rational decision - I just like it.
You know that old saying - "know thyself"? Part of that is knowing it's okay to be flawed, to make decisions based on emotion and feelings - after all, if you can accept it in others, you should be able to accept it in yourself. As Robo-Cop said, "Patience, Lewis. We're only human."
All the best for both of you.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"fathers encourage young women to study CS more than mothers"
In other words, *women* don't want to be programmers. But we already knew that because there is no grand conspiracy keeping them out of the field. The reason this is a "problem" is because there's money on the table. Nobody cares that garbage collectors are almost entirely men, or that daycare providers are almost entirely women. Nobody is shocked that most men would -- quite literally -- rather pick up other people's dirty diapers than deal with children all day, or vice versa. It's not a crisis that men don't want to go shoe shopping. But somehow it's a crisis that women don't want to stare at screens making sure implementations conform to interfaces and creating custom data structures.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
2. It is rational to not want to be ostracized by society as being a weak man. But there is a fine line here as well. A lot of our emotional behavior has a basis in rationality. You could say that if someone does (or doesn't do) something out of shame, but doesn't think about the rational part of doing so, it is purely driven by emotion. To return to your question: only when emotion leads someone to doing something that they wouldn't have done had they rationally looked at it does it become a problem.
Except that caring whether you're ostracised by a particular group of people (there are more than enough in society that don't care about such things) is emotional. Frankly our entire behaviour is emotion driven because without that there isn't any rationale for doing anything at all except, possibly, minimizing pain.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So? You didn't address my point, you instead made up a tangential point and thoroughly rebutted it. Well done, you sure showed that straw man who was boss!
If you spend time hanging with Neo Nazis, then you're of questionable character.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
An interesting programme I watched was "Horizon: Is Your Brain Male or Female?". The title is a bit crap but some of the experiments were interesting, like the observation that Barbary macaques seemed to be drawn to toys along gender lines. The boys going for the cars while the female macaques preferring the dolls.
The most interesting experiment, I thought, was when they observed how adults treated babies. For instance they tended to treat the boys as more robust pushing them more in physical environments while being gentler with the girls. They dressed up the babies as boys or girls so the same child was treated differently when presented as a different gender.
I guess the general outcome was that it is a bit of both nurture and nature, as pretty much any complex thing is. My thought is that culture is the overriding factor, different cultures or times can choose whether a profession like nursing is "for" men or women.
The most dangerous drug
Conversely, she met a horse. They're pretty cool animals. If I could make a decent living with a horse, I'd probably do that instead of programming.
Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
I'm not sure why this claim is revolutionary. Parents clearly set the basis for what children are interested in.
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
Except that caring whether you're ostracised by a particular group of people (there are more than enough in society that don't care about such things) is emotional.
The antithesis of rational is irrational. If you wish to disprove my point, you need to prove that it is irrational to care about being ostracized for being a weak man.
Hiding what is perceived as weakness is generally a very wise and rational strategy. Ask any leader of anything anywhere.
You claimed that who you associate with is part of who you are. I showed that is not true.
Your introduction of Neo-Nazis is irrelevant to the facts. You're the one who made up a tangential argument that had nothing to do with the argument at hand.
However, I'll answer you stupid question - if I were a researcher, social worker, documentary maker, day-care worker, teacher, etc., and that required that I work among neo-nazis, sure I would. Would you deny care of or education to a child because their parents are idiots? Would you refuse to meet the parents to discuss any issues?
To do otherwise would just be to perpetuate the ignorance - but you seem to be just fine with that.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Then you should move to Poutineville, Kanuckistan. Or you should check with the men's homeless shelters - they sometimes either provide this service as an adjunct to their main service, or they can make a referral.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You claimed that who you associate with is part of who you are. I showed that is not true.
No the only thing you showed was not true was the stupid claim of "hanging round with X makes you an X" for X in {christian, muslim, jewish, straight, gay, ...}
Which is marvellous, but besides any point because I never said that.
Seriously learn to read.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Hiding what is perceived as weakness is generally a very wise and rational strategy. Ask any leader of anything anywhere.
You are implicitly assuming that being a leader is the best choice. That's an emotional call, not a rational one.
The thing is: there is no point in the universe. It doesn't exist for a reason, it just exists. There is no rational underlying basis for doing anything at all.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Men make more money than women, so it would be reasonable to expect them to pay more taxes. One reason women tend to earn less is that they are more involved in bearing and raising children, which is essential and mostly unpaid work.
As far as social services, which ones are you referring to? I'd suspect that a lot of that is welfare for single mothers, and there's reasons for that. Typically, the father is a lot more likely to abandon the child than the mother is, and it's hard to earn a lot of money as a single mother with a young child.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That everyone and their dogs seems to be worrying about this IS news for nerds, especially as it may affect the current/future careers of many IT nerds. I don't see slashdot saying "women should be coders", I see "group A says there aren't enough women coders [because of culture/etc]" and "group B says it's actually because they're not raised with an interest in coding"
Well, that's pretty much escalating it to a point where all discussion becomes useless. I say that is pretty weak.
I'm going to do two things here:
1. I am going to respond to the ontopic part of your attack.
2. I am going to go offtopic, see your weak nihilism and raise you strong nihilism.
1:
Rational means: 'making the optimal decision to further your goals.' The only thing I needed to prove was that there could be reasoning behind not wanting to be seen as weak. I went a little further and stated that there often is reasoning behind not wanting to be seen as weak. I repeat: rational conclusions are not universal; they depend on your goals. What is rational for one, may not be rational for another.
2:
I agree, there is no goal in the universe. I'd state it even stronger: there can ultimately be no ultimate goal of the universe (this particular universe may have an ultimate goal if it is nested in another universe, but that is sort of cheating with the word universe). The word goal is dependent on time and on a ranking of configurations of the universe. Coming closer to your goal means that the configuration of universe has changed in such a way that it is more likely that the set of configurations that define your goal will occur. Attaining your goal means being in the set of configurations that define that goal.
If all configurations exist 'simultaneously' (i.e., time is just another dimension), then the whole notion of 'moving to another configuration' is nonsensical. There can be no goal if there is no passing time.
Even if the universe is really only in one state at a time, there is no absolute reason to value one configuration over another. Reasons can emerge within the universe, but not outside of it. I.e.: all species have a basis to rank certain configurations above others (the dinosaurs might have certain preferences concerning asteroids), but without this emergent value system, there needs to be an inherent value system that defines which configurations of the universe are more desirable than others. The universe doesn't work that way: it has no concept of values. It is as you said: it just exists; it just happens. There are configurations that are statistically more likely and in that sense one could argue that the universe 'favors' those, but that is a far cry from our intuition of a 'goal' (heat death doesn't seem that interesting).
Finally: if there happened to be an ultimate goal, what would we do after attaining it? Suppose the ultimate goal of the universe is pushing a big red button in some crevice on Mars and we manage to push it. Then what?
In more technical terms: the set of configurations that would define an ultimate goal is necessarily relatively small and ranked above all other configurations. The only option when reaching it would be to 'roam' indefinitely in that limited set of configurations (although admittedly, it can still be an infinite set).
OK, I think you misunderstand: I'm not being nihilist. It's only nihilist if you're driven by literally nothing but logic because there is no logical point to anything. We're not nihilist though, because we have emotions driving us. I'm fine with that.
I'm also not arguing that rationality doesn't exist. That would be perverse.
Secondly, I think it's a stretch to say that I disagree that actions are rational if they further the goal. If the goal is not rational, then the actions are only marginally rational at best. If, for example I was driven to spend the rest of my life wandering round dressed as a giant chicken, well, it would a stretch to call the endavour logical.
The thing is, I believe as the expression goes "you can do as you will, but you cannot will as you will". In other words the goals you have selected have no basis in logic. So I agree that you can act logical to achieve goals, but you're still acting logically to do an ultimate illogical thing.
Anyway, in my mind people are irrationally tied to a place and a particular group of people. They'd rather pretend to be something they're not than go and find a group of people who accept them as they are. Personally, I find that illogical, because if your goal is maximising happiness, then there's a much better local maximum not far grom the current local maximum.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So Google NISVS: An Overview of 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. It states that Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalkin by an intimate partner for women is 44% is lesbian relationships, 61% in bisexual, and 35% in heterosexual.
You're in the US. You claim there are no homeless shelters for men within 2,000 miles. That's VERY hard to believe. Even a quick look at google maps shows that every point in the continental US is within 2,000 miles of a homeless shelter.
There's a bunch of them in Montreal, some for men, some for women, some for teens, even for LGBT.
Doing a quick search, there are homeless shelters in every Canadian province, and every state that I looked at at random.
The rest of your post is as fact-free. You're being paranoid.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value." (wikipedia)
The thing is: there is no point in the universe. It doesn't exist for a reason, it just exists. There is no rational underlying basis for doing anything at all.
I'm not being nihilist.
You are.
If the goal is not rational, then the actions are only marginally rational at best. If, for example I was driven to spend the rest of my life wandering round dressed as a giant chicken, well, it would a stretch to call the endavour logical.
If that was your goal, then yes, working towards that would be rational.
From wikipedia:
"Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and making several key assumptions. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which benefitting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated."
Given that there is (by your own admittance) no basis to call one goal more valid than another, a goal in itself cannot be irrational unless it conflicts with other goals pursued simultaneously.
Finally: I take it that you agree on the original point that caring about whether you are seen as weak by your peers can be (and often is) rational, given your silence on the topic.
Rationally chasing an irrational goal is not rational behaviour.
Given that there is (by your own admittance) no basis to call one goal more valid than another, a goal in itself cannot be irrational unless it conflicts with other goals pursued simultaneously.
But you cannot claim the goals are *rational* either.
Finally: I take it that you agree on the original point that caring about whether you are seen as weak by your peers can be (and often is) rational, given your silence on the topic.
Nope, I think it's silly. If you can't be yourself around your peers, you could find new peers.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Rationally chasing an irrational goal is not rational behaviour.
You can't just say nuh-uh and be done with it. Especially after I've already shown that what you just wrote is incorrect by definition. We could do the "but I don't define it that way"-dance, but that will lead us nowhere worth being.
But you cannot claim the goals are *rational* either.
I never did. Quite the opposite in fact. No goals are inherently rational or irrational. They can only be rational or irrational relative to some other or higher goal (if your ultimate goal is to die of starvation next week, it is irrational to have a goal of eating a healthy dinner every day for the coming week). Considering I said that I think there is no ultimate goal and there cannot be one, it necessarily means that there is ultimately nothing to which any goal can be relative to. And thus no goal can absolutely be rational or irrational.
Nope, I think it's silly. If you can't be yourself around your peers, you could find new peers.
Your opinion is irrelevant. Your arguments may be relevant. In any case, you ignored my points on this topic and I will do so for yours (and I'm being generous here in using the plural and calling them 'points') until you properly address mine.
Especially after I've already shown that what you just wrote is incorrect by definition.
Huh? An irrational goal is irrational by definition because it's defined as an irrational one.
No goals are inherently rational or irrational.
Now that I disagree with. Goals are the result of emotion which is pretty much the epitome of irrationality.
In any case, you ignored my points on this topic
I thought I addressed them in a way you didn't like. If you count that as ignoring, then OK.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Huh? An irrational goal is irrational by definition because it's defined as an irrational one.
Which was not under contention. The chasing of an irrational goal is rational, whether or not the goal is irrational. Which was what that was about.
Now that I disagree with. Goals are the result of emotion which is pretty much the epitome of irrationality.
Don't be silly. You haven't even tried to read or in the slightest address the argumentation for my claim (which you are disagreeing with).
Which is exactly what I meant by 'ignoring my points'.
"I disagree with this. This is my opinion." is not an acceptable reply to a set of arguments. You can't just pretend they were never presented. You can't just ignore them.
Well, technically you can, but it makes for a terrible, terrible discussion. If your next reply doesn't show you making an effort, I am done here.
Which was not under contention. The chasing of an irrational goal is rational, whether or not the goal is irrational. Which was what that was about.
I disagree: if your goal is irrational then no matter how rationally you go about pursuing it you are still acting irrationally.
Which is exactly what I meant by 'ignoring my points'.
I think we're talking at cross purposes. Would you mind telling me precisely which point you feel I haven't addressed and I'll attempt to address it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
And it's worth a repost here
-Women aren't in tech because the STEM world is misogynistic
-I'll bet you are a women's studies major
-Yes I am, what has that got to do with it?
-Why didn't you study STEM?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
With that comment, I'd think you'd want to encourage women into STEM fields so they make more money. Maybe they would need less from social services if they had more earning power. Besides being motivated by competition vs cooperation, men and women learn differently, and I can't help but wonder if a different approach might encourage them more, especially if it was done earlier. The forcing of girls into traditional American gender roles starts with the first time someone puts her in a pink outfit. Then come the dolls and the kitchen sets and the praise for being pretty vs being say, smart or athletic. Being told to be demure and "ladylike" (I so hate that word). It happens with boys too. Blue outfits, praise for being tough, conflating manhood with physical prowess. By the time kids hit ten, a whole lot of them have been socialized to fit into narrow roles and it's too late to get them interested in topics outside traditional roles. I'm not saying every parent does this. If you look at what toys are for sale and what kids choose for college majors, you can get a good idea.
The report of the lack of men's shelters in Canada is totally inaccurate. Just because you want to make a living running a shelter of any kind doesn't mean you're going to get government funding. There are plenty of shelters for men who are homeless for whatever reason.
Here you can walk into the local CLSC and get a referral to a shelter for abused men.
Unfortunately, to many SJWs seem to think that feminism isn't just about equality. They're just the latest iteration of that transphobic nutbar Germaine Greer. Bra-burning was never the way to achieve equality, just sensationalist attention-grabbing that took away from the real issues, same as SJWs today are more of a distraction than they're worth.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.