Yes, it is, in addition to prejudice and stereotyping.
there is one other vital component: harm.
There is no dictionary that agrees with you on this point. I'm going to side with merriam-webster and oxford on this one, as would most people. There is no dictionary in the world that defines harm as a component of sexism.
It's like having a girl's bathroom and a boy's bathroom. The girl's bathroom might even have more facilities (tampon machines/disposal). It's not sexist because it doesn't disadvantage either gender, it's simply discriminating for a perfectly legitimate reason.
It's not discrimination, and there is no dictionary that agrees with your use of this word either. Providing facilities for physical differences has never been regarded as discrimination, as there is no exclusion going on.
Unless someone can show that this school will somehow harm boys then it isn't sexist.
Only if one uses your definition of "sexist". The rest of us use the the dictionary definitions. Redefining words to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument is broken.
I cannot stress this enough: Redefining the word sexism to a meaning not found in any dictionary just to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument is broken!
It would be easier, at this point, for you to change your argument than to ask every dictionary in the world to change the meaning of the word sexism.
Culture systematically shapes our perception of damned near everything - hell, you probably find the though of shitting in the street or eating human flesh disgusting - you think there's anything *natural* about either of those taboos? Hardly. The onus of evidence lies on you to show that it does not.
Ah. The creationist argument - prove a negative. Well Done!
Yes. It's sexist because women are discouraged from pursuing it.
Extraordinary claim. Citation needed.
It's sexist because women are ostracised if they do.
Another extraordinary claim. Another citation needed.
If I see a woman with a particularly impressive qualification, I would hire her over a man with the same qualification, because I know that the woman had to be better than the man to get it.
You do realise that you are talking about a generation that has been brought up with the mentality of "You can do whatever you want to"? The young women who are choosing not to go into $FIELD have been told their entire lives that they can do whatever they want to. Society has been pushing the gurl powah shlock since the 80's.
This misconception gets thrown around a lot. "Life is easier when you're a man"... depends on what you mean by "easier". Life is certainly more privileged if you're a woman... like, for example:
So, other than living shorter, unhealthier lives, facing more violence, possessing less education while working more hours at 13 times the risk of death, *and* financially hurting more than women after a divorce, men are more privileged than women? Western women are objectively the most well-off demographic in human history. Subjectively, well, that's another story - opinions in the stead of facts don't mean anything anyway and it's pointless to debate subjective statements.
Oh, and the rape-rate for college age women? Roughly 7 per 1000, not 1 in 5 or 1 in 4. So much for "rape-culture"...
PS - I feel like I should post this in response to all the "male-privilege" comments, although I'm sure you'll (sooner or later) once again post about how male-privilege blah blah blah.... so I'm pretty sure I'll get another opportunity to post this.
I read AC upthread - linky - and tend to broadly agree with that sentiment. IOW, you have absolutely nothing to worry about as the force that is waging the PR-war is not going to let any other demographic be victims. They've cornered that market in such a way that no policy-maker will dare make a policy that enrages them - you will not be getting minority teachers because the PR army involved won't allow it because according to their ideology only they are victims.
There's a chance that the bank wouldn't be able to redeem the note, because of fractional reserve banking.
Besides other reasons for discounting notes at purchase time, like fake notes, or loss, or the bank being very far away.
That's trusting that the bank has your gold/commodity. Like the bitcoin supporters keep saying - mtgox is not bitcoin and bitcoin is not mtgox. In the same way, the bank is not gold and gold is not the bank. A currency based on gold is one based on MIStrust, because you don't trust the issuers bill and insist that their bill is backed by gold.
Currencies backed ultimately by gold by some bank are most definitely NOT backed by "trust". If you trusted them you wouldn't need the gold. Once again, I reiterate - since the invention of coinage no currency has existed that is based on trust. Not a single one. I fail to see why BTC, based soley on trust, will succeed. Even as an experiment, all it has shown thus far is that we have been inadequately teaching economics.
Since the invention of coinage there has never ever, not even once, been a currency based on trust.
This is absolutely not the case.
As little as 200 years ago, there were many competing currencies, typically backed in gold. There was even merchant's associations and regular publications on how much you should discount certain bank's currency because the redeeming bank was far away, or not as trustworthy. Wikipedia has a whole catalog of these notes.
These are all bills/scrips backed by banks/companies, further backed by gold... how do you figure they were based on trust? Seems to me that a currency based on gold is not based on trust.
Fiat money is self referential too. You only accept it as a form of payment, because you know others will accept it from you.
Not self-referential at all - I accept it as a form of payment because I can pay taxes with it. I "know" others will accept it for settlement of a debt because if they refuse they forfeit the debt.
Fiat money also has no real value. Just like bitcoin it is based on trust, not on authority or enforcement.
It has value in its jurisdiction. Try refusing to accept settlement of a debt in your local currency and see what happens.
Fiat currency is supported by a government
Didn't work well for Zimbabwe, or Weimar republic.
Neither did elections. Doesn't mean that they are a bad idea.
Ultimately, fiat currency is simply based on trust
Nope. Bitcoin supporters frequently make the mistake that all something needs to be a currency is trust. This is not true. It needs a sovereign government backed by men with guns who will force you to pay your bills only in that currency or face punishment. That is what ultimately makes a currency. Not trust. Since the invention of coinage there has never ever, not even once, been a currency based on trust.
Why should someone with less qualifications make more than me just by having a huge ego and demanding more money?
What makes you think the better negotiator has a bigger ego than you? You've spent this entire thread being smug that you are so modest that you *don't* negotiate.... that you've now convinced all readers that you are simply a small person in a large ego. Seriously - go back and read every one of your posts - you repeatedly insult people who have good negotiating skills while you make sure that we all know how modest you are by *telling* *us* *repeatedly* how modest you are.
All Ellen Pao is doing here is guaranteeing overpayment for mediocre workers. Think about it. To get the best talent she'll have to pay top dollar. But that doesn't guarantee everyone hired is top talent.
If you read the summary carefully, they are not stating a salary value for a job in advance of making a offer to someone.
They are interviewing and then making an offer they feel is appropriate for that interviewee, that means that they can still adjust the offer based on the person in front of them (and who is to say the hiring managers don't offer less to women?). All thats changed is that the offer is set in stone, the interviewee either takes it or leaves it.
This scheme will live or die on how well they predict the job market for the roles they are hiring for but I don't see how it really addresses the stated goal of equalizing pay ranges between genders.
This scheme doesn't work too well anyway - I won't go for the interview without an upfront statement wrt the salary. I don't think I've ever gone for an interview which did not have a salary range stated upfront. As recently as Monday I've told a slave-trader that the job-spec he sent me neglected to mention a salary range. He came back with "They offer competitive market rates" and I replied with "I don't interview for people who cannot afford me". I will not be going on any interview soon (mostly 'cos I'm happy where I am, but regardless).
It's actually quite simple - if they cannot afford me then they should waste my time. If I'm unable to adjust my expectations downwards then I won't waste theirs. There is no "Well, we'll offer you competitive market rates for your skills after we interview you," there is only "don't enter the fitting room if you can't afford to buy!"
You obviously don't know how to negotiate. Being a good negotiator is about making the person you negotiate with believe that what you're selling is worth more than its true value. In this case, it's about making your employer believe you're more valuable than you truly are.
That's not negotiation, that's misrepresentation. There is no dictionary I am aware of nor common colloquial usage that means "misrepresent the value".
No wonder you feel the way you do about this - if you knew and used "negotiation" the way the dictionary defines it then you wouldn't make the statements you do, like "rewarding someone for useless skills".
Sounds like an exploitative company. I prefer to get my worth up front and not rely on a popularity contest sometime later; as such I regard the bonus as simply a bonus that may or may not arrive and instead ensure that the offered salary passes my threshold.
The worst time to negotiate your salary is *after* you start. After you start you'll hit the "It's company policy that all raises are capped to %X" rule. Before you start there is no "It's company policy that all salaries are capped to %X" rule (unless you interview at reddit, apparently).
It's not about punishing, it's about not rewarding useless skills. A Man may run a marathon in less than 3 hours, if his job is to sit all day in front of a computer, his running abilities should not get him a higher salary.
It's not about rewarding useless skills, it's about not paying more than you have to. There are very good business reasons to pay people just enough to get them to do the job especially if they are more valuable to you. The good negotiators are not being rewarded, they are just taking home the salary that the company is prepared to pay. The poor negotiators are not being punished, they are simply leaving the extra money with the employer.
Do you get unfair offers? Offers below your current salary even after they've asked you want that salary is? Or do they offer a percentage above your current pay and you are just hoping to get a bit more by being pushy?
I politely decline until I receive an offer that I am comfortable with. I do not talk with them about how I am worth more than they are offering.
That's a pretty poor negotiating strategy if you're trying to hire the talent you want rather than the gender you want.
I think she made it clear (repeatedly) that she isn't interested in the talent as long as it passes some baseline level. This is reddit, after all - what the hell would they do with talent?
Everyone's focusing on the first part of that sentence, and not the 2nd...
Take two people who negotiate equally strongly; the one with the penis is called confident and achieving, the one with the vagina is pushy and catty.
So too late, some people (the one's with the vaginas) are already being punished for being good at something.
How the hell did this get insightful? "Negotiating" a salary is not the same as negotiating a car purchase. I never sit down and talk with the HR person about salary, I simply politely decline until they come back with an offer that is acceptable, usually the final figure is the same as the one I put down in my cover letter under "salary expectations".
There is no opportunity for cattiness or pushiness unless you insist on discussing why you deserve more than they offered, and if you are at that point then you have already lost. Your interview should have already convinced them of your utility to them and if it hasn't then no amount of whining from your side will change that.
Just politely decline until they breach your expected salary threshold.
It exists because you've got two parties with two different goals. One wants to get paid as much as possible, the other wants to acquire something for as little as possible.
All monetary transactions are like that. Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc.
Incorrect. We don't negotiate when doing so will cost us more than it will save us. If your statement were true then lots of companies would sell $1k toothpaste because "we don't negotiate for toothpaste". It's absolutely true that we negotiate rates of pay.
Games of chicken are easy to lose. I've found that those who claim to be good negotiators (such as with buying a new car) also tend to be somewhat annoying as well; aggressive, boisterous, high ego, self centered, etc. They're not afraid to lose that game of chicken, and indeed they are treating it like some sporting contest.
The problem is not "women don't negotiate" in this case, the problem is "Company chief aggressively negotiated own salary but demands that no one else in company is allowed to do as she did."
The most common one is ignorance: most people don't know how tabs are supposed to be used as indentation and indentation ONLY, and how to set up an editor appropriately (and the shell, by the way) (see the other responses to your comment for proof).
The second is lazyness / non-confrontational behaviour: If you settle on tabs, you will have to educate all users about the correct usage, and have to bear with people that just insist on using tabs differently (see point 1). If you settle on space usage, that's about it.
The third reason is that some editors are stupid, because the implementation doesn't know that tabs are supposed to be used as indentation and indentation ONLY, and will (for example) insist on aligning multi-line arguments to a function just after the parenthesis using a liberal amount of tabs.
And then there are some language requirements that like to mess things up, like Makefile requiring tabs and other scripting languages pursuing a vendetta against tabs (like Python).
That being said, I will gladly educate people about tab usage, their ignorance is no excuse for using inferior solutions.
So, in spite of all the work required to make tabs "just work", and in spite of the fact that even after all the work to ensure that people use tabs correctly, and in spite of all the work going into writing the hooks into VC to enforce the tab rules you ask devs to use, you'll still rather... do all that work and use tabs with occasional accidentally broken formatting than simply use spaces with no accidentally broken formatting?
Why? what does all this work buy you, considering that it still won't solve accidentally broken formatting?
Slashdot Mirror
Sexism isn't just excluding or discriminating,
Yes, it is, in addition to prejudice and stereotyping.
there is one other vital component: harm.
There is no dictionary that agrees with you on this point. I'm going to side with merriam-webster and oxford on this one, as would most people. There is no dictionary in the world that defines harm as a component of sexism.
It's like having a girl's bathroom and a boy's bathroom. The girl's bathroom might even have more facilities (tampon machines/disposal). It's not sexist because it doesn't disadvantage either gender, it's simply discriminating for a perfectly legitimate reason.
It's not discrimination, and there is no dictionary that agrees with your use of this word either. Providing facilities for physical differences has never been regarded as discrimination, as there is no exclusion going on.
Unless someone can show that this school will somehow harm boys then it isn't sexist.
Only if one uses your definition of "sexist". The rest of us use the the dictionary definitions. Redefining words to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument is broken.
I cannot stress this enough: Redefining the word sexism to a meaning not found in any dictionary just to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument is broken!
It would be easier, at this point, for you to change your argument than to ask every dictionary in the world to change the meaning of the word sexism.
Culture systematically shapes our perception of damned near everything - hell, you probably find the though of shitting in the street or eating human flesh disgusting - you think there's anything *natural* about either of those taboos? Hardly. The onus of evidence lies on you to show that it does not.
Ah. The creationist argument - prove a negative. Well Done!
if society has systematically shaped her expectations and preferences from the day she was conceived? Yes.
That's quite a big "IF"; have you any evidence that this is actually the case?
Yes. It's sexist because women are discouraged from pursuing it.
Extraordinary claim. Citation needed.
It's sexist because women are ostracised if they do.
Another extraordinary claim. Another citation needed.
If I see a woman with a particularly impressive qualification, I would hire her over a man with the same qualification, because I know that the woman had to be better than the man to get it.
You do realise that you are talking about a generation that has been brought up with the mentality of "You can do whatever you want to"? The young women who are choosing not to go into $FIELD have been told their entire lives that they can do whatever they want to. Society has been pushing the gurl powah shlock since the 80's.
And make no mistake, being a white male in this society is like playing the game of life on the easiest setting:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/201...
This misconception gets thrown around a lot. "Life is easier when you're a man" ... depends on what you mean by "easier". Life is certainly more privileged if you're a woman... like, for example:
,
Women live longer than men (82.2 vs 79.8)
work fewer hours than men (7.7 vs 8.4),
are safer in society than men are (23% of homicide victims, vs 77% for men),
have around 1/10th the incarceration rates as men do (126 vs 1352),
do less dangerous jobs (7% occupational fatalities vs 93% for men),
Receive more from a broken relationship than men (Number so low for men that it is not even significant),
are more qualified than men,
and are healthier.
So, other than living shorter, unhealthier lives, facing more violence, possessing less education while working more hours at 13 times the risk of death, *and* financially hurting more than women after a divorce, men are more privileged than women? Western women are objectively the most well-off demographic in human history. Subjectively, well, that's another story - opinions in the stead of facts don't mean anything anyway and it's pointless to debate subjective statements.
Oh, and the rape-rate for college age women? Roughly 7 per 1000, not 1 in 5 or 1 in 4. So much for "rape-culture"...
PS - I feel like I should post this in response to all the "male-privilege" comments, although I'm sure you'll (sooner or later) once again post about how male-privilege blah blah blah.... so I'm pretty sure I'll get another opportunity to post this.
I read AC upthread - linky - and tend to broadly agree with that sentiment. IOW, you have absolutely nothing to worry about as the force that is waging the PR-war is not going to let any other demographic be victims. They've cornered that market in such a way that no policy-maker will dare make a policy that enrages them - you will not be getting minority teachers because the PR army involved won't allow it because according to their ideology only they are victims.
There's a chance that the bank wouldn't be able to redeem the note, because of fractional reserve banking.
Besides other reasons for discounting notes at purchase time, like fake notes, or loss, or the bank being very far away.
That's trusting that the bank has your gold/commodity. Like the bitcoin supporters keep saying - mtgox is not bitcoin and bitcoin is not mtgox. In the same way, the bank is not gold and gold is not the bank. A currency based on gold is one based on MIStrust, because you don't trust the issuers bill and insist that their bill is backed by gold.
Currencies backed ultimately by gold by some bank are most definitely NOT backed by "trust". If you trusted them you wouldn't need the gold. Once again, I reiterate - since the invention of coinage no currency has existed that is based on trust. Not a single one. I fail to see why BTC, based soley on trust, will succeed. Even as an experiment, all it has shown thus far is that we have been inadequately teaching economics.
Since the invention of coinage there has never ever, not even once, been a currency based on trust.
This is absolutely not the case.
As little as 200 years ago, there were many competing currencies, typically backed in gold. There was even merchant's associations and regular publications on how much you should discount certain bank's currency because the redeeming bank was far away, or not as trustworthy. Wikipedia has a whole catalog of these notes.
These are all bills/scrips backed by banks/companies, further backed by gold... how do you figure they were based on trust? Seems to me that a currency based on gold is not based on trust.
Fiat money is self referential too. You only accept it as a form of payment, because you know others will accept it from you.
Not self-referential at all - I accept it as a form of payment because I can pay taxes with it. I "know" others will accept it for settlement of a debt because if they refuse they forfeit the debt.
Fiat money also has no real value. Just like bitcoin it is based on trust, not on authority or enforcement.
It has value in its jurisdiction. Try refusing to accept settlement of a debt in your local currency and see what happens.
Fiat currency is supported by a government
Didn't work well for Zimbabwe, or Weimar republic.
Neither did elections. Doesn't mean that they are a bad idea.
Ultimately, fiat currency is simply based on trust
Nope. Bitcoin supporters frequently make the mistake that all something needs to be a currency is trust. This is not true. It needs a sovereign government backed by men with guns who will force you to pay your bills only in that currency or face punishment. That is what ultimately makes a currency. Not trust. Since the invention of coinage there has never ever, not even once, been a currency based on trust.
Why should someone with less qualifications make more than me just by having a huge ego and demanding more money?
What makes you think the better negotiator has a bigger ego than you? You've spent this entire thread being smug that you are so modest that you *don't* negotiate .... that you've now convinced all readers that you are simply a small person in a large ego. Seriously - go back and read every one of your posts - you repeatedly insult people who have good negotiating skills while you make sure that we all know how modest you are by *telling* *us* *repeatedly* how modest you are.
Dear god.... blah blah bug report blah blah
If you read the summary carefully, they are not stating a salary value for a job in advance of making a offer to someone.
They are interviewing and then making an offer they feel is appropriate for that interviewee, that means that they can still adjust the offer based on the person in front of them (and who is to say the hiring managers don't offer less to women?). All thats changed is that the offer is set in stone, the interviewee either takes it or leaves it.
This scheme will live or die on how well they predict the job market for the roles they are hiring for but I don't see how it really addresses the stated goal of equalizing pay ranges between genders.
This scheme doesn't work too well anyway - I won't go for the interview without an upfront statement wrt the salary. I don't think I've ever gone for an interview which did not have a salary range stated upfront. As recently as Monday I've told a slave-trader that the job-spec he sent me neglected to mention a salary range. He came back with "They offer competitive market rates" and I replied with "I don't interview for people who cannot afford me". I will not be going on any interview soon (mostly 'cos I'm happy where I am, but regardless).
It's actually quite simple - if they cannot afford me then they should waste my time. If I'm unable to adjust my expectations downwards then I won't waste theirs. There is no "Well, we'll offer you competitive market rates for your skills after we interview you," there is only "don't enter the fitting room if you can't afford to buy!"
Presumably everyone at the company negotiated their own salary.
She claims that the women didn't.
You obviously don't know how to negotiate. Being a good negotiator is about making the person you negotiate with believe that what you're selling is worth more than its true value. In this case, it's about making your employer believe you're more valuable than you truly are.
That's not negotiation, that's misrepresentation. There is no dictionary I am aware of nor common colloquial usage that means "misrepresent the value".
No wonder you feel the way you do about this - if you knew and used "negotiation" the way the dictionary defines it then you wouldn't make the statements you do, like "rewarding someone for useless skills".
Sounds like an exploitative company. I prefer to get my worth up front and not rely on a popularity contest sometime later; as such I regard the bonus as simply a bonus that may or may not arrive and instead ensure that the offered salary passes my threshold.
The worst time to negotiate your salary is *after* you start. After you start you'll hit the "It's company policy that all raises are capped to %X" rule. Before you start there is no "It's company policy that all salaries are capped to %X" rule (unless you interview at reddit, apparently).
It's not about punishing, it's about not rewarding useless skills. A Man may run a marathon in less than 3 hours, if his job is to sit all day in front of a computer, his running abilities should not get him a higher salary.
It's not about rewarding useless skills, it's about not paying more than you have to. There are very good business reasons to pay people just enough to get them to do the job especially if they are more valuable to you. The good negotiators are not being rewarded, they are just taking home the salary that the company is prepared to pay. The poor negotiators are not being punished, they are simply leaving the extra money with the employer.
There is no good reason to pay a good negotiator more than a bad, except if you want to hire someone for a position where you need negotiation skills.
But there is good reason to pay a poor negotiator less than a good one - you save money.
Do you get unfair offers? Offers below your current salary even after they've asked you want that salary is? Or do they offer a percentage above your current pay and you are just hoping to get a bit more by being pushy?
I politely decline until I receive an offer that I am comfortable with. I do not talk with them about how I am worth more than they are offering.
We come up with an offer that we think is fair.
That's a pretty poor negotiating strategy if you're trying to hire the talent you want rather than the gender you want.
I think she made it clear (repeatedly) that she isn't interested in the talent as long as it passes some baseline level. This is reddit, after all - what the hell would they do with talent?
Everyone's focusing on the first part of that sentence, and not the 2nd... Take two people who negotiate equally strongly; the one with the penis is called confident and achieving, the one with the vagina is pushy and catty. So too late, some people (the one's with the vaginas) are already being punished for being good at something.
How the hell did this get insightful? "Negotiating" a salary is not the same as negotiating a car purchase. I never sit down and talk with the HR person about salary, I simply politely decline until they come back with an offer that is acceptable, usually the final figure is the same as the one I put down in my cover letter under "salary expectations".
There is no opportunity for cattiness or pushiness unless you insist on discussing why you deserve more than they offered, and if you are at that point then you have already lost. Your interview should have already convinced them of your utility to them and if it hasn't then no amount of whining from your side will change that.
Just politely decline until they breach your expected salary threshold.
It exists because you've got two parties with two different goals. One wants to get paid as much as possible, the other wants to acquire something for as little as possible.
All monetary transactions are like that. Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc.
Incorrect. We don't negotiate when doing so will cost us more than it will save us. If your statement were true then lots of companies would sell $1k toothpaste because "we don't negotiate for toothpaste". It's absolutely true that we negotiate rates of pay.
Games of chicken are easy to lose. I've found that those who claim to be good negotiators (such as with buying a new car) also tend to be somewhat annoying as well; aggressive, boisterous, high ego, self centered, etc. They're not afraid to lose that game of chicken, and indeed they are treating it like some sporting contest.
The problem is not "women don't negotiate" in this case, the problem is "Company chief aggressively negotiated own salary but demands that no one else in company is allowed to do as she did."
Well, I have to ask - did she negotiate her own salary?
Because code that looks like this is more readable than code that looks like this.
The examples violate the simple rule "tabs for indentation, spaces for alignment".
You don't need a rule if you use spaces - that was kinda my point :-)
I guess that there are multiple reasons.
The most common one is ignorance: most people don't know how tabs are supposed to be used as indentation and indentation ONLY, and how to set up an editor appropriately (and the shell, by the way) (see the other responses to your comment for proof).
The second is lazyness / non-confrontational behaviour: If you settle on tabs, you will have to educate all users about the correct usage, and have to bear with people that just insist on using tabs differently (see point 1). If you settle on space usage, that's about it.
The third reason is that some editors are stupid, because the implementation doesn't know that tabs are supposed to be used as indentation and indentation ONLY, and will (for example) insist on aligning multi-line arguments to a function just after the parenthesis using a liberal amount of tabs.
And then there are some language requirements that like to mess things up, like Makefile requiring tabs and other scripting languages pursuing a vendetta against tabs (like Python).
That being said, I will gladly educate people about tab usage, their ignorance is no excuse for using inferior solutions.
So, in spite of all the work required to make tabs "just work", and in spite of the fact that even after all the work to ensure that people use tabs correctly, and in spite of all the work going into writing the hooks into VC to enforce the tab rules you ask devs to use, you'll still rather... do all that work and use tabs with occasional accidentally broken formatting than simply use spaces with no accidentally broken formatting?
Why? what does all this work buy you, considering that it still won't solve accidentally broken formatting?