So really it's grandparents that this article is really getting at. Middle aged for the purpose of having your offspring's offspring survive. That actually makes sense.
That makes perfect sense when you consider menopause.
Evolutionarily, when does it ever make sense for a species to "willingly," as it were, make oneself infertile? In our case, the advantage is that the females stop reproducing and focus the remainder of their energy on their current descendants, rather than produce babies up until death and spread the resources thin.
Didn't really mean to come off as a troll...Apple users are attracted to Apple products often because they are simple and don't require technical expertise. Also because malware isn't very much of a problem like with Windows.
Don't they market their products to that segment for those reasons? Call me a troll...:/
Mac users are probably also a lot more likely to click randomly at everything flashy that crosses their path without any concern of malware. (Macs are invincible, afterall.)
You might as well ask me to prove evolution. There is a lot of research out there, and the concept is fairly settled, but I'm not going to waste my time on someone who has no interest in actually reading it.
If you are actually interested then look for yourself. It's not hard to find, and I'm not going to hold your hand.
Lol actually it's very demonstrable that human beings are fundamentally biased creatures. This is pretty widely accepted in psychology.
You might as well tell me that climate change is a myth and evolution is wrong. And maybe that's what you think. But it's rich that you call me ridiculous.
Fair enough. I'm not missing that point. And from an individual perspective perhaps an individual HR rep only has so much to work with. I think the wider question is why are there so few women in the profession. That is the point of TFA.
I'm saying to anyone who says they don't have bias, simply put, "You're wrong."
I don't know why this is flamebait. I was going to mod it up, but it's a good point that I'd like to speak on.
Techdirt, for example, often incorrectly assumes that the purpose of copyright in Canada is the same everywhere else as it is in America.
While I agree with the "promote the progress" part in principle, that history does not exist for copyright law here. There are more moral arguments in our legal situation.
I would prefer a promote the progress justification but I don't think that was how our regime came to be, and I don't think there is a well defined purpose to our copyright system.
On a personal and anecdotal note, unrelated to hiring, there is a family that frequents my business. They are Muslim, and the mother has a thick Arabic accent. I just discovered the other day that she also speaks French (I am fluent). Being from Morocco, her French is flawless and better than mine. After talking with her for some time in French, I just realized that I had been implicitly thinking of her as less educated, due to her Arabic accent when speaking English. Upon hearing her flawless French, I saw my implicit attitude change entirely.
I work really hard to be aware of bias and to not let it get in the way of my interactions with people. But it's there for all of us, despite the effort we put in. It does no good to pretend otherwise.
Thanks. The question was rhetorical. All three of those answers make my point for me.
And let there be no doubt that western societies still suffer from sexism too, for example, as evidenced by the fact that it is more dangerous for women to walk around in the dark than for men, as well as the nature of the crimes women are more likely to face vs those face by men. Of course, between the two regions, we are talking orders of magnitude of difference.
I concur. The whole article seems to be trying to say that the Middle East isn't a sexist place.
That's like saying saying racism didn't exist in the 50s because some subset of black men were allowed to become a doctors.
"You see? X-bias doesn't exist because some token example contradicts the mountains of examples where the bias does apply."
Honestly. Does anyone here watch Star Trek? (Of course you do.) Does this not remind you of the Ferengi, as mainly depicted in DS9? The only difference I can see is that the Ferengi prefer their women unclothed rather than fully covered.
How about some examples from this article: Lets start with the picture of the business women covered up from head to toe. For every one woman that truthfully and freely prefers to be dressed like that, how many are coerced by a sexist society?
More flexible work options, freelance, home-based work, low capital requirements; you can see why starting a company on a small scale is a much more viable thing for women to do than get a corporate job.
Why is that?
In Jordan, specifically, the main reason for women not entering the work force is the lack of a proper transit system. We don't have an affordable transit system that can take women from remote areas to the city.
Is the lack of public transportation not an issue for men, too? Why do women suffer from a lack of public transportation but men do not?
Home working also allows women to combine their traditional roles of homemaker and mother, with being an entrepreneur.
There it is. Women belong in the kitchen. Also, I imagine it's less embarassing to have women doing business anonymously over the internet, because no one needs to know she's a woman.
He said that some private-sector companies would consider employing women, but were put off by the cost and the lack of knowledge of how to hire them. "One of the problems is that they don't know where to go to find the right kind of talents."
Apparently, hiring women costs more than hiring men, and it's apparently much harder to assess the abilities of women than it is for men. Did not know that.
If you were to look at the law, even in a country that claims to be as liberal as Lebanon, technically if your husband wanted to prevent you from traveling, he can. Technically you cannot open a bank account as a married woman, your husband has to do it. However, in practice these laws are not enforced."
Well, it's not a repressive country if they simply don't enforce oppressive laws...for now. And that's an example of the most liberal middle eastern countries!
It would be ironic if a region that is castigated for its attitudes toward women actually turned out to be more welcoming of female entrepreneurs than those doing the castigating.
Right. The entire article depicted a more welcoming environment than the western world.
The fact that any women are succeeding despite living in repressive regimes speaks to their strength of will, not the supposed "progress" of those countries.
No, you're right. The original comment "leaving the dollars with those who earned them" was not yours and I misattributed that to you. You in fact appear to have said you agree with funding fusion research. You just went on to, what, suggest that public works projects might leave your descendants slaves to a totalitarian regime?
As I said, I don't have first hand knowledge about American coverage. I put up comments by pundits because they are the ones driving the sexists rants regarding female reproductive health. If you had some point worth making, you could have chosen a less politically charged and inflammatory topic to do it with. Why not make some connection to the Trayvon-Zimmerman controversy, too, while you're at it? You chose an inflammatory topic, and it was a stupid choice. That puts you in the same category as the pundits.
And it doesn't even really speak to whatever your point is because the pundits want employers to be allowed to drop birth control coverage from private insurance coverage. The controversy is not even touching tax payer "handouts" as Americans like to call it, and it's not "free" because the coverage is paid for.
Nonetheless, your comments have not been very articulate.
For example:
This is the problem with the US political system. Idiots like you get to vote, and go pull the lever for the guy that says "Hey, you get free birth control", without a clue to the consequences to the overall economy when political influence counts for more than a people's abilities and ethics.
I'm fine with, too, but that's a more appropriate response to a voluntary contribution, not a mandatory one. Is it more important that your neighborhood have a public library or that your family have heat in the winter? How about your children? Your grandchildren? What if the library on the corner was built and funded based on a monetary system that eventually meant that your grandchildren would work under involuntary servitude for a totalitarian regime, because they loaned your government the money for the library?
Seriously?!? Entire paragraphs that actually say nothing. Those are the ramblings of a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. You seem to think that your point is coherent and well formed, and yet you get frustrated when people don't "get" you.
Anyways, I'm done. You can have the last word if you want, but I'm not going to bother reading it.
Fair enough. Of course I live in the "communist" state of Canada, where we believe in universal health care. I am not really well versed on the specifics of the American model, other than that it costs more per capita and covers a smaller percentage of Americans. Also, I don't have to worry about walking into a hospital and worrying if my insurance company is going to deny my lifesaving treatment because I forgot to cross a 'T' in my name (thankfully, there are no Ts in my names).
I find it funny that I got roped into this. I think I'm slipping. My main point was how you started with an argument against funding fusion research, and some how you compared it to the ongoing and sexist controversy regarding women's reproductive health. Kudos. You, sir, are a grade A troll.
Lol free birth control. Your comment has everything! Damn those women who want their comprehensive health coverage to be as comprehensive as it is for the men who want viagra.
I would also want to challenge basically all religious doctrine from a scientific point of view. I really want this law to "backfire" from the POV of its drafters.
Right. Cause if you have a heart attack all you need is for the fire department to need to take a bunch of minutes to put all their roadwork gear away and take down the cones and traffic redirection equipment before they come save your sorry ass.
Part of the reason they send fire first for first aids is because they are ready for quick responses. But yea, lets drop that part.
But hopefully they are making a product that people want, and that you can feel good about plugging. Otherwise, tricking people into buying the product is only going to amplify the problem.
How about a 4th option. Make new accounts. That is "JohnSmithAtMicrosoft."
Strictly speaking, you are doing what they said; they asked you to use social media to plug the product, but morally speaking you are in the clear, because even a moron in a hurry would understand that you are shamelessly plugging on behalf of your company.
Slashdot Mirror
So really it's grandparents that this article is really getting at. Middle aged for the purpose of having your offspring's offspring survive. That actually makes sense.
That makes perfect sense when you consider menopause.
Evolutionarily, when does it ever make sense for a species to "willingly," as it were, make oneself infertile? In our case, the advantage is that the females stop reproducing and focus the remainder of their energy on their current descendants, rather than produce babies up until death and spread the resources thin.
To paraphrase, those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither and will lose both.
If you want to be extra safe, stop driving cars.
Didn't really mean to come off as a troll...Apple users are attracted to Apple products often because they are simple and don't require technical expertise. Also because malware isn't very much of a problem like with Windows.
Don't they market their products to that segment for those reasons? Call me a troll... :/
Survey Finds No Hint of Dark Matter Near Solar System
Survey:
Earth: Anyone here composed of dark matter? ...
Pluto: Not me!
Saturn: Nay.
Mars: Nope.
Mac users are probably also a lot more likely to click randomly at everything flashy that crosses their path without any concern of malware. (Macs are invincible, afterall.)
Did I miss anything?
6) ????
7) Profit!!!
You might as well ask me to prove evolution. There is a lot of research out there, and the concept is fairly settled, but I'm not going to waste my time on someone who has no interest in actually reading it.
If you are actually interested then look for yourself. It's not hard to find, and I'm not going to hold your hand.
Lol actually it's very demonstrable that human beings are fundamentally biased creatures. This is pretty widely accepted in psychology.
You might as well tell me that climate change is a myth and evolution is wrong. And maybe that's what you think. But it's rich that you call me ridiculous.
Fair enough. I'm not missing that point. And from an individual perspective perhaps an individual HR rep only has so much to work with. I think the wider question is why are there so few women in the profession. That is the point of TFA.
I'm saying to anyone who says they don't have bias, simply put, "You're wrong."
Unjustifiable prejudice? That is the whole point of TFA.
I don't know why this is flamebait. I was going to mod it up, but it's a good point that I'd like to speak on.
Techdirt, for example, often incorrectly assumes that the purpose of copyright in Canada is the same everywhere else as it is in America.
While I agree with the "promote the progress" part in principle, that history does not exist for copyright law here. There are more moral arguments in our legal situation.
I would prefer a promote the progress justification but I don't think that was how our regime came to be, and I don't think there is a well defined purpose to our copyright system.
I'm completely unbiased on the male vs female front
I think if you don't realize your bias then you are unwittingly probably part of the problem.
There was some excellent research showing that when researchers submitted resumes with identical credentials to firms, but one with a white sounding name and one with an Asian sounding name, the white sounding names had a significantly hire success rate in getting calls. I doubt this discrepancy is from a conscious policy.
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090522/resume_english_090523/20090523/?hub=TorontoNewHome
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/work/right-rsum-wrong-name/article1145212/
http://aascpress.metapress.com/content/662555ttv6344365/
On a personal and anecdotal note, unrelated to hiring, there is a family that frequents my business. They are Muslim, and the mother has a thick Arabic accent. I just discovered the other day that she also speaks French (I am fluent). Being from Morocco, her French is flawless and better than mine. After talking with her for some time in French, I just realized that I had been implicitly thinking of her as less educated, due to her Arabic accent when speaking English. Upon hearing her flawless French, I saw my implicit attitude change entirely.
I work really hard to be aware of bias and to not let it get in the way of my interactions with people. But it's there for all of us, despite the effort we put in. It does no good to pretend otherwise.
Thanks. The question was rhetorical. All three of those answers make my point for me.
And let there be no doubt that western societies still suffer from sexism too, for example, as evidenced by the fact that it is more dangerous for women to walk around in the dark than for men, as well as the nature of the crimes women are more likely to face vs those face by men. Of course, between the two regions, we are talking orders of magnitude of difference.
I concur. The whole article seems to be trying to say that the Middle East isn't a sexist place.
That's like saying saying racism didn't exist in the 50s because some subset of black men were allowed to become a doctors.
"You see? X-bias doesn't exist because some token example contradicts the mountains of examples where the bias does apply."
Honestly. Does anyone here watch Star Trek? (Of course you do.) Does this not remind you of the Ferengi, as mainly depicted in DS9? The only difference I can see is that the Ferengi prefer their women unclothed rather than fully covered.
How about some examples from this article:
Lets start with the picture of the business women covered up from head to toe. For every one woman that truthfully and freely prefers to be dressed like that, how many are coerced by a sexist society?
More flexible work options, freelance, home-based work, low capital requirements; you can see why starting a company on a small scale is a much more viable thing for women to do than get a corporate job.
Why is that?
In Jordan, specifically, the main reason for women not entering the work force is the lack of a proper transit system. We don't have an affordable transit system that can take women from remote areas to the city.
Is the lack of public transportation not an issue for men, too? Why do women suffer from a lack of public transportation but men do not?
Home working also allows women to combine their traditional roles of homemaker and mother, with being an entrepreneur.
There it is. Women belong in the kitchen. Also, I imagine it's less embarassing to have women doing business anonymously over the internet, because no one needs to know she's a woman.
He said that some private-sector companies would consider employing women, but were put off by the cost and the lack of knowledge of how to hire them. "One of the problems is that they don't know where to go to find the right kind of talents."
Apparently, hiring women costs more than hiring men, and it's apparently much harder to assess the abilities of women than it is for men. Did not know that.
If you were to look at the law, even in a country that claims to be as liberal as Lebanon, technically if your husband wanted to prevent you from traveling, he can. Technically you cannot open a bank account as a married woman, your husband has to do it. However, in practice these laws are not enforced."
Well, it's not a repressive country if they simply don't enforce oppressive laws...for now. And that's an example of the most liberal middle eastern countries!
It would be ironic if a region that is castigated for its attitudes toward women actually turned out to be more welcoming of female entrepreneurs than those doing the castigating.
Right. The entire article depicted a more welcoming environment than the western world.
The fact that any women are succeeding despite living in repressive regimes speaks to their strength of will, not the supposed "progress" of those countries.
No, you're right. The original comment "leaving the dollars with those who earned them" was not yours and I misattributed that to you. You in fact appear to have said you agree with funding fusion research. You just went on to, what, suggest that public works projects might leave your descendants slaves to a totalitarian regime?
As I said, I don't have first hand knowledge about American coverage. I put up comments by pundits because they are the ones driving the sexists rants regarding female reproductive health. If you had some point worth making, you could have chosen a less politically charged and inflammatory topic to do it with. Why not make some connection to the Trayvon-Zimmerman controversy, too, while you're at it? You chose an inflammatory topic, and it was a stupid choice. That puts you in the same category as the pundits.
And it doesn't even really speak to whatever your point is because the pundits want employers to be allowed to drop birth control coverage from private insurance coverage. The controversy is not even touching tax payer "handouts" as Americans like to call it, and it's not "free" because the coverage is paid for.
Nonetheless, your comments have not been very articulate.
For example:
This is the problem with the US political system. Idiots like you get to vote, and go pull the lever for the guy that says "Hey, you get free birth control", without a clue to the consequences to the overall economy when political influence counts for more than a people's abilities and ethics.
I'm fine with, too, but that's a more appropriate response to a voluntary contribution, not a mandatory one. Is it more important that your neighborhood have a public library or that your family have heat in the winter? How about your children? Your grandchildren? What if the library on the corner was built and funded based on a monetary system that eventually meant that your grandchildren would work under involuntary servitude for a totalitarian regime, because they loaned your government the money for the library?
Seriously?!? Entire paragraphs that actually say nothing. Those are the ramblings of a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. You seem to think that your point is coherent and well formed, and yet you get frustrated when people don't "get" you.
Anyways, I'm done. You can have the last word if you want, but I'm not going to bother reading it.
That's the point. The company didn't ask him to astroturf. He interpreted it that way. The company asked him to promote the product via social media.
I feel that agreeing to do it and then doing nothing is a better option though.
Fair enough. Of course I live in the "communist" state of Canada, where we believe in universal health care. I am not really well versed on the specifics of the American model, other than that it costs more per capita and covers a smaller percentage of Americans. Also, I don't have to worry about walking into a hospital and worrying if my insurance company is going to deny my lifesaving treatment because I forgot to cross a 'T' in my name (thankfully, there are no Ts in my names).
I'll just rely on a quick google search, with the first few hits challenging your earlier assertion regarding the coverage situation, at least as it relates to "your sides" arguments.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/08/05/289117/hannity-blasts-insurance-coverage-for-birth-control-defends-viagra-that-is-a-medical-problem/?mobile=nc
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91538
http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/09/10622742-bill-oreilly-viagra-should-be-covered-birth-control-should-not
I find it funny that I got roped into this. I think I'm slipping. My main point was how you started with an argument against funding fusion research, and some how you compared it to the ongoing and sexist controversy regarding women's reproductive health. Kudos. You, sir, are a grade A troll.
Lol free birth control. Your comment has everything! Damn those women who want their comprehensive health coverage to be as comprehensive as it is for the men who want viagra.
Lol ok well seen as you are using electricity to type your post I'm going to go ahead and assume you want to have electricity in the future.
Gotta love people who love to benefit from taxes without paying them.
I wonder if that would work.
I would also want to challenge basically all religious doctrine from a scientific point of view. I really want this law to "backfire" from the POV of its drafters.
Right. Cause if you have a heart attack all you need is for the fire department to need to take a bunch of minutes to put all their roadwork gear away and take down the cones and traffic redirection equipment before they come save your sorry ass.
Part of the reason they send fire first for first aids is because they are ready for quick responses. But yea, lets drop that part.
That's true. Good point.
But hopefully they are making a product that people want, and that you can feel good about plugging. Otherwise, tricking people into buying the product is only going to amplify the problem.
Perfect response.
How about a 4th option. Make new accounts. That is "JohnSmithAtMicrosoft."
Strictly speaking, you are doing what they said; they asked you to use social media to plug the product, but morally speaking you are in the clear, because even a moron in a hurry would understand that you are shamelessly plugging on behalf of your company.
I'm a BC resident too. I already forwarded this on to the Province (our low-brow tabloid-ish 'newspaper').