I guess I don't understand why that's crazy. When I have something that works perfectly and does everything I need it to do, why is it forced into obsolescence and why am I forced to spend a bunch of money to 'upgrade' something that didn't need it?
If it works perfectly, You don't have to upgrade at all.
The question of course, is what would have to happen to get that 1:1 presumptive requirement.
I don't make that presumption.
You don't, some do.
You need to solve the underlying issues first, and they go far beyond just one university.
Offhand dismissal of my experience noted. Note - we don't just sit in our ivory towers and engage in mental masturbation. We talk to each other and communicate as well. Other places have had the same experience as mine, and at other Universities. I only offer mine because otherwise it might be a sort of plagiarism.
Now as to the differences between men and women. Many women prefer more social activities, in all aspects of their lives, and as much of that as possible. STEM is not the place for that. You are often working long hours, and alone. Some times the people who you are working with are acerbic at best, yet brilliant to the point of being a one person institute. STEM is not based on personality.
So we have careers that engender long hours, often times travel - and not necessarily to places with nice hotels, and a results oriented workforce that are not necessarily social adepts.
So how are you going to interrupt an experiment that might be a week in duration? How are you going to have experiments that only take place in comfortable suroundings and end at 5? How are you going to get rid of brilliant people who might not be the most sociable, yet are the driver of the work at hand?
I always chuckle at how rampant the patriarchy is in STEM, when a large number of women go into business. Oh heavens.
The stories I could tell you over an adult beverage, I fear you would simply dismiss them though. Anyhow, fix the underlying basics of the field, and turn it into something else, and perhaps more women will enter. I don't think that the problem is the inherent sexism of men and their "rape culture".
When I'm evaluating someone, say for a job, it's not enough to merely be technically brilliant. They have to have interpersonal skills. That's particularly important for engineers who often have to simply complex ideas and then convince laypeople of their merits, or explain why a request is ill-advised in a way that doesn't lose customers or create animosity.
And there you have my specialty. My main talent is that I can sit with a researcher for a couple hours, pick up what they are telling me about what they do, and communicate that to other people. Male or female, many researchers and scientists are brilliant people, but not always or even often good communicators. I'd them give them the tools to sell their idea. There were some folks who could communicate well on their own, but a relative minority.
Now the ability to communicate in science is not better or worse along gender lines. There are som edifferences in approach, but the main issue is either shyness, or a tendency to go off on tangents and bog the presentation down to the point where people forget the point of the whole thing. As some of the extreme, we had a fellow who came very close to fainting every time he spoke. On the other side there was a lady researcher who once took well over two house to make a talk she was allotted 15 minutes for. My time? very expensive. Seems to have been thought worth the expense. Some folks didn't want to spend the money, and fell flat.
I've see products suffer from technical problems because the engineer who designed the thing is such an asshat when dealing with the technicians who build and test the thing. They technicians stopped asking him about failures and just came up with their own fixes or work-arounds.
Is this going to a place where you are saying that women are inherently better communicators? I find most to be amazing communicators, but not necessarily better ones. I know you don't think my university experience is worth anything, but the main attribute of the ladies if they weren't good communicators, is they were more often quite verbose, and tended toward non quantifiable "stuff".
If the males were stifled then many of the problems that affect women could not have been solved.
Well, that is certainly true. But the problem as such is that the rules come down from the women's studies group, which if I might be so brash is seldom a hotbed of desired equality. As an artist friend of mine noted after she took one of their classes, "This is nothing but women who hate men!" I believe her too, as she is a brilliant woman, and very liberal leaning. She simply doesn't hate men.
It's basic feminist philosophy - the same things that affect women affect men too and vice versa. It's not a question of one side having to lose for the other to gain, it's fixing problems that make everyone lose.
What I have an issue with is the idea that we have to be sensitive to so many things. In addition, the idea that any and all changes must come from males. That I have to alter my concept of working, which is to be straightforward, and to work until the job is finished, to one in which I just leave at 5:00 p.m., and any work not finished, well they just should have given me the work earlier.
With males and the women I worked with who were professional, we could work about 150 percent faster, because we didn't have to parse our interactions for feelings. If I made a mistake, or she made a mistake, we'd note it, and fix it. With the third wavers, you had to be extra careful. Telling some "professionals" they made a mistake made for upsets, and on a few occasions tearful sessions. This is a very scary moment for a male in a university setting - you could lose your job.
Someone is at some point going to have to tell some people that not everything has to be molded around them and their feelings. And it will have to be other women telling them that. If it is a male, he'll just be castigated as another chauvinist pig from the patriarchy. Perhaps lose his career. I've seen it happen.
The ladies in my position simply wouldn't do that.
Sounds like they're smarter than you or at least more willing to stand up for themselves.
It's part of the job, muchacho. If they didn't want to do those things, they never should have said they would when applying.
Smarter? Lessee, I made triple what they did, I got to go to interesting and often beautiful places, meet important people and learn a lot of stuff, I also got to provide for my family very well, and got to retire at 55. The last part was based on smart investments and being lucky enough not to die before I retired.
A few of the smarter ladies who "stood up for themselves" are working as waitresses now, and one as a physical trainer. The others I lost track of. If that's smarter, I'm fine with being dumb. By the way - a person my age, if they work until they are 67, the age considered normal retirement, will have worked 24,000 hours (minus vacation) more than me, not counting extra time I worked. But it surely wasn't 24,000 hours.
And as aside note, these successful women who are as liberated as any I have ever met, who put up with no bullshit - are hated by the third wave feminists who are busy installing a concept of the female who is utterly destroyed by any negativity, and must be protected from it at all times.
My sister is one of those liberated women; she didn't marry until very late in the game because her career meant everything to her, and she rose to the top echelons of a major financial corp. She's a tough-as-nails winner. She's also a Republican, which I didn't understand until I started seeing the second group of people you describe, the fragile who cannot tolerate any negativity. At least in the business world, it's not so much men vs women as it is the tough vs the sheltered. The women who need constant sheltering just reinforce the stereotype that women need sheltering; the ones who tough it out and rise to the top as equals with the biggest sharks in the pond are the ones who end up truly liberated.
The fatal flaw of third wave feminism is that it is a tyranny of the weak. And such as it is, the strong will only put up with it for so long. The goal is to not have any tyranny at all.
Even universities, which have long been the bastion of the concept that all men are evil rapists, and all women are virginals who are utterly ruined by any negativity, and must be protected from heterosexual sex at all costs, are coming to the realization that You cannot constantly pander to the weak and whiney. The weak and whiney simply will not stop whining, and with every demand granted, simply become weaker. And louder.
Not specificaly to the issue of gender, but recent attempts to refuse scheduled speakers like Anne Coulter, who yes, does say amazingly ridiculous things, or utra creepy Milo Yiannopoulos. How does one know wht they thing if you don't allow them to talk? Even disinvitation of Bill Maher for commencement speaker at Berkley, the comedian who manages to piss off both conservatives and liberals - which is simply telling me he speaks truth to power- he was later re-invited.
All of this being said, I have important news for the weak. You weak, who demand safe spaces and demand to hear nothing other than your very own point of view and ideology - you listening? You are every bit as bigoted and prejudiced as the old guys who watch only Fox News and scream at the Television. Look at them, and are merely looking at the opposite side of the coin that you cherish. This is your bubble.
These stories always turn into dumpster fires in the comments. A burning pile of ad-hominems, old tyres, a metric tonne of denials and dismissals, with the whole conflagration accelerated by complaints that the story shouldn't have been posted.
Its an old story. And can usually be cured by sliding that old mod level bar to the left.
I try to participate honestly, based on a career working in STEM, and working that career in the most female friendly environment around, where they received preferential hiring, preferential treatment, and the males were stifled. And still it didn't work.
I spent a fair bit of time working to try to get young ladies to get into STEM careers. That one got pretty sad in the end, when questions regarding males not being involved were raised, they allowed boy, but it was painfully obvious that all the attention was given to the girls.
In the end, I came to the conclusion that STEM was a career that the person has to be interested and dedicated, and they know it, not something that they see a video of STEM work, and suddenly think "Yeah - I want to do that!" My lady friends who are in STEM all knew from an early age they wanted to enter this field. Just like me.
Is it sexist to believe that there are some differences in thinking between men and women in the group sense?
My wife, who is roughly as intelligent as myself, and pretty brilliant, is not interested in the same things that I am. She chose a business career - and in of all places, the housing industry. Hardly a hotbed of gender equality. I chose science.
My lady friend Engineers and scientists and I can sit around and talk science all day long. We can joke, we can enjoy each other's company. And some have a really dirty sense of humor.
And as aside note, these successful women who are as liberated as any I have ever met, who put up with no bullshit - are hated by the third wave feminists who are busy installing a concept of the female who is utterly destroyed by any negativity, and must be protected from it at all times.
Regardless, after 30 plus years of work in the field, a fair amount spent in trying to attract and retain women in STEM, my considered opinion is that people will tend to be interested in what they are interested in, and that if the ultimate goal is equal representation by gender in STEM, we have to force males into other career paths, and force females into STEM. Hopefully we'll at least test for ability first, but that might be prejudicial in a world where children are told "You can do anything you want, you can be anything you can dream of if you only try hard enough."
Women say that they want to be involved but there are reasons not to be. That seems unfair and bad for everyone because their potentially useful contributions are lost.
The question of course, is what would have to happen to get that 1:1 presumptive requirement.
In my experience in a University environment, which perhaps comes closest to the mythical fairness desired to engender gender equality demands, we still had issues filling female positions. Even affirmative action - like me giving up several promotions so that departmental women could be fast-tracked were not all that successful. Keeping in mind that this was a workplace where a man could be terminated very easily. And if a University environment largely run by feminists isn't enough to satisfy the women, this is going to be a tough nut to crack.
If my personal experience from over 30 years in such an environment is of any worth, I see some of the following problems.
My career involved non-traditional work hours, and travel. That means that I sometimes had to come in early, or stay late. I also had travel, but two weeks away was the upper limit, and most were a few days in duration.
The ladies in my position simply wouldn't do that. Now people might argue about whether such a career was worth it, but if you choose that work, it isn't unreasonable to do that work.
Next up is that I tended to finish their work when they "couldn't" stay past 5:00 p.m. Fortunately I was more interested in getting the work finished. We had one who even confided that she went into a carpool so she had a excuse not to work extra.
So how do I achieve a equal mix in a position that ends up having two standards? One for myself and another couple males, and another one for females who could pick and choose what they do?
And all at the same time that the women could get any of us in trouble. And we did get complaints, mostly about my pay, which was substantially higher than theirs. Fortunately, due to my keeping meticulous records, and my own boss understanding the situation, they were told that if they wanted my pay, they would have to do the same work I did. I also explained that I wouldn't come in early or stay late to finish their work. And when there was a downturn in work, which happens about every 5 years, they were let go, based on seniority or work production.
Now as to the issue of college attendance. This delves into societal issues. The university environment is very unfriendly to men, especially those in the bloom of youth. You get to attend mandatory sexual harassment courses, and at any moment you can find yourself kicked out. I get sexual assault messages as required by law, and they end up being like weird creepy porn. Regardless, for all of the postings, we almost never see anything make it to court.
But in the aggregate, the University environment is toxic to young males, and males being males, they tend to avoid toxic environments.
3 people shoot a gun at other people. One person misses hitting anyone, and gets a few years in prison, one person wounds someone and gets several years in prison, one person kills someone and get 20-life or the death penalty. Why? All three shot at people. Why should the results make a difference?
The study I cited is not based just on Murder, but arrests and outcomes across a broad spectrum.
As for the results not making a difference. That's a real slippery slope. Is thinking you want a person dead a crime? Buying a firearm for self defense against the person? There's a reason that the severity of the crime is the main consideration for the punishment
I mostly use DuckDuckGo because the "privacy" stuff Google needs you to accept pisses me off and I don't think the results themselves are better, sometimes worse, but at least they didn't make such an UNHOLY MESS of their search results page.
This! Google's searches had become me needing to manually subsearch what they provided, and at least half the time I needed to go to the second page.A lot of their top results are hosted out, os they don't work for me anyhow. The lack of tracking is a bonus, although I take care of that via other ways as well.
DDG isn't perfect, but at least it's a lot more useable.
A fair number of cargo shops have limited space for passengers. I understand the conditions are a bit spartan and there's not much entertainment, plus it might take a week to cross the Atlantic.
I've been told the food is really good. I'd like to try the trip some time, since even in retirement, my schedule is pretty hectic. Wonder if the cargo ships have wifi?
But if gender is not taken into account, and suddenly females get identical sentencing, you can bet there will be a lot of legal agitation from a different group.
You seem to be assuming that the longer sentences are the fairer/better ones. If the "that guy looks big and scary" bias is removed and everyone gets the shorter sentence, it's good for all.
Explain how I suggested anything other than there is a verifiable difference between between male and female sentencing. I said nothing about the length of punishment I desired. For the record, punishments in the US tend to be longer than I think is adequate.
As for assumptions, you appear to be assuming what I am assuming. In this particular case, you are wrong.
Men commit far more crimes then women. If the premise of basing sentencing on probability of future crimes is accepted, gender (and race etc) disparity makes perfect sesnse. Even if the algorithm is not given gender and race inputs, its likely to reach same conclusions by considering other factors such as growing up in poverty.
Wow - good to see that the bogots have chimed in. That - iamcat - would be you.
Any other groups you want individuals to be punished based on any of your pre-decided bigotry?
We all know that black people go to jail at higher rates than whites. Considering or not considering race as a factor is also terrible.
Race is also a problem. According to other research by Professor Starr https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p... It's real, and it's happening. Interestingly, the bias in favor of women is that the gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity. Read the articles for the info.
Will the algorithm take into account the gender differences in sentencing?
https://www.law.umich.edu/news... For those too busy to read the citation, the research by Professor Sonja Starr indicates men receive prison sentences that average 63% longer than women convicted of the same crime. Women are also twice as likely to avoid incarceration altogether. The paper itself: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...
So what we have here a bit of a minefield. If we are to continue this practice, the algorithm must take gender into account, and purposely hand out sentences that are much less for females than males. This would become glaringly obvious during testing. Input identical parameters except gender. Codified and simply proven gender discrimination, built right into the program will result in a pretty short gender discrimination trial.
But if gender is not taken into account, and suddenly females get identical sentencing, you can bet there will be a lot of legal agitation from a different group.
I see it as an entertaining thing to watch unravel. I would expect to consume much popcorn.
Americans have free speech in the US but, shockingly, US laws are not universal... the instant you set foot to another country you better realise a completely different set of protections (or lack of them) applies.
Twitter definitely enjoys free speech protection for its operation in the US, definitely not for its operations in other countries.
Perhaps if the laws are different, then the citizens of these countries should not be allowed to access Twitter at all, ever. Arrest them for using a web service that violates the laws in their country. Problem completely solved. Kind of like the VolksRadio.
Being Europe. that punishment would be interesting given the fancy things y'all have done in the past.
Publishing someone false and derogatory about someone has always been legally actionable in the US. You can legally think of me as whatever heinous sort of creature you like, but if you publish an opinion that is false and harmful to me you can get sued, regardless of what you think.
I challenge you to point out exactly where I said you couldn't.
First off, Reddit didn't retaliate against Pao when she filed a lawsuit. The board didn't fire her like a week after she filed her lawsuit. Reddit followed the law and compartmentalized Ellen Pao the litigant and Ellan Pao the CEO. After she lost the case, she resigned.
Let's stop here. The lawsuit that I was speaking about was the one against Kleiner Perkins for gender discrimination This was the one in which she managed to be both discriminated against, and found it advantageous to enter in to a sexual relationship with a senior partner at Kleiner Perkins. This as we all know is a great way to bolster your credibility. Pro offered to drop her appeal of the case for 2.7 million dollars from KP.
Some of the sexual "harassment" she received was a gift of a book of Leonard Cohen poems. Apparently there was an all male dinner that was intolerable, we have to remember there has never ever been any all women dinners between workers. These are what third wage feminists call "micro-indignities". These are what regular people, men and women both, call life. Except most of us aren't having sex with senior partners.
Meanwhile she was ordered to pay $276,000 of Kleiner Perkins legal fees.
That's pretty disruptive.
There was no reddit lawsuit as far as I know, but she is always up to something, some might think.
Tesla is playing an extremely dangerous game by firing the woman. Unless they have some hard proof that she made the entire thing up, her lawyer will file a retaliation suit in addition to the discrimination suit and it won't be a question of IF Tesla pays out, but HOW MUCH.
So what you are saying is that a disruptive employee must be kept on staff based on gender?
We've been seeing cases of disruptive females losing their discrimination cases, Ellen Pao is perhaps the most prominent example.
Being a disruptive employee is not a gender specific thing, I've worked with both. The problem employee does tend to grasp at anything to continue to be disruptive, regardless of gender. Certain groups have extra claims they can make. And when you can play the gender card, you will immediately polarize the issue, with people falling into predictable positions.
We don't know the particulars of this case, so it is difficult to determine who did what. But having a third party investigate the issue was smart on Tesla's part.
Now that being said, and with the firing, I suspect that Tesla has at the least, a solid case. I would not be surprised if they refused to settle and took any resulting lawsuit to open court.
Let's take gender out of the equation, and move to a similar matter. Where I spent most of my career, there were a number of service workers. There were a small but not insignificant number of these workers that were Workman's comp/SS disability cases waiting to happen. Minor injuries - like the kind that required a band-aid and antiseptic, were trumped up by these folk as a injury so severe that they could not ever work again. I recall one person who tried to get disability for a back muscle spasm.
And yup, they were so adamant about the evil place making them work. And yup, almost all were exposed if they did manage to get disability. They keep track of work these days, and if a person is really interesting, they'll have someone tail them and take video and photos. But the point is that there are people out there who are willing to use every tool at their disposal, and the person's sex is now often used as a bludgeon.
Regardless, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out. But if the Pao case is any indication, a person playing the gender discrimination card case is not a slam dunk when a third party is investigating the issue.
Whilst I disagree with this by principle, it is not thoughtcrime.
Like many people who claim "thoughtcrime" you don't have any idea about what thoughtcrime is. Probably because you've never actually read Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Thoughtcrime was where the wrong facial expression could give you away, wearing a frown or a smile would be taken as a sign of seditious or subversive thoughts, so the term "thoughtcrime" was coined. The citizens and residents of Airstrip One would always wear a face of cautious optimism to avoid being charged with thoughtcrime.
In this case, he actually did something instead of being accused of just thinking it.
Seriously. Must a real world example be the exact action from a book? Regardless, Wikipedia has thoughtcrime describing an "illegal thought" and I happen to agree with it. Argue with them.
My thoughts about something are my opinions about it. If I think that Sophia Vergara is really appealing, that is my opinion. Pretty simple. If I I push the like button regarding a positive post about her I have expressed my thoughts. If say, I thought about whatever this guy was "liking", that would likewise be my opinion, my thoughts on the matter, and liking it would be an expression of my opinion. Do you deny that this man had a thought that he supported what he liked? His thoughts are a crime in Switzerland. His opinion is a crime in Switzerland, that's pretty obvious from the article. He did not post the offensive post, he did not commit the crime if there was one - he merely liked it.
Now, you probably support the punishment of anyone with an opinion you do not like, or are merely one small step away from it, perhaps you are generous enough to allow them to go unpunished as long as they dare not utter that opinion. They keep their thoughts to themselves, is perhaps acceptable. But we don't think like that over here, there have been cases and it has gone up the appelate courts and they have spoken. We punish the person producing the problem, not people who press the like button. Not those who have your forbidden and therefore criminal thoughts. The forbidden agreement, the thoughtcrime.
And let us perhaps throw away the word thoughtcrime, since it offends you so. I don't want some European country applying to extradite me because I offended you, and made an insufferable comment, which apparently in some places in Europe is now a crime.
You cannot deny that the crime that was committed was a person expressing his opinion. That is the crime. deny it if you will.
Thoughtcrime it is unless you can show me who's been prosecuted here. We get it, you hate us. But that doesn't mean any old bullshit you care to spew is true.
So, that is the new standard to assert wheather something is a toughtcrime? That someone has been prosecuted int switzerland doesn't reach the bar? It has to be in the US?
Way to not follow the conversation. The person I was having the conversation with had stated that:
It is not thoughtcrime at all. It is an actual crime of promoting a lie, something that is punishable under US law also. The only thing new here is ruling that the LIKE button is a form of publication... which it is.
So we got into the comparative thing. I call it thoughtcrime, because here in the USA, the specific action, that of pressing the like button, is considered free speech. People are allowed to respond to it using their right of free speech, but the government is not allowed to arrest you or punish you for it, because it is an opinion by our law. Now relax and try to catch up.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I don't understand why that's crazy. When I have something that works perfectly and does everything I need it to do, why is it forced into obsolescence and why am I forced to spend a bunch of money to 'upgrade' something that didn't need it?
If it works perfectly, You don't have to upgrade at all.
You seem kind of like an arrogant dick. Just an FYI.
fukin right I am. U have an issue with that?
The question of course, is what would have to happen to get that 1:1 presumptive requirement.
I don't make that presumption.
You don't, some do.
You need to solve the underlying issues first, and they go far beyond just one university.
Offhand dismissal of my experience noted. Note - we don't just sit in our ivory towers and engage in mental masturbation. We talk to each other and communicate as well. Other places have had the same experience as mine, and at other Universities. I only offer mine because otherwise it might be a sort of plagiarism.
Now as to the differences between men and women. Many women prefer more social activities, in all aspects of their lives, and as much of that as possible. STEM is not the place for that. You are often working long hours, and alone. Some times the people who you are working with are acerbic at best, yet brilliant to the point of being a one person institute. STEM is not based on personality.
So we have careers that engender long hours, often times travel - and not necessarily to places with nice hotels, and a results oriented workforce that are not necessarily social adepts.
So how are you going to interrupt an experiment that might be a week in duration? How are you going to have experiments that only take place in comfortable suroundings and end at 5? How are you going to get rid of brilliant people who might not be the most sociable, yet are the driver of the work at hand?
I always chuckle at how rampant the patriarchy is in STEM, when a large number of women go into business. Oh heavens. The stories I could tell you over an adult beverage, I fear you would simply dismiss them though. Anyhow, fix the underlying basics of the field, and turn it into something else, and perhaps more women will enter. I don't think that the problem is the inherent sexism of men and their "rape culture".
When I'm evaluating someone, say for a job, it's not enough to merely be technically brilliant. They have to have interpersonal skills. That's particularly important for engineers who often have to simply complex ideas and then convince laypeople of their merits, or explain why a request is ill-advised in a way that doesn't lose customers or create animosity.
And there you have my specialty. My main talent is that I can sit with a researcher for a couple hours, pick up what they are telling me about what they do, and communicate that to other people. Male or female, many researchers and scientists are brilliant people, but not always or even often good communicators. I'd them give them the tools to sell their idea. There were some folks who could communicate well on their own, but a relative minority.
Now the ability to communicate in science is not better or worse along gender lines. There are som edifferences in approach, but the main issue is either shyness, or a tendency to go off on tangents and bog the presentation down to the point where people forget the point of the whole thing. As some of the extreme, we had a fellow who came very close to fainting every time he spoke. On the other side there was a lady researcher who once took well over two house to make a talk she was allotted 15 minutes for. My time? very expensive. Seems to have been thought worth the expense. Some folks didn't want to spend the money, and fell flat.
I've see products suffer from technical problems because the engineer who designed the thing is such an asshat when dealing with the technicians who build and test the thing. They technicians stopped asking him about failures and just came up with their own fixes or work-arounds.
Is this going to a place where you are saying that women are inherently better communicators? I find most to be amazing communicators, but not necessarily better ones. I know you don't think my university experience is worth anything, but the main attribute of the ladies if they weren't good communicators, is they were more often quite verbose, and tended toward non quantifiable "stuff".
If the males were stifled then many of the problems that affect women could not have been solved.
Well, that is certainly true. But the problem as such is that the rules come down from the women's studies group, which if I might be so brash is seldom a hotbed of desired equality. As an artist friend of mine noted after she took one of their classes, "This is nothing but women who hate men!" I believe her too, as she is a brilliant woman, and very liberal leaning. She simply doesn't hate men.
It's basic feminist philosophy - the same things that affect women affect men too and vice versa. It's not a question of one side having to lose for the other to gain, it's fixing problems that make everyone lose.
What I have an issue with is the idea that we have to be sensitive to so many things. In addition, the idea that any and all changes must come from males. That I have to alter my concept of working, which is to be straightforward, and to work until the job is finished, to one in which I just leave at 5:00 p.m., and any work not finished, well they just should have given me the work earlier.
With males and the women I worked with who were professional, we could work about 150 percent faster, because we didn't have to parse our interactions for feelings. If I made a mistake, or she made a mistake, we'd note it, and fix it. With the third wavers, you had to be extra careful. Telling some "professionals" they made a mistake made for upsets, and on a few occasions tearful sessions. This is a very scary moment for a male in a university setting - you could lose your job.
Someone is at some point going to have to tell some people that not everything has to be molded around them and their feelings. And it will have to be other women telling them that. If it is a male, he'll just be castigated as another chauvinist pig from the patriarchy. Perhaps lose his career. I've seen it happen.
The ladies in my position simply wouldn't do that.
Sounds like they're smarter than you or at least more willing to stand up for themselves.
It's part of the job, muchacho. If they didn't want to do those things, they never should have said they would when applying.
Smarter? Lessee, I made triple what they did, I got to go to interesting and often beautiful places, meet important people and learn a lot of stuff, I also got to provide for my family very well, and got to retire at 55. The last part was based on smart investments and being lucky enough not to die before I retired.
A few of the smarter ladies who "stood up for themselves" are working as waitresses now, and one as a physical trainer. The others I lost track of. If that's smarter, I'm fine with being dumb. By the way - a person my age, if they work until they are 67, the age considered normal retirement, will have worked 24,000 hours (minus vacation) more than me, not counting extra time I worked. But it surely wasn't 24,000 hours.
And as aside note, these successful women who are as liberated as any I have ever met, who put up with no bullshit - are hated by the third wave feminists who are busy installing a concept of the female who is utterly destroyed by any negativity, and must be protected from it at all times.
My sister is one of those liberated women; she didn't marry until very late in the game because her career meant everything to her, and she rose to the top echelons of a major financial corp. She's a tough-as-nails winner. She's also a Republican, which I didn't understand until I started seeing the second group of people you describe, the fragile who cannot tolerate any negativity. At least in the business world, it's not so much men vs women as it is the tough vs the sheltered. The women who need constant sheltering just reinforce the stereotype that women need sheltering; the ones who tough it out and rise to the top as equals with the biggest sharks in the pond are the ones who end up truly liberated.
The fatal flaw of third wave feminism is that it is a tyranny of the weak. And such as it is, the strong will only put up with it for so long. The goal is to not have any tyranny at all.
Even universities, which have long been the bastion of the concept that all men are evil rapists, and all women are virginals who are utterly ruined by any negativity, and must be protected from heterosexual sex at all costs, are coming to the realization that You cannot constantly pander to the weak and whiney. The weak and whiney simply will not stop whining, and with every demand granted, simply become weaker. And louder.
Not specificaly to the issue of gender, but recent attempts to refuse scheduled speakers like Anne Coulter, who yes, does say amazingly ridiculous things, or utra creepy Milo Yiannopoulos. How does one know wht they thing if you don't allow them to talk? Even disinvitation of Bill Maher for commencement speaker at Berkley, the comedian who manages to piss off both conservatives and liberals - which is simply telling me he speaks truth to power- he was later re-invited.
All of this being said, I have important news for the weak. You weak, who demand safe spaces and demand to hear nothing other than your very own point of view and ideology - you listening? You are every bit as bigoted and prejudiced as the old guys who watch only Fox News and scream at the Television. Look at them, and are merely looking at the opposite side of the coin that you cherish. This is your bubble.
These stories always turn into dumpster fires in the comments. A burning pile of ad-hominems, old tyres, a metric tonne of denials and dismissals, with the whole conflagration accelerated by complaints that the story shouldn't have been posted.
Its an old story. And can usually be cured by sliding that old mod level bar to the left.
I try to participate honestly, based on a career working in STEM, and working that career in the most female friendly environment around, where they received preferential hiring, preferential treatment, and the males were stifled. And still it didn't work.
I spent a fair bit of time working to try to get young ladies to get into STEM careers. That one got pretty sad in the end, when questions regarding males not being involved were raised, they allowed boy, but it was painfully obvious that all the attention was given to the girls.
In the end, I came to the conclusion that STEM was a career that the person has to be interested and dedicated, and they know it, not something that they see a video of STEM work, and suddenly think "Yeah - I want to do that!" My lady friends who are in STEM all knew from an early age they wanted to enter this field. Just like me.
Is it sexist to believe that there are some differences in thinking between men and women in the group sense?
My wife, who is roughly as intelligent as myself, and pretty brilliant, is not interested in the same things that I am. She chose a business career - and in of all places, the housing industry. Hardly a hotbed of gender equality. I chose science.
My lady friend Engineers and scientists and I can sit around and talk science all day long. We can joke, we can enjoy each other's company. And some have a really dirty sense of humor.
And as aside note, these successful women who are as liberated as any I have ever met, who put up with no bullshit - are hated by the third wave feminists who are busy installing a concept of the female who is utterly destroyed by any negativity, and must be protected from it at all times.
Regardless, after 30 plus years of work in the field, a fair amount spent in trying to attract and retain women in STEM, my considered opinion is that people will tend to be interested in what they are interested in, and that if the ultimate goal is equal representation by gender in STEM, we have to force males into other career paths, and force females into STEM. Hopefully we'll at least test for ability first, but that might be prejudicial in a world where children are told "You can do anything you want, you can be anything you can dream of if you only try hard enough."
Women say that they want to be involved but there are reasons not to be. That seems unfair and bad for everyone because their potentially useful contributions are lost.
The question of course, is what would have to happen to get that 1:1 presumptive requirement.
In my experience in a University environment, which perhaps comes closest to the mythical fairness desired to engender gender equality demands, we still had issues filling female positions. Even affirmative action - like me giving up several promotions so that departmental women could be fast-tracked were not all that successful. Keeping in mind that this was a workplace where a man could be terminated very easily. And if a University environment largely run by feminists isn't enough to satisfy the women, this is going to be a tough nut to crack.
If my personal experience from over 30 years in such an environment is of any worth, I see some of the following problems.
My career involved non-traditional work hours, and travel. That means that I sometimes had to come in early, or stay late. I also had travel, but two weeks away was the upper limit, and most were a few days in duration.
The ladies in my position simply wouldn't do that. Now people might argue about whether such a career was worth it, but if you choose that work, it isn't unreasonable to do that work.
Next up is that I tended to finish their work when they "couldn't" stay past 5:00 p.m. Fortunately I was more interested in getting the work finished. We had one who even confided that she went into a carpool so she had a excuse not to work extra.
So how do I achieve a equal mix in a position that ends up having two standards? One for myself and another couple males, and another one for females who could pick and choose what they do?
And all at the same time that the women could get any of us in trouble. And we did get complaints, mostly about my pay, which was substantially higher than theirs. Fortunately, due to my keeping meticulous records, and my own boss understanding the situation, they were told that if they wanted my pay, they would have to do the same work I did. I also explained that I wouldn't come in early or stay late to finish their work. And when there was a downturn in work, which happens about every 5 years, they were let go, based on seniority or work production.
Now as to the issue of college attendance. This delves into societal issues. The university environment is very unfriendly to men, especially those in the bloom of youth. You get to attend mandatory sexual harassment courses, and at any moment you can find yourself kicked out. I get sexual assault messages as required by law, and they end up being like weird creepy porn. Regardless, for all of the postings, we almost never see anything make it to court.
But in the aggregate, the University environment is toxic to young males, and males being males, they tend to avoid toxic environments.
3 people shoot a gun at other people. One person misses hitting anyone, and gets a few years in prison, one person wounds someone and gets several years in prison, one person kills someone and get 20-life or the death penalty. Why? All three shot at people. Why should the results make a difference?
The study I cited is not based just on Murder, but arrests and outcomes across a broad spectrum.
As for the results not making a difference. That's a real slippery slope. Is thinking you want a person dead a crime? Buying a firearm for self defense against the person? There's a reason that the severity of the crime is the main consideration for the punishment
I mostly use DuckDuckGo because the "privacy" stuff Google needs you to accept pisses me off and I don't think the results themselves are better, sometimes worse, but at least they didn't make such an UNHOLY MESS of their search results page.
This! Google's searches had become me needing to manually subsearch what they provided, and at least half the time I needed to go to the second page.A lot of their top results are hosted out, os they don't work for me anyhow. The lack of tracking is a bonus, although I take care of that via other ways as well.
DDG isn't perfect, but at least it's a lot more useable.
I never believed them when they said cybering could make the world go blind, but now I'm starting to understand it.
Nah, that's referring to porn. The trick is to stop at the point you only need glasses.
A fair number of cargo shops have limited space for passengers. I understand the conditions are a bit spartan and there's not much entertainment, plus it might take a week to cross the Atlantic.
I've been told the food is really good. I'd like to try the trip some time, since even in retirement, my schedule is pretty hectic. Wonder if the cargo ships have wifi?
You seem to be assuming that the longer sentences are the fairer/better ones. If the "that guy looks big and scary" bias is removed and everyone gets the shorter sentence, it's good for all.
Explain how I suggested anything other than there is a verifiable difference between between male and female sentencing. I said nothing about the length of punishment I desired. For the record, punishments in the US tend to be longer than I think is adequate.
As for assumptions, you appear to be assuming what I am assuming. In this particular case, you are wrong.
Men commit far more crimes then women. If the premise of basing sentencing on probability of future crimes is accepted, gender (and race etc) disparity makes perfect sesnse. Even if the algorithm is not given gender and race inputs, its likely to reach same conclusions by considering other factors such as growing up in poverty.
Wow - good to see that the bogots have chimed in. That - iamcat - would be you.
Any other groups you want individuals to be punished based on any of your pre-decided bigotry?
Not even going to bring up race?
We all know that black people go to jail at higher rates than whites. Considering or not considering race as a factor is also terrible.
Race is also a problem. According to other research by Professor Starr https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p... It's real, and it's happening. Interestingly, the bias in favor of women is that the gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity. Read the articles for the info.
https://www.law.umich.edu/news... For those too busy to read the citation, the research by Professor Sonja Starr indicates men receive prison sentences that average 63% longer than women convicted of the same crime. Women are also twice as likely to avoid incarceration altogether. The paper itself: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...
So what we have here a bit of a minefield. If we are to continue this practice, the algorithm must take gender into account, and purposely hand out sentences that are much less for females than males. This would become glaringly obvious during testing. Input identical parameters except gender. Codified and simply proven gender discrimination, built right into the program will result in a pretty short gender discrimination trial.
But if gender is not taken into account, and suddenly females get identical sentencing, you can bet there will be a lot of legal agitation from a different group.
I see it as an entertaining thing to watch unravel. I would expect to consume much popcorn.
Americans have free speech in the US but, shockingly, US laws are not universal... the instant you set foot to another country you better realise a completely different set of protections (or lack of them) applies.
Twitter definitely enjoys free speech protection for its operation in the US, definitely not for its operations in other countries.
Perhaps if the laws are different, then the citizens of these countries should not be allowed to access Twitter at all, ever. Arrest them for using a web service that violates the laws in their country. Problem completely solved. Kind of like the VolksRadio.
Being Europe. that punishment would be interesting given the fancy things y'all have done in the past.
Publishing someone false and derogatory about someone has always been legally actionable in the US. You can legally think of me as whatever heinous sort of creature you like, but if you publish an opinion that is false and harmful to me you can get sued, regardless of what you think.
I challenge you to point out exactly where I said you couldn't.
First off, Reddit didn't retaliate against Pao when she filed a lawsuit. The board didn't fire her like a week after she filed her lawsuit. Reddit followed the law and compartmentalized Ellen Pao the litigant and Ellan Pao the CEO. After she lost the case, she resigned.
Let's stop here. The lawsuit that I was speaking about was the one against Kleiner Perkins for gender discrimination This was the one in which she managed to be both discriminated against, and found it advantageous to enter in to a sexual relationship with a senior partner at Kleiner Perkins. This as we all know is a great way to bolster your credibility. Pro offered to drop her appeal of the case for 2.7 million dollars from KP.
Some of the sexual "harassment" she received was a gift of a book of Leonard Cohen poems. Apparently there was an all male dinner that was intolerable, we have to remember there has never ever been any all women dinners between workers. These are what third wage feminists call "micro-indignities". These are what regular people, men and women both, call life. Except most of us aren't having sex with senior partners. Meanwhile she was ordered to pay $276,000 of Kleiner Perkins legal fees.
That's pretty disruptive.
There was no reddit lawsuit as far as I know, but she is always up to something, some might think.
Tesla is playing an extremely dangerous game by firing the woman. Unless they have some hard proof that she made the entire thing up, her lawyer will file a retaliation suit in addition to the discrimination suit and it won't be a question of IF Tesla pays out, but HOW MUCH.
So what you are saying is that a disruptive employee must be kept on staff based on gender?
We've been seeing cases of disruptive females losing their discrimination cases, Ellen Pao is perhaps the most prominent example.
Being a disruptive employee is not a gender specific thing, I've worked with both. The problem employee does tend to grasp at anything to continue to be disruptive, regardless of gender. Certain groups have extra claims they can make. And when you can play the gender card, you will immediately polarize the issue, with people falling into predictable positions.
We don't know the particulars of this case, so it is difficult to determine who did what. But having a third party investigate the issue was smart on Tesla's part.
Now that being said, and with the firing, I suspect that Tesla has at the least, a solid case. I would not be surprised if they refused to settle and took any resulting lawsuit to open court.
Let's take gender out of the equation, and move to a similar matter. Where I spent most of my career, there were a number of service workers. There were a small but not insignificant number of these workers that were Workman's comp/SS disability cases waiting to happen. Minor injuries - like the kind that required a band-aid and antiseptic, were trumped up by these folk as a injury so severe that they could not ever work again. I recall one person who tried to get disability for a back muscle spasm.
And yup, they were so adamant about the evil place making them work. And yup, almost all were exposed if they did manage to get disability. They keep track of work these days, and if a person is really interesting, they'll have someone tail them and take video and photos. But the point is that there are people out there who are willing to use every tool at their disposal, and the person's sex is now often used as a bludgeon.
Regardless, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out. But if the Pao case is any indication, a person playing the gender discrimination card case is not a slam dunk when a third party is investigating the issue.
I am Groot.
Are you licensed as a tree?
lol captcha: harassed
Everywhere but the District of Columbia and North Carolina. There I had to register as a potato.
He was not arrested for having an opinion he was arrested for spreading information.
To compare with your bumper sticker analogy:
Take it up with the Supreme court. I had no part in their decision, merely agree with it.
Thoughtcrime!
Whilst I disagree with this by principle, it is not thoughtcrime.
Like many people who claim "thoughtcrime" you don't have any idea about what thoughtcrime is. Probably because you've never actually read Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Thoughtcrime was where the wrong facial expression could give you away, wearing a frown or a smile would be taken as a sign of seditious or subversive thoughts, so the term "thoughtcrime" was coined. The citizens and residents of Airstrip One would always wear a face of cautious optimism to avoid being charged with thoughtcrime.
In this case, he actually did something instead of being accused of just thinking it.
Seriously. Must a real world example be the exact action from a book? Regardless, Wikipedia has thoughtcrime describing an "illegal thought" and I happen to agree with it. Argue with them.
My thoughts about something are my opinions about it. If I think that Sophia Vergara is really appealing, that is my opinion. Pretty simple. If I I push the like button regarding a positive post about her I have expressed my thoughts. If say, I thought about whatever this guy was "liking", that would likewise be my opinion, my thoughts on the matter, and liking it would be an expression of my opinion. Do you deny that this man had a thought that he supported what he liked? His thoughts are a crime in Switzerland. His opinion is a crime in Switzerland, that's pretty obvious from the article. He did not post the offensive post, he did not commit the crime if there was one - he merely liked it.
Now, you probably support the punishment of anyone with an opinion you do not like, or are merely one small step away from it, perhaps you are generous enough to allow them to go unpunished as long as they dare not utter that opinion. They keep their thoughts to themselves, is perhaps acceptable. But we don't think like that over here, there have been cases and it has gone up the appelate courts and they have spoken. We punish the person producing the problem, not people who press the like button. Not those who have your forbidden and therefore criminal thoughts. The forbidden agreement, the thoughtcrime.
And let us perhaps throw away the word thoughtcrime, since it offends you so. I don't want some European country applying to extradite me because I offended you, and made an insufferable comment, which apparently in some places in Europe is now a crime.
You cannot deny that the crime that was committed was a person expressing his opinion. That is the crime. deny it if you will.
Thoughtcrime it is unless you can show me who's been prosecuted here. We get it, you hate us. But that doesn't mean any old bullshit you care to spew is true.
So, that is the new standard to assert wheather something is a toughtcrime? That someone has been prosecuted int switzerland doesn't reach the bar? It has to be in the US?
Way to not follow the conversation. The person I was having the conversation with had stated that:
It is not thoughtcrime at all. It is an actual crime of promoting a lie, something that is punishable under US law also. The only thing new here is ruling that the LIKE button is a form of publication ... which it is.
So we got into the comparative thing. I call it thoughtcrime, because here in the USA, the specific action, that of pressing the like button, is considered free speech. People are allowed to respond to it using their right of free speech, but the government is not allowed to arrest you or punish you for it, because it is an opinion by our law. Now relax and try to catch up.