Because today, science and advances take an extremely remote second place to servicing the stockholders.
What stockholders?
I have no idea what libertarian fappoff you are doing, but your replies to me don't have anything to do with what I wrote.
You make a ridiculous mistake in trying to say that I wrote that scientists are somehow stockholders. But I think you are smarter than that, and are just one of those peopel that like to latch onto a couple words then act like the other person is an idiot. I have a guy like that who worked for me for a while. A rather short while.
Now if you want to discuss like a grownup, we can. But you got off on a wildass tangentt, and it only got worse from there.
Point is, basic research doesn't have an immediate profit, so is not a real good candidate for free market principles. Good day sir.
Why do you always drag social justice issues up in irrelevant threads? It's almost like you're fighting for it. A warrior or something.
Amazing, isn't it?
You have anything relevant to add to what I posted?
One of the very important parts of science is to ask questions and discuss, not question motives.
Here's how it goes:
Someone complains about how science is done, and that it isn't allowing researchers to explore things they want to explore.
Okay, but there are some troubling aspects here. From the article:
We, the authors of this Comment, met earlier this year, having been selected by the World Economic Forum as part of a group of scientists under the age of 40 who “play a transformational role in integrating scientific knowledge into society for the public good”.
Immediately there are some problems. Is the state of being over the age of 40 indicative of being wrong? Does a 39 year old scientist's work become irrelevant on her 40th birthday?
Transformational is another loaded word. One of the most disturbing aspects of it when appled to science is that it is - especially within the context of the statement - making a judgement on what is or isn't transformational. And making that judgement before the work is even initiated.
Also from the article:
Most striking are the barriers to achieving impact. Our research often led us to questions that had greater potential than our original focus, typically because these new directions encompassed the complexities of society. We realized that changing tack could lead to more important work, but the policies of research funders and institutions consistently discourage such pivots.
Typically because these new directions encompassed the complexities of society? Whoa. That sounds like a social control of science. That's fine for people until the social control denies research in specidic areas, or warps a concept for a social end. See social Darwinism and the mess that created.
And it's all such bullshit anyhow. You make a proposal based on an idea or concept, and hopefully it gets funded. Then you do the testing, if the testing shows the idea was wrong, those results go to the finished report. Then you know what doesn't work.
If you need to go in another direction based on the data, then you have the basis of another project. Possibly more funding.
side note: in the area of applied science, we often found that ideas didn't work, so were indeed able to change tack. But in the area of the basic research, you did the work as outlined and made the report. This is because even in the failures, there is much to be learned.
As well, there are multiple levels of science to work in. Some people pump out ideas at the pure science level. There is usually a certain amount of money set aside for that. Others glean these people's work and take promising ideas and work with them. Then it works its way up the ladder.
The article makes the implication that any good ideas are quickly stomped on, and that social good should be a critical aspect.
Define social good. Is it alternative energy sources? Is it providing jobs for the coal industry?
Finally, from the article:
The greatest risk is that innovation will be stifled by failing to invest in the best emerging scientists, who are approaching the peak of their creativity.
I wonder if they have the cites that emerging scientists are the best scientists, and that emerging scientists are the pinnacle of creativity?
And back to the video, the young lady who demands that western science be scrapped for her lightningbolt producing shamans version of science, pulls out a tablet after making her point.
Now I must get back to my cold fusion experiments, I have determined that this is the line of research that will do the most good for society.
Basically MS and Apple selected the CPUs and GPUs in their latest computers based on practical problems of release dates. These decisions were not to screw you as the consumer over. Film at 11.
Nonono!
Microsoft used intelligent and astute marketing decisions that are already showing how smart they are, and apple is a bunch of goddamn hipsters selling overpriced shit to stupid people that like shiny things
What we're seeing is the result of capitalism's reach getting to scientists. The focus of institutions has moved from discoveries of research to the monetary benefits of research. The reason for this is plain as day, a lack of funds. The question is, who is restricting funds and what is their motive. If you find this, you'll discover the problem.
Capitalism has it's place but using it everywhere will lead to disaster.
Because today, science and advances take an extremely remote second place to servicing the stockholders. Once upon a time, there were places like Bell labs where a lot of research was done. Then there was a shift to Universities. This helped fo ra while, but now the Universities are groaning under the weight, are in some cases employing more managers than any other field, except for possibly accountants and fundraisers. http://www.bain.com/publicatio... warning - thi sis plenty dry stuff here.
The fix? I personally have no idea. Perhaps some monies can be wrested from the football programs. Maybe they can open up research to gambling.
For those who think that science is racist and sexist and needs completely broken down and a new and subjective version of science installed. Well, actually no science at all. Yes Virginia, not all kooks are conservative. The left has it's share.
Is that put in the US constitution? Where? How did that work until the 1960's when blacks had less formal rights than humans? Or is this regulated just in "normal" laws?
There were some seriously fucked up interpretations. At one time Citizens of African descent were considered 3/5ths of a human.
There has been conjecture and educated guesses that America's racial past will take around 200 years to recover from. We still have people pissed off about the Civil war.
Maybe WorldStarHipHop or Twitter would be a more appropriate website for you.
Maybe lurking would be a better place for you. Your humor gland is remarkably small - I think it is a result of being too close to alternative energy sources.
I myself have been a victim of the solar panel shits from time to time. Chillax, and I like to make fun of everything.
Not as defensive as you are humorless. C'mon dood - after all of the whining about the missing headphone jack, the macbook connectors and how it must be impossible to get a multi-outlet USB dongle (I have 12 USB outboard ports on my Mac, and a similar number on my Dell, ave 4 extra on my Pi3) y'all deserve a little rbbing.
But thanks for playing - you win a brand new Samsung Galaxy S7, it's the hottest gift this Christmas season.
Florida is predominantly swampland and sinkhole ridden.
Florida is being developed at an alarming rate.
Couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with either of those things though!
Yes, it could have a lot to do with it. But that doesn't mean the ocean levels are not rising. Especially in the southern part of Florida, the land is all very near to sea level. This means that small increases in sea level will have large effects on real estate. So places that were not affected years ago, are now. Portions of Miami regularly have incursions of seawater diring spring tides, that did not have them in years past.
That's a feature - you can stand on the roof and hope for rescue. Ever tried to sail a house?
Reminds me of the old Joke.....
A man was in an ara struck by a hurricane. The police came by and told him he needed to get on the bus that would take him to a shelter. P
"No thank you sir, My faith is strong, and God will protect me"
The policeman shrugged his shoulders and left.P
The storm raged on, and the water filled the streets and came up to the porch. A boat came out to rescue the man.
Oh, no! My faith is strong, and God will surely provide for me as long as I have faith!" the man told the person in the boat.
The boat left to rescue others.
The water rose and rose, and a dam near th eman's house broke. The man climbed onto his roof, but the water was still rising.
A rescue Helicopter came by, and dropped a ladder for the man to climb up and be pulled out of certain death
The man replied "NO! Who would I be to lose my faith in God? He will deliver me from this flood so long as I believe!!" The Helicopter left.
The water continued to rise, and the man was swept off his roof and drowned.
Arriving at the pearly gates, The man met God.
"God! Why have you abandoned me in the moment I needed you most? I needed saved, and you let me drown!"
God replied, You idiot! First I sent the police to rescue you, then I sent a boat to rescue you, then I sent a helicopter to rescue you! What more did you want?"
But I fear this constant fear-mongering is damaging climate science credibility as much as it's helping to push forward good environmental policies.
I fear that people who jam everyone into the most radical fringes of any thought process do a fair bit of damage as well.
Because life just doesn't work that way. Not everyone is fringe.
If there is an apocalypse that is based on AGW, it will possibly be based on humanity destroying most of itself through the time honored standard ways, such as warfare. As countries find a changing climate they might become desperate and invade other countries.
Because as the climate and resulting weather patters shift, some places will be hammered hard, and some places will be greatly benefited. And now that we have the means to wipe ourselves off the face of the earth with not a lot of effort, it might behoove us to look into the resulting social upheaval.
That's why the US military does a lot of planning for that upheaval. Whatever others think of them, they are pretty smart people.
So just because your crazy uncle Don thinks AGW is a hoax created by the Heathen Chinee, or cousin Moonbeam says our only chance is if the crystal aliens rescue us and take us to heaven, doesn't mean ti ain't so, just that our families have some nuts in them.
I've lived on Miami Beach for 30+ years. In the last 6 years or so, when there is heavy rain, the water comes up over the sidewalk and completely floods the streets - **every time**. This never used to happen, and now it's totally predictable. So yeah, shit is happening, and you can observe it yourself if you choose to.
Oh boy - there's some dingdong I've had a row with who is gonna be pissed at you! He claims that there is absolutely no water rise issues in Miami, all is well, and all of the data claiming water rise is a conspiracy, all of the reports are a conspiracy, and there is no such thing as sea level rise.
So, from the order of the list, you assumed that his conclusion was "men are pigs"? That's a pretty weak argument so I'm leaving this one.
The term men are pigs is based on a common statement when people want to blame some ill on men. In general, it refers to either sloppieness or lack of proper hygiene, or sexual proclivities.
I like to use the term for it's shock value because that's what it is in essence.
Overt sexism, unwanted attention and sexual harassment create hostile working conditions.
Overt sexism is piggish behavior, unwanted attention is piggish behavior, sexual harassment is piggish behavior, and a hostile environment caused by this piggish behavior is a hostile environment caused by piggish behavior, the people who are doing this are men, therefore....
Men are pigs.
Don't for a New York minute think that I condone harassment. However, it is way too convenient an excuse to be a one size fits all answer to problems. I'd happily fire a guy who was acting like an asshole. But we are simultaneously training young girls to believe that they can do anything they want to do, and to be so fragile that anything that happens to them will destroy them. Damn - that's not a good combo.
I also believe that considering that actual intergender fucking is going on in the workplace of fields that women seem to have no issues going into kinda makes the men are pigs association keeping women out of Tech ring really hollow. We've tried the its all men's fault method for years, and ended up with some pretty stifled men, and less women. Time to stop looking under the streetlamp because the light is good, when it looks like we lost the keys elsewhere.
You can't say your Jeeps are literal life savers and then not tell the story about how they saved lives. We all want to know now.
Weather here in the Northeast has become really unpredictable. For both my wife and I we have been caught in ice storms in the middle of nowhere.
The magic of the Jeep and it's modern day traction control is that it will actually go on ice, and go well.
Biiig caveat! the Laws of physics still hold, stopping is still a huge issue on glare ice, even with ABS. But we've both been able to limp off the road, in her case, getting off the interstate for stopping on a side road, and for me, getting out of the woods in sub zero weather on glare ice.
Not very exciting stories, but being able to maintain control on an icy interstate and to get off before you are nuked by some nut is a lifesaver, and getting out of the woods so you don't freeze to death is nice as well.
I've also pulled a fair number of other vehicles out of ditches when they've slid off the road.
For everyone: Be extremely careful if you have a 4 wheel drive. Every winter we have people that end up in ditches because they think just because they can go in a straight line, that they can round a curve on ice at 70 mph, or stop just like on a dry road, even with ABS. You can't.
To be accurate, they are about 25 percent of the vehicles in my area. Weather is unpredictable, and we need vehicles that go. And sometimes we need something sure footed to pull those non-shit vehicles out of the ditches they slide into.
The conclusion - men are pigs. From the article, the first and foremost reason : Overt sexism, unwanted attention and sexual harassment create hostile working conditions.
Sorry Ol, but that's the worst kind of MRA deliberate mis-interpretation. It's a single item on a list. It doesn't say that "men are pigs", or imply that, or suggest it is the main or only reason. It's just noting that sometimes it is an issue.
It's the first item on the list. Assuming that the good professor took classes on writing, and the rest of the paper indicates that he certainly did. We always put the most important thing on top of the list. My choosing that was deliberate, but it was no mis-interpretation. It was proper writing style.
This is a style long honed, for people who are in a big hurry, to scan over a paper and pick out the paper's most important points. It's a step beyond the abstract, and allows the reader to determine how deeply they want to dive into the the meat of the paper. I've read a lot of papers in my time, and have never seen one that is written otherwise.
Furthermore, it sounds like your university did an awful lot and I accept your word that it is the case. I'm not disputing your personal experience, I'm saying that overall the numbers and the studies that actually spoke to women about this issue say something else.
There is a sort of confirmation bias that is a lot more common than just among right wing echo chamber inhabitants. People start out with what they want to believe, and make certain that they get the feedback that tells them they are right.
There are some related examples of this in other fields, one that my wife has some experience in. She had a brother who was a juvenile delinquent, and spent a lot of years in "juvie". I was reading some of the literature, and there among the "truants have been horribly mistreated by their families, and this is the cause of their problems", there were a few papers that questioned the veracity of the reports that the kids in question gave to the psychologists interviewing them. The major questioning was are they telling the truth about all of the abuse?
I asked my girlfriend at the time (now my wife) if they had any experience in this, and she informed me that her brother had told so many verifiable lies to the psychologists that someone wanting to use his data to confirm their opinion would be engaging in blatant confirmation bias.
Much of what we see when we hear of the sexism in IT and STEM does not come from those women who are successful, but from those who bombed out. So just like a friend's wife who used to claim sexual harassment everywhere she went, and the friend admitted that they used that as a erotic enhancement - ya gotta look at things a little skeptically at times.
So perhaps your institution was the exception rather than the rule, or perhaps it was already too late by the time women got there and more effort needs to be put in at a younger age.
Perhaps. Maybe we shouldn't have put the cutoff at preschool.
I'm not singling you out here, but I've noticed a lot of people seem to assume I believe all kinds of crazy things and take bizarre, extreme positions on a variety of subjects. I don't, please don't make those assumptions and don't get angry when I decline to defend them.
I read you as a progressive, pro modern day feminist or modern day feminism supporter. I am pretty certain that your mind is made up and not subject to change. Rejecting in an offhand manner front line data that comes from someone who has tried and failed along with others who have tried and failed, lends veracity to my read. At least to me. What do you accept anyhow? Only scholarly articles that are written with no other research than other scholarly articles, and reject all data input?
As for me, modern day feminism is a terrible trap, convincing many women that unless they suffer no negativity, no opposition, that they will fail, and are entirely justified and correct in that failure, so society must make certain to never ever subject them to anything that they do not want to hear.
Life just doesn't work that way. Negativity comes from everywhere. Men, other women, bosses, subordinates, life in general.
Here's a question for you though. You don't actually believe any of my experience do you?
Slashdot Mirror
What stockholders? I have no idea what libertarian fappoff you are doing, but your replies to me don't have anything to do with what I wrote.
You make a ridiculous mistake in trying to say that I wrote that scientists are somehow stockholders. But I think you are smarter than that, and are just one of those peopel that like to latch onto a couple words then act like the other person is an idiot. I have a guy like that who worked for me for a while. A rather short while. Now if you want to discuss like a grownup, we can. But you got off on a wildass tangentt, and it only got worse from there. Point is, basic research doesn't have an immediate profit, so is not a real good candidate for free market principles. Good day sir.
Why do you always drag social justice issues up in irrelevant threads? It's almost like you're fighting for it. A warrior or something.
Amazing, isn't it?
You have anything relevant to add to what I posted?
One of the very important parts of science is to ask questions and discuss, not question motives.
Here's how it goes:
Someone complains about how science is done, and that it isn't allowing researchers to explore things they want to explore.
Okay, but there are some troubling aspects here. From the article:
We, the authors of this Comment, met earlier this year, having been selected by the World Economic Forum as part of a group of scientists under the age of 40 who “play a transformational role in integrating scientific knowledge into society for the public good”.
Immediately there are some problems. Is the state of being over the age of 40 indicative of being wrong? Does a 39 year old scientist's work become irrelevant on her 40th birthday?
Transformational is another loaded word. One of the most disturbing aspects of it when appled to science is that it is - especially within the context of the statement - making a judgement on what is or isn't transformational. And making that judgement before the work is even initiated.
Also from the article:
Most striking are the barriers to achieving impact. Our research often led us to questions that had greater potential than our original focus, typically because these new directions encompassed the complexities of society. We realized that changing tack could lead to more important work, but the policies of research funders and institutions consistently discourage such pivots.
Typically because these new directions encompassed the complexities of society? Whoa. That sounds like a social control of science. That's fine for people until the social control denies research in specidic areas, or warps a concept for a social end. See social Darwinism and the mess that created.
And it's all such bullshit anyhow. You make a proposal based on an idea or concept, and hopefully it gets funded. Then you do the testing, if the testing shows the idea was wrong, those results go to the finished report. Then you know what doesn't work.
If you need to go in another direction based on the data, then you have the basis of another project. Possibly more funding.
side note: in the area of applied science, we often found that ideas didn't work, so were indeed able to change tack. But in the area of the basic research, you did the work as outlined and made the report. This is because even in the failures, there is much to be learned.
As well, there are multiple levels of science to work in. Some people pump out ideas at the pure science level. There is usually a certain amount of money set aside for that. Others glean these people's work and take promising ideas and work with them. Then it works its way up the ladder.
The article makes the implication that any good ideas are quickly stomped on, and that social good should be a critical aspect.
Define social good. Is it alternative energy sources? Is it providing jobs for the coal industry?
Finally, from the article:
The greatest risk is that innovation will be stifled by failing to invest in the best emerging scientists, who are approaching the peak of their creativity. I wonder if they have the cites that emerging scientists are the best scientists, and that emerging scientists are the pinnacle of creativity?
And back to the video, the young lady who demands that western science be scrapped for her lightningbolt producing shamans version of science, pulls out a tablet after making her point.
Now I must get back to my cold fusion experiments, I have determined that this is the line of research that will do the most good for society.
>trying this hard
Well, you did the best you could. Here's your trophy.
Basically MS and Apple selected the CPUs and GPUs in their latest computers based on practical problems of release dates. These decisions were not to screw you as the consumer over. Film at 11.
Nonono!
Microsoft used intelligent and astute marketing decisions that are already showing how smart they are, and apple is a bunch of goddamn hipsters selling overpriced shit to stupid people that like shiny things
Was anything he stated not reasonable to want in a notebook?
Keep thinking you're edgy though.
You forgot to add you need powerful memes of hipster mac users and overpriced garbage.
Edgy? Hell no. I just expect my computer to work after an update. That's not edgy, that's just what people should expect.
> Pulling USB mass storage support so that people can't copy music. "[crickets]"
What do you mean?
The closest I can get is his Chevy can beat your Ford any day.
What we're seeing is the result of capitalism's reach getting to scientists. The focus of institutions has moved from discoveries of research to the monetary benefits of research. The reason for this is plain as day, a lack of funds. The question is, who is restricting funds and what is their motive. If you find this, you'll discover the problem.
Capitalism has it's place but using it everywhere will lead to disaster.
Because today, science and advances take an extremely remote second place to servicing the stockholders. Once upon a time, there were places like Bell labs where a lot of research was done. Then there was a shift to Universities. This helped fo ra while, but now the Universities are groaning under the weight, are in some cases employing more managers than any other field, except for possibly accountants and fundraisers. http://www.bain.com/publicatio... warning - thi sis plenty dry stuff here.
The fix? I personally have no idea. Perhaps some monies can be wrested from the football programs. Maybe they can open up research to gambling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Is that put in the US constitution? Where? How did that work until the 1960's when blacks had less formal rights than humans? Or is this regulated just in "normal" laws?
There were some seriously fucked up interpretations. At one time Citizens of African descent were considered 3/5ths of a human.
There has been conjecture and educated guesses that America's racial past will take around 200 years to recover from. We still have people pissed off about the Civil war.
Maybe WorldStarHipHop or Twitter would be a more appropriate website for you.
Maybe lurking would be a better place for you. Your humor gland is remarkably small - I think it is a result of being too close to alternative energy sources.
I myself have been a victim of the solar panel shits from time to time. Chillax, and I like to make fun of everything.
Defensive much?
Not as defensive as you are humorless. C'mon dood - after all of the whining about the missing headphone jack, the macbook connectors and how it must be impossible to get a multi-outlet USB dongle (I have 12 USB outboard ports on my Mac, and a similar number on my Dell, ave 4 extra on my Pi3) y'all deserve a little rbbing.
But thanks for playing - you win a brand new Samsung Galaxy S7, it's the hottest gift this Christmas season.
WHAT? you have to buy a display if you want a second monitor on your MacBook? Goddammit! is there no end to Apple's bullshit?
[...] the unsecured data had been posted on a website by a contractor who maintains and develops the Red Cross website.
Sorry, but could someone please explain to me how is it even possible to do that accidentally?
Hellary and the DNC did it on purpose. And Mexican rapists. And that Baldwin guy. And Megyn Kelly. And Muslims and Bill Maher.
It all makes perfect sense now doesn't it?
Florida is predominantly swampland and sinkhole ridden. Florida is being developed at an alarming rate.
Couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with either of those things though!
Yes, it could have a lot to do with it. But that doesn't mean the ocean levels are not rising. Especially in the southern part of Florida, the land is all very near to sea level. This means that small increases in sea level will have large effects on real estate. So places that were not affected years ago, are now. Portions of Miami regularly have incursions of seawater diring spring tides, that did not have them in years past.
http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
But fear not, The Governor of Florida has simply banned ocean level rise, so the problem has been fixed.
That and a lot of pumps. We are not truly pissing against the tide. http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014...
And as noted, the sure fire cure foro this is , as noted “Let’s pray, let’s pray, let’s pray, it’s going to get better,” said Caballero."
Who knew?
That's a feature - you can stand on the roof and hope for rescue. Ever tried to sail a house?
Reminds me of the old Joke.....
A man was in an ara struck by a hurricane. The police came by and told him he needed to get on the bus that would take him to a shelter. P "No thank you sir, My faith is strong, and God will protect me"
The policeman shrugged his shoulders and left.P The storm raged on, and the water filled the streets and came up to the porch. A boat came out to rescue the man.
Oh, no! My faith is strong, and God will surely provide for me as long as I have faith!" the man told the person in the boat.
The boat left to rescue others.
The water rose and rose, and a dam near th eman's house broke. The man climbed onto his roof, but the water was still rising.
A rescue Helicopter came by, and dropped a ladder for the man to climb up and be pulled out of certain death
The man replied "NO! Who would I be to lose my faith in God? He will deliver me from this flood so long as I believe!!" The Helicopter left.
The water continued to rise, and the man was swept off his roof and drowned.
Arriving at the pearly gates, The man met God.
"God! Why have you abandoned me in the moment I needed you most? I needed saved, and you let me drown!"
God replied, You idiot! First I sent the police to rescue you, then I sent a boat to rescue you, then I sent a helicopter to rescue you! What more did you want?"
But I fear this constant fear-mongering is damaging climate science credibility as much as it's helping to push forward good environmental policies.
I fear that people who jam everyone into the most radical fringes of any thought process do a fair bit of damage as well.
Because life just doesn't work that way. Not everyone is fringe.
If there is an apocalypse that is based on AGW, it will possibly be based on humanity destroying most of itself through the time honored standard ways, such as warfare. As countries find a changing climate they might become desperate and invade other countries.
Because as the climate and resulting weather patters shift, some places will be hammered hard, and some places will be greatly benefited. And now that we have the means to wipe ourselves off the face of the earth with not a lot of effort, it might behoove us to look into the resulting social upheaval.
That's why the US military does a lot of planning for that upheaval. Whatever others think of them, they are pretty smart people.
So just because your crazy uncle Don thinks AGW is a hoax created by the Heathen Chinee, or cousin Moonbeam says our only chance is if the crystal aliens rescue us and take us to heaven, doesn't mean ti ain't so, just that our families have some nuts in them.
So you should build a proper concrete or brick house, like normal people do.
Don't get too cocky - they don't float.
I've lived on Miami Beach for 30+ years. In the last 6 years or so, when there is heavy rain, the water comes up over the sidewalk and completely floods the streets - **every time**. This never used to happen, and now it's totally predictable. So yeah, shit is happening, and you can observe it yourself if you choose to.
Oh boy - there's some dingdong I've had a row with who is gonna be pissed at you! He claims that there is absolutely no water rise issues in Miami, all is well, and all of the data claiming water rise is a conspiracy, all of the reports are a conspiracy, and there is no such thing as sea level rise.
Nope, I'm afraid that dinosaurs did not in fact become lizards. Incidentally, were you "educated" in (or even near) Oklahoma??
Burn!
So, from the order of the list, you assumed that his conclusion was "men are pigs"? That's a pretty weak argument so I'm leaving this one.
The term men are pigs is based on a common statement when people want to blame some ill on men. In general, it refers to either sloppieness or lack of proper hygiene, or sexual proclivities.
I like to use the term for it's shock value because that's what it is in essence.
Overt sexism, unwanted attention and sexual harassment create hostile working conditions.
Overt sexism is piggish behavior, unwanted attention is piggish behavior, sexual harassment is piggish behavior, and a hostile environment caused by this piggish behavior is a hostile environment caused by piggish behavior, the people who are doing this are men, therefore....
Men are pigs.
Don't for a New York minute think that I condone harassment. However, it is way too convenient an excuse to be a one size fits all answer to problems. I'd happily fire a guy who was acting like an asshole. But we are simultaneously training young girls to believe that they can do anything they want to do, and to be so fragile that anything that happens to them will destroy them. Damn - that's not a good combo.
I also believe that considering that actual intergender fucking is going on in the workplace of fields that women seem to have no issues going into kinda makes the men are pigs association keeping women out of Tech ring really hollow. We've tried the its all men's fault method for years, and ended up with some pretty stifled men, and less women. Time to stop looking under the streetlamp because the light is good, when it looks like we lost the keys elsewhere.
As somebody who has done both - it is MUCH nicer to live near a nuclear plant.
And how! As long as they keep that genie in the bottle, nuc power is spooky unobtrusive.
You can't say your Jeeps are literal life savers and then not tell the story about how they saved lives. We all want to know now.
Weather here in the Northeast has become really unpredictable. For both my wife and I we have been caught in ice storms in the middle of nowhere.
The magic of the Jeep and it's modern day traction control is that it will actually go on ice, and go well.
Biiig caveat! the Laws of physics still hold, stopping is still a huge issue on glare ice, even with ABS. But we've both been able to limp off the road, in her case, getting off the interstate for stopping on a side road, and for me, getting out of the woods in sub zero weather on glare ice.
Not very exciting stories, but being able to maintain control on an icy interstate and to get off before you are nuked by some nut is a lifesaver, and getting out of the woods so you don't freeze to death is nice as well.
I've also pulled a fair number of other vehicles out of ditches when they've slid off the road.
For everyone: Be extremely careful if you have a 4 wheel drive. Every winter we have people that end up in ditches because they think just because they can go in a straight line, that they can round a curve on ice at 70 mph, or stop just like on a dry road, even with ABS. You can't.
To be fair Jeeps are shit.
To be accurate, they are about 25 percent of the vehicles in my area. Weather is unpredictable, and we need vehicles that go. And sometimes we need something sure footed to pull those non-shit vehicles out of the ditches they slide into.
The conclusion - men are pigs. From the article, the first and foremost reason : Overt sexism, unwanted attention and sexual harassment create hostile working conditions.
Sorry Ol, but that's the worst kind of MRA deliberate mis-interpretation. It's a single item on a list. It doesn't say that "men are pigs", or imply that, or suggest it is the main or only reason. It's just noting that sometimes it is an issue.
It's the first item on the list. Assuming that the good professor took classes on writing, and the rest of the paper indicates that he certainly did. We always put the most important thing on top of the list. My choosing that was deliberate, but it was no mis-interpretation. It was proper writing style.
This is a style long honed, for people who are in a big hurry, to scan over a paper and pick out the paper's most important points. It's a step beyond the abstract, and allows the reader to determine how deeply they want to dive into the the meat of the paper. I've read a lot of papers in my time, and have never seen one that is written otherwise.
Furthermore, it sounds like your university did an awful lot and I accept your word that it is the case. I'm not disputing your personal experience, I'm saying that overall the numbers and the studies that actually spoke to women about this issue say something else.
There is a sort of confirmation bias that is a lot more common than just among right wing echo chamber inhabitants. People start out with what they want to believe, and make certain that they get the feedback that tells them they are right.
There are some related examples of this in other fields, one that my wife has some experience in. She had a brother who was a juvenile delinquent, and spent a lot of years in "juvie". I was reading some of the literature, and there among the "truants have been horribly mistreated by their families, and this is the cause of their problems", there were a few papers that questioned the veracity of the reports that the kids in question gave to the psychologists interviewing them. The major questioning was are they telling the truth about all of the abuse?
I asked my girlfriend at the time (now my wife) if they had any experience in this, and she informed me that her brother had told so many verifiable lies to the psychologists that someone wanting to use his data to confirm their opinion would be engaging in blatant confirmation bias.
Much of what we see when we hear of the sexism in IT and STEM does not come from those women who are successful, but from those who bombed out. So just like a friend's wife who used to claim sexual harassment everywhere she went, and the friend admitted that they used that as a erotic enhancement - ya gotta look at things a little skeptically at times.
So perhaps your institution was the exception rather than the rule, or perhaps it was already too late by the time women got there and more effort needs to be put in at a younger age.
Perhaps. Maybe we shouldn't have put the cutoff at preschool.
I'm not singling you out here, but I've noticed a lot of people seem to assume I believe all kinds of crazy things and take bizarre, extreme positions on a variety of subjects. I don't, please don't make those assumptions and don't get angry when I decline to defend them.
I read you as a progressive, pro modern day feminist or modern day feminism supporter. I am pretty certain that your mind is made up and not subject to change. Rejecting in an offhand manner front line data that comes from someone who has tried and failed along with others who have tried and failed, lends veracity to my read. At least to me. What do you accept anyhow? Only scholarly articles that are written with no other research than other scholarly articles, and reject all data input?
As for me, modern day feminism is a terrible trap, convincing many women that unless they suffer no negativity, no opposition, that they will fail, and are entirely justified and correct in that failure, so society must make certain to never ever subject them to anything that they do not want to hear.
Life just doesn't work that way. Negativity comes from everywhere. Men, other women, bosses, subordinates, life in general.
Here's a question for you though. You don't actually believe any of my experience do you?