But what was worse was the response to the film. If any of the companies I worked for had responded that way, we would of been out of business, period. No one would tolerate that kind of response.
Just as a semi-related example, I was watching a vid on Youtube last night. A Trekkie was explaining all of the things wrong with NCC 1701D Enterprise.
Did he hate Star Trek? Not even, he loves it.
A complaint is a gift. The problem is when the people who complain stop after taking abuse. BTW, The Star Trek people didn't call him names. I suspect they watched the vid, and maybe did a facepalm or two.
Oracle has a true, visceral hatred of their customers (even worse than Sony) not to mention the poor bastards who then actually have to use their stinking, shitty products.
I remember when they brought in Oracle to work their magic where I was last. What was supposed to take three months ended up taking three years, with the clock running the whole time. Then if you want to leave, sorry, you have been assimilated, and resistance is futile.
This is Oracle. They're dicks. About everything. Fuck them they're most likely guilty of this.
Statistically, they could have better profit if they fucked over the males, and paid the women more to avoid an expensive lawsuit. Probably a Ferengi Law of acquisition number there somewhere.
At some point the left is going to have to come to the same conclusion that anyone with brains has come to,
Most everything you wrote makes sense. But!:
You conflate the entire not right wing world as somehow being Social Justice Warriors. This is not true, any more than saying all Republicans are active Klan members and White Supremacists. The no difference infinite gender crowd are just kooks, like the White supremacists are kooks.
Y'all oughta stop that. There are a whole lot of us who aren't what you might call in your camp who agree that in general, there are differences between men and women in both physique, and mental outlook. Not all, but enough to make trying to shoehorn this generality into no difference at all to maybe be more useful to you than your making them your enemy.
Study after study has shown that women are biologically less inclined in technology and obviously they would be less productive in a high-tech company
Sorry but that does not logically follow at all. Just because it is rarer for women to be interested in technology it does not mean that those individual women who are interested are any less skilled it just means that there are fewer of them. Your point could explain why Oracle hires more men than women but not why it pays them less.
A woman who wants to do technology work tends to be as good as a male. That's the important part. The lady engineers and scientists I worked with were a joy to work with for the most part. Strange that I became friends with so many, but I did feel sorry for them as they took a lot of abuse from other women, and I was willing to listen. There are also subdivisions regarding productivity, dedication which might have some interesting issues.
Regardless, I would love to see the entire study. We probably won't see it though.
Could it possible be that women in general, are not as good at negotiating their own salaries as men?
Perhaps they aren't as aggressive when asking for raises, etc once they are employed?
That's not the companies' fault....
Funny, but as I was saying in a post above, I was listneing to a woman who did a study that was claiming just that. Men are more aggressive in the negotiations in general. I know I was damn assertive in my reviews and raise expectations.
The interesting part I noted to her was that women are claimed to be better communicators than men.
Anyhow, before the apologists jump on me like alligators on a wildebeest, this woman was performing a study to show that managers should take that into account, and give women larger raises than they would otherwise - she was arguing for women.
Correlation is not causation. There is no proof that the inclination is caused by biology, nor the degree of productivity.
These studies though, are either flawed, or the reporting is.
One of the very first things that is needed is to define what constitutes equal pay. Equal pay by productivity, or equal pay by job description, or equal pay for everyone regardless of job/career.
Might seem obvious, but that is how we come up with all of the wildly varying numbers of disparity in pay.
Now this doesn't mean that Oracle isn't discriminating against women pay wise, but if my University setting experience over 30 plus years has anything meaningful to it, one of the first generalized differences between the sexes is that the males tend to use less sick days, and often vacation days. They have a tendency to come in early and stay late more often than the females. This does have a tendency to enable higher productivity. As well, when dangerous or dirty work or work that required travel came up - it was the males (in my work, mostly me) that got the task.
Then there is longevity. I was there a lot longer, as well as more productive. I didn't use sick days, and two weeks out of a month and a half vacation.
Now tell me that someone coming in should be paid the same as me, and why.
As I noted earlier, I don't have enough data to make a good judgement on the issue. But there are some red flags, such as the "base" pay discrepancy. Base is base. So who knows?
But as I told my supervisor when some women thought they should be paid as much as me even though they refused to travel, come in early or stay late. "Let me know if you start paying them the same as me. That's when I'll hand in this letter of resignation. "
Annnnnd that's how My job description was changed.
note: one thiing that is very likely involved is based in that meeting. I was telling him that B would happen if A happened. There have been some studies that would indicate that men (in general) are better at negotiating raises and job actions. Better defined as more aggressive. When I listened to the woman who was promoting the study, it was done in defense of women getting paid the same as men, and that employers should be sensitive to the less aggressive approach and adjust their raises accordingly.
I studied some of the mechanical and contractile properties of smooth muscle. In spite of vast morphological differences between smooth muscle and striated (skeletal) muscle, smooth muscle demonstrated qualitatively similar results as striated muscle. https://www.pnas.org/content/7.... The surprise here is that form and function do not necessarily follow each other.
Scientists aren't surprised. That's just the language that is used to describe findings that don't match up with existing dogma.
Dogma isn't in science. You have your hypotheses, and your theories. Hypothese run anywhere from what Scientists call a WAG or wild ass guess, to well thought out ideas. Theories are when at least some hypotheses have some experimental weight behind them. The theories span the whole range from "looks interesting" to "Almost a certainty'
Dogma does not accept change, it's more in the world of religion, trickle down economics, or infinite genders.
What is exciting is when they see something that does not behave they way they expect. When they are SURPRISED by the result of the experiment there is something new to discover!
This is true. I think that the fundamental divide between scientists and the rest of the world is that the "normal person" reads how "Scienitists are Surprised By..! stories thinks that the scientists are upset. This is because so many "normal people" demand surety in their lives. Religion, some of the weirder economic theories, politics. Those things are difficult to change because even when obviously wrong, they don't want that surprise.
Scientists on the other hand, love surprises. The individual scientist might be pretty dedicated to their favorite hypothesis, but most all move on.
Also there is a tendency of journalism to report on the surprise of the general public when the scientists had an expectation of the event. For example, the Higgs boson particle was found by CERN but it was predicted more than 50 years ago.
And Scientists are surprised, shocked, and baffled that it took so long.
"We were surprised" is usually not in the scientific paper, rather it is in the article that (other) media write about the paper. So it is a trick by media to get you to read the article.
And here an AC speaks the real reason. Media presents any science finding as if Scientists making the discovery are walking around in a state of shock, rattled to the core, perhaps needing some recreational drugs to unwind from the terrible surprise.
When in fact, a scientist finding something new tends to say "Well that's surprising. Cool. Now I have more questions."
In other words, more like finding a 20 in your pants pocket than surprising like a Hail Mary Pass completion on the final play of a football game where a 20 point underdog beats the presumptive champs.
I'm a man and I don't feel tarred or feathered at all. I simply think "I don't act like that, therefore it doesn't include me" and move on with my untriggered life.
He wasn't your impression of what Luke should be. That doesn't mean he wasn't Luke to some people. If you can't stand some characters in a set of movies not being the way you appear, then write your own fanfic instead.
Your response at least is more civil than the people who destroyed Star Wars. But you are still having a little trouble getting it.
The primary purpose of entertainment is giving people a product that they enjoy and enticing them to open their wallets. Art is great, but especially the costs of making a movie are huge.
Now Star Wars is a product that is essentially a cowboy movie in space. It has been wildly successful, with fans going to it's movies several times, and spending incredible amounts on memorabilia conventions, and other products.
And the fans looked upon Luke Skywalker as a demigod. In a normal Star Wars Movie, if it was time to kill off SkyWalker, he sould go out in a blaze of glory, not as some homeless-looking weirdo character.
Formulaic? You bet. But then what movie genre doesn't make it's product according to some formula?
All I can say is how I know a lot of corporations handle criticism, especially when they get the criticism from their paying customers. They listen.
But Kennedy, Johnson and Abrams refused to take telling. Even from people on the inside. Like Hamill himself.
As noted before any group I've been involved with took the criticism and analyzed it. And sometimes there was good valid criticism. I'venever been involved with a group that responds to criticism by attacking the people who criticized them. That's because it doesn't work, and smart people understand that.
I think making a comparison to a restaurant is a little bit of a weird choice... yes they are making the movie for the audience.... but it's more of a piece of art than a made to order dinner. They had a vision and made a product. You don't get to go in and say... hmmm, 46 cast members. 10 can only be women, 14 have to be black, 7 have to be fish... You don't get to make those decisions.
Food is art. If I say that I don't want Parma in my salad, and they bring it out with Parma - and say I have to eat that - I won't be back. It's that simple. They can make the movie they want, I can make the decision to give them my money or not. That's the crux of this issue. If Kennedy et al don't make money, Disney won't be making many Star Wars movies. Simple math.
I'd love to hear how they could have kept Luke the same as in the original films, explain the time gap, and make him not suck like CGI Yoda did when doing action scenes.
That would probably have been a pretty boring film.
The point is that the Character wasn't Luke. It was weird old disillusioned homeless type guy.
They just got fed up of all the bullshit being thrown at them, e.g. that they were trying to attack or destroy masculinity or promote white genocide. If you look at the few tweets being complained about in that context, they seem pretty reasonably.
Unfortunately outrage is a profitable industry.
The kitchen is hot. If you cannot handle the heat, There are cool places to chill axe.
It is sort of amusing. As I noted before, I recently retired from chairing a yearly event. A lot of passionate people with a lot of different ideas. And there were times I was called names, was called insane more than once, stupid pretty often.
When I retired from it, I got accolades and a very exceptional honor that only happened once before. What the hell? Didn't these people hate me?
No, they didn't. Well that's strange, amirite? It is pretty simple. I listened to them. You want to disarm someone who is calling you names? Send them a personal reply. Be nice. Listen to them and ask what their suggestions are. I always made it clear that I couldn't implement opposing suggestions, or that some suggestions harmed other parts of the event. I was respectful. If someone was being an asshole, I could ignore them, but usually didn't . If they got personal, they got one warning. And over the 18 years I was doing this, I only ever had to kick two people out.
People seem to think that top positions are all gravy, and that the interntoobs were the beginning of people taking crap. That's simply wrong. Putting on the grownup pants, treating people respectfully even if they don't treat you that way. Nah... that would never work would it?
This business of attacking people who are fans simply isn't going to work. Hollywood is turning racist and sexist, and it's racist and sexist people will attack you if you don't agree with them. I'll leave that here, and provide the citations if you like. because its not all on topic. So just like Republicans defendint Trickle down theiry or their denialism, there are a lot of standard memes trotted out to defend the reasons whay Solo or the all female Ghostbusters tanked, or why the reviews of Ocean's 8 weren't as great as the actresses demanded (spoiler, it was the fault of white male reviewers - I kid you not)
he recent Gillette commercial where the company said men should tone down their toxic masculinity.
Online threats are the very opposite of "masculine". Raging hormones in men say "let's take it outside then", not "let's step into my basement with the wall full of Hentai statues and DVD rips".
Online threats are the very domain of beings that are neither masculine or feminine; indeed they have chosen to strip themselves even even the most basic levels of humanity or physical attributes.
True enough. The issue I have is the bigoted and prejudicial way that all men are tarred and feathered with the toxic masculinity BS. If Modern women are't trying to make enemies of all men, commercials like the Gillette one would seem to be aimed at doing just that.
Slashdot Mirror
I was surprised you didn't complete the passing play already in motion: that an AC on slashdot was heard to speak the real reason.
Good point.
But what was worse was the response to the film. If any of the companies I worked for had responded that way, we would of been out of business, period. No one would tolerate that kind of response.
Just as a semi-related example, I was watching a vid on Youtube last night. A Trekkie was explaining all of the things wrong with NCC 1701D Enterprise.
Did he hate Star Trek? Not even, he loves it.
A complaint is a gift. The problem is when the people who complain stop after taking abuse. BTW, The Star Trek people didn't call him names. I suspect they watched the vid, and maybe did a facepalm or two.
I saw every one of the movies in first release, and I never saw Luke as a demigod.
So you're saying that your one datapoint rules them all?
...and what they did next will amaze you!
Its all the fault of a housewife in Pennsylvania, who has the insurance companies running scared.
Oracle has a true, visceral hatred of their customers (even worse than Sony) not to mention the poor bastards who then actually have to use their stinking, shitty products.
I remember when they brought in Oracle to work their magic where I was last. What was supposed to take three months ended up taking three years, with the clock running the whole time. Then if you want to leave, sorry, you have been assimilated, and resistance is futile.
This is Oracle. They're dicks. About everything. Fuck them they're most likely guilty of this.
Statistically, they could have better profit if they fucked over the males, and paid the women more to avoid an expensive lawsuit. Probably a Ferengi Law of acquisition number there somewhere.
At some point the left is going to have to come to the same conclusion that anyone with brains has come to,
Most everything you wrote makes sense. But!:
You conflate the entire not right wing world as somehow being Social Justice Warriors. This is not true, any more than saying all Republicans are active Klan members and White Supremacists. The no difference infinite gender crowd are just kooks, like the White supremacists are kooks.
Y'all oughta stop that. There are a whole lot of us who aren't what you might call in your camp who agree that in general, there are differences between men and women in both physique, and mental outlook. Not all, but enough to make trying to shoehorn this generality into no difference at all to maybe be more useful to you than your making them your enemy.
Study after study has shown that women are biologically less inclined in technology and obviously they would be less productive in a high-tech company
Sorry but that does not logically follow at all. Just because it is rarer for women to be interested in technology it does not mean that those individual women who are interested are any less skilled it just means that there are fewer of them. Your point could explain why Oracle hires more men than women but not why it pays them less.
A woman who wants to do technology work tends to be as good as a male. That's the important part. The lady engineers and scientists I worked with were a joy to work with for the most part. Strange that I became friends with so many, but I did feel sorry for them as they took a lot of abuse from other women, and I was willing to listen. There are also subdivisions regarding productivity, dedication which might have some interesting issues.
Regardless, I would love to see the entire study. We probably won't see it though.
Could it possible be that women in general, are not as good at negotiating their own salaries as men?
Perhaps they aren't as aggressive when asking for raises, etc once they are employed?
That's not the companies' fault....
Funny, but as I was saying in a post above, I was listneing to a woman who did a study that was claiming just that. Men are more aggressive in the negotiations in general. I know I was damn assertive in my reviews and raise expectations.
The interesting part I noted to her was that women are claimed to be better communicators than men.
Anyhow, before the apologists jump on me like alligators on a wildebeest, this woman was performing a study to show that managers should take that into account, and give women larger raises than they would otherwise - she was arguing for women.
Correlation is not causation. There is no proof that the inclination is caused by biology, nor the degree of productivity.
These studies though, are either flawed, or the reporting is.
One of the very first things that is needed is to define what constitutes equal pay. Equal pay by productivity, or equal pay by job description, or equal pay for everyone regardless of job/career.
Might seem obvious, but that is how we come up with all of the wildly varying numbers of disparity in pay.
Now this doesn't mean that Oracle isn't discriminating against women pay wise, but if my University setting experience over 30 plus years has anything meaningful to it, one of the first generalized differences between the sexes is that the males tend to use less sick days, and often vacation days. They have a tendency to come in early and stay late more often than the females. This does have a tendency to enable higher productivity. As well, when dangerous or dirty work or work that required travel came up - it was the males (in my work, mostly me) that got the task.
Then there is longevity. I was there a lot longer, as well as more productive. I didn't use sick days, and two weeks out of a month and a half vacation.
Now tell me that someone coming in should be paid the same as me, and why.
As I noted earlier, I don't have enough data to make a good judgement on the issue. But there are some red flags, such as the "base" pay discrepancy. Base is base. So who knows?
But as I told my supervisor when some women thought they should be paid as much as me even though they refused to travel, come in early or stay late. "Let me know if you start paying them the same as me. That's when I'll hand in this letter of resignation. " Annnnnd that's how My job description was changed.
note: one thiing that is very likely involved is based in that meeting. I was telling him that B would happen if A happened. There have been some studies that would indicate that men (in general) are better at negotiating raises and job actions. Better defined as more aggressive. When I listened to the woman who was promoting the study, it was done in defense of women getting paid the same as men, and that employers should be sensitive to the less aggressive approach and adjust their raises accordingly.
ok I'll bite. How is this related to Fleshlights? Did you look at the link I posted or any of the citations?
Twas a joke about smooth muscles. You know, like.... well you know...
I studied some of the mechanical and contractile properties of smooth muscle. In spite of vast morphological differences between smooth muscle and striated (skeletal) muscle, smooth muscle demonstrated qualitatively similar results as striated muscle. https://www.pnas.org/content/7.... The surprise here is that form and function do not necessarily follow each other.
Sounds like research into Fleshlights.
Scientists aren't surprised. That's just the language that is used to describe findings that don't match up with existing dogma.
Dogma isn't in science. You have your hypotheses, and your theories. Hypothese run anywhere from what Scientists call a WAG or wild ass guess, to well thought out ideas. Theories are when at least some hypotheses have some experimental weight behind them. The theories span the whole range from "looks interesting" to "Almost a certainty'
Dogma does not accept change, it's more in the world of religion, trickle down economics, or infinite genders.
Or is it just the spin out by the reporters?
Are there scientific papers that exclaim the surprise?
I haven't read any.
What is exciting is when they see something that does not behave they way they expect. When they are SURPRISED by the result of the experiment there is something new to discover!
This is true. I think that the fundamental divide between scientists and the rest of the world is that the "normal person" reads how "Scienitists are Surprised By..! stories thinks that the scientists are upset. This is because so many "normal people" demand surety in their lives. Religion, some of the weirder economic theories, politics. Those things are difficult to change because even when obviously wrong, they don't want that surprise.
Scientists on the other hand, love surprises. The individual scientist might be pretty dedicated to their favorite hypothesis, but most all move on.
Also there is a tendency of journalism to report on the surprise of the general public when the scientists had an expectation of the event. For example, the Higgs boson particle was found by CERN but it was predicted more than 50 years ago.
And Scientists are surprised, shocked, and baffled that it took so long.
> It's a trick to get your papers published
"We were surprised" is usually not in the scientific paper, rather it is in the article that (other) media write about the paper. So it is a trick by media to get you to read the article.
And here an AC speaks the real reason. Media presents any science finding as if Scientists making the discovery are walking around in a state of shock, rattled to the core, perhaps needing some recreational drugs to unwind from the terrible surprise.
When in fact, a scientist finding something new tends to say "Well that's surprising. Cool. Now I have more questions."
In other words, more like finding a 20 in your pants pocket than surprising like a Hail Mary Pass completion on the final play of a football game where a 20 point underdog beats the presumptive champs.
I'm a man and I don't feel tarred or feathered at all. I simply think "I don't act like that, therefore it doesn't include me" and move on with my untriggered life.
Are you the best man you can be?
He wasn't your impression of what Luke should be. That doesn't mean he wasn't Luke to some people. If you can't stand some characters in a set of movies not being the way you appear, then write your own fanfic instead.
Your response at least is more civil than the people who destroyed Star Wars. But you are still having a little trouble getting it.
The primary purpose of entertainment is giving people a product that they enjoy and enticing them to open their wallets. Art is great, but especially the costs of making a movie are huge.
Now Star Wars is a product that is essentially a cowboy movie in space. It has been wildly successful, with fans going to it's movies several times, and spending incredible amounts on memorabilia conventions, and other products.
And the fans looked upon Luke Skywalker as a demigod. In a normal Star Wars Movie, if it was time to kill off SkyWalker, he sould go out in a blaze of glory, not as some homeless-looking weirdo character. Formulaic? You bet. But then what movie genre doesn't make it's product according to some formula?
All I can say is how I know a lot of corporations handle criticism, especially when they get the criticism from their paying customers. They listen.
But Kennedy, Johnson and Abrams refused to take telling. Even from people on the inside. Like Hamill himself.
As noted before any group I've been involved with took the criticism and analyzed it. And sometimes there was good valid criticism. I'venever been involved with a group that responds to criticism by attacking the people who criticized them. That's because it doesn't work, and smart people understand that.
"Toxic male plays whattabout toxic females as a distraction from fixing their INCEL status, news at 11"
Whataboutism is when you try to cast the other side as hypocritical. This video merely shows that toxicity is not limited to men.
Try making some sense next time.
Claiming that the simple Inclusion of SJW invalidates someone's argument is like claiming a news report is fake because CNN reports it.
The longer I live, the more I understand that the far left and far right are more alike than they would ever admit.
I think making a comparison to a restaurant is a little bit of a weird choice... yes they are making the movie for the audience.... but it's more of a piece of art than a made to order dinner. They had a vision and made a product. You don't get to go in and say... hmmm, 46 cast members. 10 can only be women, 14 have to be black, 7 have to be fish... You don't get to make those decisions.
Food is art. If I say that I don't want Parma in my salad, and they bring it out with Parma - and say I have to eat that - I won't be back. It's that simple. They can make the movie they want, I can make the decision to give them my money or not. That's the crux of this issue. If Kennedy et al don't make money, Disney won't be making many Star Wars movies. Simple math.
I'd love to hear how they could have kept Luke the same as in the original films, explain the time gap, and make him not suck like CGI Yoda did when doing action scenes.
That would probably have been a pretty boring film.
The point is that the Character wasn't Luke. It was weird old disillusioned homeless type guy.
They just got fed up of all the bullshit being thrown at them, e.g. that they were trying to attack or destroy masculinity or promote white genocide. If you look at the few tweets being complained about in that context, they seem pretty reasonably.
Unfortunately outrage is a profitable industry.
The kitchen is hot. If you cannot handle the heat, There are cool places to chill axe.
It is sort of amusing. As I noted before, I recently retired from chairing a yearly event. A lot of passionate people with a lot of different ideas. And there were times I was called names, was called insane more than once, stupid pretty often.
When I retired from it, I got accolades and a very exceptional honor that only happened once before. What the hell? Didn't these people hate me?
No, they didn't. Well that's strange, amirite? It is pretty simple. I listened to them. You want to disarm someone who is calling you names? Send them a personal reply. Be nice. Listen to them and ask what their suggestions are. I always made it clear that I couldn't implement opposing suggestions, or that some suggestions harmed other parts of the event. I was respectful. If someone was being an asshole, I could ignore them, but usually didn't . If they got personal, they got one warning. And over the 18 years I was doing this, I only ever had to kick two people out.
People seem to think that top positions are all gravy, and that the interntoobs were the beginning of people taking crap. That's simply wrong. Putting on the grownup pants, treating people respectfully even if they don't treat you that way. Nah... that would never work would it?
This business of attacking people who are fans simply isn't going to work. Hollywood is turning racist and sexist, and it's racist and sexist people will attack you if you don't agree with them. I'll leave that here, and provide the citations if you like. because its not all on topic. So just like Republicans defendint Trickle down theiry or their denialism, there are a lot of standard memes trotted out to defend the reasons whay Solo or the all female Ghostbusters tanked, or why the reviews of Ocean's 8 weren't as great as the actresses demanded (spoiler, it was the fault of white male reviewers - I kid you not)
he recent Gillette commercial where the company said men should tone down their toxic masculinity.
Online threats are the very opposite of "masculine". Raging hormones in men say "let's take it outside then", not "let's step into my basement with the wall full of Hentai statues and DVD rips".
Online threats are the very domain of beings that are neither masculine or feminine; indeed they have chosen to strip themselves even even the most basic levels of humanity or physical attributes.
True enough. The issue I have is the bigoted and prejudicial way that all men are tarred and feathered with the toxic masculinity BS. If Modern women are't trying to make enemies of all men, commercials like the Gillette one would seem to be aimed at doing just that.