She was called a bitch - by women. She was accused all the time of sleeping with the boss - by women. All of that stuff that people try to attribute to men.
You will note that nowhere did I (or would I ever) claim that men were the sole perpetrators.
You will also note that nowhere did I claim that you did. My point is that women are some of the most bigoted and blatant sexists around. My wife's experience jibes completely with the experiences of my lady friends who are engineers and scientists. So how are we going to fix that by forcing men out of positions and replacing them with women?
Obviously women are socialised into the same cultural biases as anyone in their society.
Just curious - what are the programs that tell women they have to treat other women better? That spreading rumors that successful women are fucking the boss - or as one woman claimed of my wife - "She must not only suck, she must swallow!". Where are those programs? What exactly can a male do to change the lewd and misogynistic behaviour a a huge number of women? Every program - this forced eviction is typical of identifying all of women's problems as caused by men. Can you show me where the efforts are to have women stop their misandryic and misogynistic behavior? "Empowerment" merely seems to accentuate the anger in many.
And how much do men have ot change? At the wife's work, the men adored and respected her. When she handed out orders, they listened, she would help do some of the in-office work to help them even. And these were the rough tough contractor types, the archetype of the male chauvinist pig. She only had real trouble with something like 2 guys. What more could they change in their behavior? They were not the problem, and we aren't allowed to suggest anything but males are the problem. That's why this bill is sponsored - the idea is that by getting rid of men and inserting women, it will improve things.
A classic example is that in primitive societies (as they surely are for engaging in this practice), female genital mutilation is left to women to institute.
That's another thing that is strange. Most men I know - including myself are horrified and disgusted by that practice to the point of condoning violence to eradicate the assholes that practice it and rescuing any child we could. I don't hear anytwhere near as much complaints from feminists compared to some of the trivial crap they complain about like air conditioning being sexist or that a man needs consent to speak to a woman (I know the logical issue there)
I believe that's why (some) feminists coined the word 'patriarchy' (or rather distorted it from the older meaning I would ordinarily use): to describe a phenomenon that resides not (merely) in individual human beings (men or women) but in human cultures, although many of the less intellectual feminists seem to have a problem with us men personally.
Many people, male and female have a deep seated need for hatred. There are people in this world who would exploit that. This is not a good situation, because as politicians, the legal system, men, and some completely sexist programs are making it a good time to be a woman, yet they grow angrier every day, which is strange.
I have a few hypotheses on that, based on the weak man concept - but prefer not to get crucified here today.
Actually according to the study linked to above, the benefit is even more drastic at the board of director level. So it appears the higher up you get the larger the difference seems to get.
Oh crap - My latest BOD consists of an Italian man and woman, an Irishman, 4 Scotch Irish guys, A polynesian man, and me, your friendly Italian/Ukranian/Hungarian/British mutt male. We've had more or less women over the years, but we always picked for organizational and technical acumen rather than sex. Oddly enough, despite this, we've been very successful. Luck probably.
Obviously a terrible misogynistic BOD. I'll want your help in rectifying this problem....
What do you figure - in order to be successful we need to get rid of most of the Present BOD and keep the woman and Polynesian guy, add 4 more women, and some fellow with dark pigmentation of African descent. Then the white guys can be interrogated for appropriate thoughts, and one can be on the board, and then we have the last two positions. Should it be a Mexican? or Chinese? Oh, and do not forget, a native American or Indian. Maybe we need to add another position on the BOD, because the trans community is being left out.
While that sounds sarcastic - do women also have priority over other underrepresented groups? This bill would show that they do.
It tells us that in a world where evolutionary pressure has over time modified primates to survive. Given that there are two primary actor/functions in pairing, sex, and reproduction -with marked different needs and responsibilities - it isn't surprising that male and female primates evolved with different characteristics. And this isn't a bad thing, and this isn't asexist thing. It is just the difference between saying the sun is bright yellow, and someone else insisting it is a dull green color and how dare we assign a color to that star?
And as you noted somewhere in the past - not everyone is identical even if there are admitted generalized differences to the two man sexes. these characteristics fall on a curve. Some women are quite masculine, some men effeminate. Some women are very interested in technical matters, some men in people.
But they are all people, and should be able to pursue any career they are physically and/or mentally capable of.
But the idea that anyone can be anything is simply wrong.
Um. If I ignored the sentiment, I would have had to misquote you and remove the words "tend to". So no, I'm not ignoring that. I don't see that it helps either bolster your argument or weaken mine. You made the link between men and things and engineering; and women and people and nursing. I provided counter-examples. Not that tricky to follow, surely? Especially with your special manly man logic. I know, because I have the same special manly man powers of rational deductive reasoning too. They lead me to conclude that you are more interested in obfuscation than debate. Else you would have responded to my original challenges by:
1. Providing some evidence to support your claim that "there are plenty of studies", especially when challenged on this
2. Responding meaningfully to my counter-examples of medicine, law and politics.
Feel free to go ahead and do that any time you like.
You would simply ignore any evidence provided. You're the feminist version of an AGW denier or anti-Vaxxer. And silly high school arguing tricks don't cut it withy the adults. You ignored his statement that not all men and women fit the averages because it doesn't fit your narrative. Back to watching you two duke it out while munching on popcorn. Peace out.
This isn't to say that ALL women are one way, or ALL men are another, as with most things in life, it all falls along a sliding scale.
You ignored this. I wonder why.
Because it does not fit his narrative. That narrative is holding the contradictory idea that all differences between the holders of penises and vaginas are social constructs. Yet a woman who prefers the sort of activities that more men prefer, of men who prefer activities that more women prefer cannot exist.
Apparently feminists are as anti-evolution as the most social conservative bible bangers - lookie Ma - common ground!
There is no doubt that supporting a bill that engenders employment specifically based on the sexual organs of the beneficiary is sexist. But even more, they are now demanding that men lose their jobs and be replaced by women. This is not only bigoted sexism writ large, but it is exposing their true aims.
shilly asked for a cite - here's one.
Anyhow, there is no chance of you changing shilly's mind. It is the mind of a person consumed by hatred of men, the exact same form of hatred expressed by White supremacists. Only the narrative is one of female supremacists. Shilly's faith and hatred is strong and unshakable - it allows s/he to hold the idea that a worldview based on genital judgement is not sexist. That person will cherry pick what you write with the fervor of a dlobal warming denialist, and try to make it look like you are being inconsistent.
This bill is a pretty blunt-force approach, but corporations are creatures of the state and this isn't an instance where a quota would have an impact on anything that could pretend to be a meritocracy.
Just curious. If your job was determined to need more women - are you fine with losing your job because you are a man, to be replaced by a woman because she is a woman? Will you congratulate her as she truimphantly takes your office as you are escorted out of the building by security?
A one-line socialist manifesto. Meanwhile in the US, "gun nuts" will continue to protect their own rights.
It might interest you to know that I am a gun owner who believes in self defense. I own a pistol, a shotgun, and two rifles of varying caliber, one of which is semi-automatic and holds approximately 14+1 and yet is California legal since it's tube-fed and the other of which is accurate way out past 300 yards.
I also own use and enjoy firearms. I enter a zen-like state whentarget shooting, and I'll defend myself.
Certainly nowhere near all gun users are the stereotypical gun nuts.
Thank heavens for that - because gun nuts are what they are because at base - they are scared children. You see them on places like U-Tube, where in vids about that guy that snapped at Sea-Tac and committed suicide with a stolen airplane are commented with "Let's ban airplanes!"
Projection pure and simple - just like the Social conservatives that rail on about "Them thar Homersextuals", then are caught with one bumping uglies.
But I am also a realist who understands that everyone has to sleep sometime, and any one person is easily outnumbered by any other person who has at least one friend.
A co-worker's husband slept with a M1911 at the ready under his pillow. She confided it had played hell with their sex life. He had others hidden around the house.
But to your point, firearms are not the answer for those paranoid enough to think they need them. Perimiter control is, and you need some of this around your house - Concertina razor wire. https://colemans.com/shop/secu...
Then if someone does manage to get past your perimiter control, you need one of these.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnrsvUanLfU&frags=pl%2Cwn Fostech Origin 12.
You need to be alerted, then you need to kill with extreme prejudice.
But seriously, that isn't the issue. It is just scared man-children playing with toys, thinking that an AR or.45 is going to protect them. Then they descent into bunker mentality. If someone really wants to get me, they can.
All government which does things for The People is socialist.
Now you did it.
The only distinction between such entities is how socialist they are. In my book, ours is not sufficiently socialist, but that is our fault. We must take responsibility and be involved in our government's progress, or it will continue to involve us in ways which we do not appreciate. Pretending otherwise can only come from a position of ignorance which results naturally from willfully ignoring the lessons of history.
I'm not certain exactly why, but the most extreme "small guvmint" people I've known are all very dependent on the largess of the government. They do want the Guvmint to keep it's filthy socialist hands off their medicaid and Social Security. I guess its the other people who need to lose theirs.
This is why you don't stay in big hotels. I doubt the motel half-a-mile's walk from the Strip gives as much of a damn. They might even sell privacy as a "feature", not a bug:D
This is why you don't stay in Las Vegas. A place that is designed to extract every possible cent of your money that demands you put up with no-knock warrant type activity from their employees, doesn't get any of my money.
Wait.....What? Dumbass me read cows rather than crows.
Christ, I'm fucking worthless some days.
It seems like half of slashdot read it as cows, which is proof (if it were needed) that there aren't many country-dwellers here. The idea that you could train a cow to do anything other than eat grass and shit is laughable.
Au contraire! Anyhow, for the Lulz, here is a cow that a young lady rides like a horse - jumping even! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Being from the country, I know that some of the stereotypes of animals are just that. Cows and pigs are often incredibly affectionate, and while the poor white chickens are cursed by their breeding, most chickens are magnificent and handsome critters. I've never ridden a cow, but the second woman on Lilac does a right good job.
After decades of trying to address this if companies still have zero women on their boards we must conclude one of two things.
Hold on. Having participated in several boards of directors and Advisory Boards, Not one had no women, and in a few, the highest ranking person was female. One was slightly better than 50 percent female. All of the women were present by basis of being qualified to be there by virtue of ability, not by virtue of being female. I'll perhaps ask the one's I am on now if they think that board positions should be exclusively for female only. The successful women I associate with would find that pretty insulting.
Because right now, There are none of these organizations that I know of that exclude women. But a proposal to exclude men is somehow not sexist?
B) Boards are not meritocracies
A seems exceedingly unlikely, where as B is pretty well established.
Look at the average board and it's full of cronyism and nepotism.
Yeah, we sit in smoke filled rooms and smoke cigars while bragging about our sexual exploits, and the only qualification for wimminz to be on the board are big ol tiddies. And to bring us our brandy and serve it until we fall asleep.
In situations like this forcing in a small wedge can be what is needed to start a move towards a genuine meritocracy and a system that doesn't exclude women.
Other great ideas:
Killing people for human rights.
Warfare for peace.
Screwing for virginity.
Spending all of your money to save it.
The problem is that blatant sexism will not cure sexism. It just won't. Right now, on the boards I am on, requiring us to have a couple women in the board would allow us to get rid of women members. It would also make any new female members to not know if their presence was based on merit, or if they were just fulfilling a quota.
This law is clear discrimination based upon sex. It isn't even affirmative action, but blatant in your face sex based discrimination.
No, because no woman has ever been attacked in a highly highly gendered fashion, called "bitches" when aggressive (though less than their "go-get-it" male counterparts), accused of sleeping around, or of being pre-menstrual, etc, etc, etc. You're livin in fucken dreamland matey.
I know - my wife was the highest paid person in her company - Higher indeed than the owner. It was a company involved in flooring and construction, so lots of "traditional men" worked there.
All those things happened.
She was called a bitch - by women.
She was accused all the time of sleeping with the boss - by women.
All of that stuff that people try to attribute to men. Man, there were some nasty sexist bigot women there.
One thing both she and I learned was that there is a interesting relationship between loud people and what they say, and what they do.
These women were very loud about how they were oppressed because of their sex, but if a woman did well, they made excuses for that success based soley on..... sex. Projection 101. They were sexist bigots, and the only positive thing they got out of their bigotry was a cheap easy excuse for their own lack of success.
Their projection was not unlike the Social Conservative gay hating folks who rail on about the unholy sinful acts of sodomy, but then are caught having sex with another of the same sex.
This is no accident, it is projection. Accuse others of what you are.
there are sexists of both sexes, obviously. I merely point out that if we use sexism to cure sexism, it will never work.
And since Animojo will chime in here, telling me I am doing the same - no, I'm not.
If I wrote something stupid like "All women are sexist", that would be a pretty good indicator that I was projecting, and probably am guilty of what I am accusing others of.
No, I just react, noting that a system that determines qualification for a position based on the equipment between a person's legs, is the very definition of sexist. These sexist women are trying to pass an overtly sex based law. To deny that is to be sexist.
He's pointing out that "qualifed" just means a member in good standing of the financial nobility. Skill, intelligence, etc usually associated with "merit" have nothing to do with it.
In this instance, the qualification is distinctly called out. It is based upon the genitals of the qualified person.
We'll overlook that those who are born as a male are specifically denied x number of positions based upon their sex.
Regardless, this is an incredibly sexist and bigoted bill.
I guess I just don't understand how sexism is eliminated by sexism.
It has been officially known for years that voting machines have zero security. Officially known that hacking them can be done by a bright 10 year old - 11 in this case. I've read open literature reports detailing the process in maybe 2002.
It beggers all belief to think that a tool so simply accessed is not utilized.
Here's a free clue - don't start a post with 'this post will certainly be censored'. It's just so weird and passive-aggressive, and makes any point you might have subsequently made seem a bit weak, or dodgy.
But AC waasn't wrong. It got the downmodding it deserved.
This post will certainly be censored to -1 for telling the truth that moderation is a form of censorship. Moderation suppresses and reduces the visibility of speech, which means that, by definition, moderation is censorship. That truth is highly unpopular here, but it's necessary to speak truth to power. Posts that express unpopular views like supporting the United States, the Republican Party, Microsoft, or law enforcement are quickly censored to -1.
The result is that Slashdot is now becoming an echo chamber and the real nerds are being driven away. That is why Slashdot comments are at their lowest rate in well over a decade and continue to decline. Moderation is a form of censorship, and it is killing Slashdot. If Slashdot is to survive, moderation must be abolished.
Of course you are modded to -1. Your reply is off topic, and it is about as stupid as a reply can be, and it is simply 100 percent wrong. Here's the issue sparky. I was browsing at -1 because I was moderating earlier today.
So I saw your pointless whiney wrong and stupid post. Here's the other thing Sparky. I am under no obligation to read your verbal vomit. You want to force me to? That isn't freedom of speech, its having to listen to a 3 year old screaming about being pissed off that he can't kiss his elbow.
Now here's the yummy part. As soon as I finish this post. I'm pushing that little slider to obliterate your posts from my computer. So you can still post all the drivel you like, but your freedom of expression does not mean I'm forced to look kat it. Bye Bye, and if you post something worthwhile, it'll get modded up.
But the elephant under the rug is, it's actually better to do it the other way: run Windows in a vm, that way you can keep your critical work and data entirely out of the hands of Microsoft. Microsoft knows this and now has a whole bunch of money invested in various efforts to forestall it. To be honest, it's hard to see that as a bad thing, it's the nearest thing to honest competition I have ever seen from that gang.
And now Chromebook users can share in the Microsoft BOHICA update experience. Microsoft is drooling over the prospect os BSOD'ing a Chromebook.
And I've booted Linux on Chromebooks just about since they came out.
It is incredibly interesting that there is no national program, no hue and cry to eliminate this problem, other than the BPA mimic issue. It's real, it's proven, and I'll leave it to others to discuss why no one seems to give a shit about it.
I doubt soybean oil in any variety is all that healthy compared to current alternatives. Soybean oil is just a really cheap waste product leftover from making cheap livestock feed.
The winged bean and it's use in the food production revolution might just make the downfall all that much worse when it happens. People who are all concerned about hypothetical effects of GMO foods don't have much to say about soy's general lack of nutrition, or it's phytoestrogen contents. Men should be careful about their consumption of foods like Soy and peas. https://draxe.com/phytoestroge...
These are not kook sites, being the National Institute of Health and a real university.
Now let's all have a soy and sweet pea smoothie. Very very healthy!
Good Science demands proper verification through peer review and testing for safety and efficacy, that stance is not anti-science as the shills suggest. The pharmaceutical industry manages this, there is no good reason GMO should avoid this burden of proof. GMO offer great potential, but a disaster such thalidomide, DDT, asbestos could set progress back decades.
Then, your good science demands that the same rigorous tests and standards be applied to all food products.
Natural, Pesticide free, Organic, Cross pollination, grafting, Every single method of growing food. Some number of generations of humans to be certain that hidden issues might not crop up.
Because without some pre-defined standard of each item I challenge anyone to make an accurate claim that say, unaltered soybean oil is healthier than modified.
And then there is that bitch evolution. It doesn't take Monsanto and their stupid roundup ready party trick to make something that is bad for you.
Crafted by "acceptable" methods, This superior potato chip cultivar was the cross between the familiar russet potato and a Peruvian variety. It made a beautiful potato chip.
It was toxic. Solamine levels way too high
So there is a small, but non-zero chance that anything you eat might have made that genetic leap from wholesome, organic food to a killer veggie.
But reductio ad absurdum examples aside, it is not possible to make any accurate test of the safety of any GMO food without running the same tests on the non-GMO version of that same food.
Everyone ready for 50 dollar loaves of bread? The level of research to make a definitive conclusion at the levels demanded don't come cheap. It isn't difficult to figure out macro level toxicity, but finding out subtleties is a bit more pricey.
Gender identity politics was very much present in science in the past, and led to a failure to recognise female scientists.
Of that, there is no doubt. But eventually, we have to move on. the best way to eliminate 'isms is to do good work.
The horse has bolted the stable, and has probably led a full life and gone to the knacker's yard by now. Thankfully there is now less discrimination.
The problem with activist groups is that they tend to want to remain activist. After achieving their goals, they tend to overreach, or move the goalposts. Mothers against Drunk Driving is an example. After quite a bit of success in getting legislation passed, they continued, to the point of a BAC that isn't drunk is considered DUI. Around here, after the new laws were passed, MADD started sporting "Impairment Starts With the First Drink" stickers.
They had become prohibitionists rather than say "We did it!" and folded the tents.
We are seeing the overreach occurring in third wave feminism, which has abandoned the concept of the strong capable female, and substituted the idea of the weak but superior woman, the woman who can command the world, yet who can be terribly damaged if a man winks at her. The woman who needs to give consent for a man to speak to her. This is like some mutated Victorian ethos.
I wouldn't be opposed to the good professor getting a Nobel Prize. But the whining about it and attributing it to those evil misogynistic men is just part of the overreach.
I do know the female Engineers and scientists I worked with and were friends with actually molded my opinions on this. To a person, they loathed modern feminism. My own views are still more liberal than theirs. Also to a person, they said that they got more pushback and abuse from other women. My spouse who isn't an engineer, but a suit, concurs.
Slashdot Mirror
She was called a bitch - by women. She was accused all the time of sleeping with the boss - by women. All of that stuff that people try to attribute to men.
You will note that nowhere did I (or would I ever) claim that men were the sole perpetrators.
You will also note that nowhere did I claim that you did. My point is that women are some of the most bigoted and blatant sexists around. My wife's experience jibes completely with the experiences of my lady friends who are engineers and scientists. So how are we going to fix that by forcing men out of positions and replacing them with women?
Obviously women are socialised into the same cultural biases as anyone in their society.
Just curious - what are the programs that tell women they have to treat other women better? That spreading rumors that successful women are fucking the boss - or as one woman claimed of my wife - "She must not only suck, she must swallow!". Where are those programs? What exactly can a male do to change the lewd and misogynistic behaviour a a huge number of women? Every program - this forced eviction is typical of identifying all of women's problems as caused by men. Can you show me where the efforts are to have women stop their misandryic and misogynistic behavior? "Empowerment" merely seems to accentuate the anger in many.
And how much do men have ot change? At the wife's work, the men adored and respected her. When she handed out orders, they listened, she would help do some of the in-office work to help them even. And these were the rough tough contractor types, the archetype of the male chauvinist pig. She only had real trouble with something like 2 guys. What more could they change in their behavior? They were not the problem, and we aren't allowed to suggest anything but males are the problem. That's why this bill is sponsored - the idea is that by getting rid of men and inserting women, it will improve things.
A classic example is that in primitive societies (as they surely are for engaging in this practice), female genital mutilation is left to women to institute.
That's another thing that is strange. Most men I know - including myself are horrified and disgusted by that practice to the point of condoning violence to eradicate the assholes that practice it and rescuing any child we could. I don't hear anytwhere near as much complaints from feminists compared to some of the trivial crap they complain about like air conditioning being sexist or that a man needs consent to speak to a woman (I know the logical issue there)
I believe that's why (some) feminists coined the word 'patriarchy' (or rather distorted it from the older meaning I would ordinarily use): to describe a phenomenon that resides not (merely) in individual human beings (men or women) but in human cultures, although many of the less intellectual feminists seem to have a problem with us men personally.
Many people, male and female have a deep seated need for hatred. There are people in this world who would exploit that. This is not a good situation, because as politicians, the legal system, men, and some completely sexist programs are making it a good time to be a woman, yet they grow angrier every day, which is strange.
I have a few hypotheses on that, based on the weak man concept - but prefer not to get crucified here today.
Actually according to the study linked to above, the benefit is even more drastic at the board of director level. So it appears the higher up you get the larger the difference seems to get.
Oh crap - My latest BOD consists of an Italian man and woman, an Irishman, 4 Scotch Irish guys, A polynesian man, and me, your friendly Italian/Ukranian/Hungarian/British mutt male. We've had more or less women over the years, but we always picked for organizational and technical acumen rather than sex. Oddly enough, despite this, we've been very successful. Luck probably.
Obviously a terrible misogynistic BOD. I'll want your help in rectifying this problem....
What do you figure - in order to be successful we need to get rid of most of the Present BOD and keep the woman and Polynesian guy, add 4 more women, and some fellow with dark pigmentation of African descent. Then the white guys can be interrogated for appropriate thoughts, and one can be on the board, and then we have the last two positions. Should it be a Mexican? or Chinese? Oh, and do not forget, a native American or Indian. Maybe we need to add another position on the BOD, because the trans community is being left out.
While that sounds sarcastic - do women also have priority over other underrepresented groups? This bill would show that they do.
The study found that even babies as young as nine months gravitate toward stereotypically gendered toys."
See this article for more details. I realize that actual science is bigoted.
https://www.city.ac.uk/news/20...
Even non-human ones do!
What does that tell us?
It tells us that in a world where evolutionary pressure has over time modified primates to survive. Given that there are two primary actor/functions in pairing, sex, and reproduction -with marked different needs and responsibilities - it isn't surprising that male and female primates evolved with different characteristics. And this isn't a bad thing, and this isn't asexist thing. It is just the difference between saying the sun is bright yellow, and someone else insisting it is a dull green color and how dare we assign a color to that star?
And as you noted somewhere in the past - not everyone is identical even if there are admitted generalized differences to the two man sexes. these characteristics fall on a curve. Some women are quite masculine, some men effeminate. Some women are very interested in technical matters, some men in people.
But they are all people, and should be able to pursue any career they are physically and/or mentally capable of.
But the idea that anyone can be anything is simply wrong.
Um. If I ignored the sentiment, I would have had to misquote you and remove the words "tend to". So no, I'm not ignoring that. I don't see that it helps either bolster your argument or weaken mine. You made the link between men and things and engineering; and women and people and nursing. I provided counter-examples. Not that tricky to follow, surely? Especially with your special manly man logic. I know, because I have the same special manly man powers of rational deductive reasoning too. They lead me to conclude that you are more interested in obfuscation than debate. Else you would have responded to my original challenges by: 1. Providing some evidence to support your claim that "there are plenty of studies", especially when challenged on this 2. Responding meaningfully to my counter-examples of medicine, law and politics.
Feel free to go ahead and do that any time you like.
You would simply ignore any evidence provided. You're the feminist version of an AGW denier or anti-Vaxxer. And silly high school arguing tricks don't cut it withy the adults. You ignored his statement that not all men and women fit the averages because it doesn't fit your narrative. Back to watching you two duke it out while munching on popcorn. Peace out.
This isn't to say that ALL women are one way, or ALL men are another, as with most things in life, it all falls along a sliding scale.
You ignored this. I wonder why.
Because it does not fit his narrative. That narrative is holding the contradictory idea that all differences between the holders of penises and vaginas are social constructs. Yet a woman who prefers the sort of activities that more men prefer, of men who prefer activities that more women prefer cannot exist.
Apparently feminists are as anti-evolution as the most social conservative bible bangers - lookie Ma - common ground!
There is no doubt that supporting a bill that engenders employment specifically based on the sexual organs of the beneficiary is sexist. But even more, they are now demanding that men lose their jobs and be replaced by women. This is not only bigoted sexism writ large, but it is exposing their true aims. shilly asked for a cite - here's one.
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017...
Anyhow, there is no chance of you changing shilly's mind. It is the mind of a person consumed by hatred of men, the exact same form of hatred expressed by White supremacists. Only the narrative is one of female supremacists. Shilly's faith and hatred is strong and unshakable - it allows s/he to hold the idea that a worldview based on genital judgement is not sexist. That person will cherry pick what you write with the fervor of a dlobal warming denialist, and try to make it look like you are being inconsistent.
This bill is a pretty blunt-force approach, but corporations are creatures of the state and this isn't an instance where a quota would have an impact on anything that could pretend to be a meritocracy.
Just curious. If your job was determined to need more women - are you fine with losing your job because you are a man, to be replaced by a woman because she is a woman? Will you congratulate her as she truimphantly takes your office as you are escorted out of the building by security?
Sexism is not a cure foir sexism.
A one-line socialist manifesto. Meanwhile in the US, "gun nuts" will continue to protect their own rights.
It might interest you to know that I am a gun owner who believes in self defense. I own a pistol, a shotgun, and two rifles of varying caliber, one of which is semi-automatic and holds approximately 14+1 and yet is California legal since it's tube-fed and the other of which is accurate way out past 300 yards.
I also own use and enjoy firearms. I enter a zen-like state whentarget shooting, and I'll defend myself.
Certainly nowhere near all gun users are the stereotypical gun nuts.
Thank heavens for that - because gun nuts are what they are because at base - they are scared children. You see them on places like U-Tube, where in vids about that guy that snapped at Sea-Tac and committed suicide with a stolen airplane are commented with "Let's ban airplanes!"
Projection pure and simple - just like the Social conservatives that rail on about "Them thar Homersextuals", then are caught with one bumping uglies.
But I am also a realist who understands that everyone has to sleep sometime, and any one person is easily outnumbered by any other person who has at least one friend.
A co-worker's husband slept with a M1911 at the ready under his pillow. She confided it had played hell with their sex life. He had others hidden around the house.
But to your point, firearms are not the answer for those paranoid enough to think they need them. Perimiter control is, and you need some of this around your house - Concertina razor wire. https://colemans.com/shop/secu...
Then if someone does manage to get past your perimiter control, you need one of these.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnrsvUanLfU&frags=pl%2Cwn Fostech Origin 12.
You need to be alerted, then you need to kill with extreme prejudice.
But seriously, that isn't the issue. It is just scared man-children playing with toys, thinking that an AR or .45 is going to protect them. Then they descent into bunker mentality. If someone really wants to get me, they can.
All government which does things for The People is socialist.
Now you did it.
The only distinction between such entities is how socialist they are. In my book, ours is not sufficiently socialist, but that is our fault. We must take responsibility and be involved in our government's progress, or it will continue to involve us in ways which we do not appreciate. Pretending otherwise can only come from a position of ignorance which results naturally from willfully ignoring the lessons of history.
I'm not certain exactly why, but the most extreme "small guvmint" people I've known are all very dependent on the largess of the government. They do want the Guvmint to keep it's filthy socialist hands off their medicaid and Social Security. I guess its the other people who need to lose theirs.
This is why you don't stay in big hotels. I doubt the motel half-a-mile's walk from the Strip gives as much of a damn. They might even sell privacy as a "feature", not a bug :D
This is why you don't stay in Las Vegas. A place that is designed to extract every possible cent of your money that demands you put up with no-knock warrant type activity from their employees, doesn't get any of my money.
Enough people stay away, the problem goes away.
Or... We should use the system and choose to identify as the sex desired for the position. At least at the office.
I don't see why I couldn't be a man who identifies a woman who is gender queer and hyper masculine.
I can see this is going to end up with a peen and vagene inspector eventually.
Wait .....What? Dumbass me read cows rather than crows.
Christ, I'm fucking worthless some days.
It seems like half of slashdot read it as cows, which is proof (if it were needed) that there aren't many country-dwellers here. The idea that you could train a cow to do anything other than eat grass and shit is laughable.
Au contraire! Anyhow, for the Lulz, here is a cow that a young lady rides like a horse - jumping even! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Meet Lilac, another cow. More riding and jumping. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Being from the country, I know that some of the stereotypes of animals are just that. Cows and pigs are often incredibly affectionate, and while the poor white chickens are cursed by their breeding, most chickens are magnificent and handsome critters. I've never ridden a cow, but the second woman on Lilac does a right good job.
After decades of trying to address this if companies still have zero women on their boards we must conclude one of two things.
Hold on. Having participated in several boards of directors and Advisory Boards, Not one had no women, and in a few, the highest ranking person was female. One was slightly better than 50 percent female. All of the women were present by basis of being qualified to be there by virtue of ability, not by virtue of being female. I'll perhaps ask the one's I am on now if they think that board positions should be exclusively for female only. The successful women I associate with would find that pretty insulting.
Because right now, There are none of these organizations that I know of that exclude women. But a proposal to exclude men is somehow not sexist?
B) Boards are not meritocracies
A seems exceedingly unlikely, where as B is pretty well established.
Look at the average board and it's full of cronyism and nepotism.
Yeah, we sit in smoke filled rooms and smoke cigars while bragging about our sexual exploits, and the only qualification for wimminz to be on the board are big ol tiddies. And to bring us our brandy and serve it until we fall asleep.
In situations like this forcing in a small wedge can be what is needed to start a move towards a genuine meritocracy and a system that doesn't exclude women.
Other great ideas:
Killing people for human rights.
Warfare for peace.
Screwing for virginity.
Spending all of your money to save it.
The problem is that blatant sexism will not cure sexism. It just won't. Right now, on the boards I am on, requiring us to have a couple women in the board would allow us to get rid of women members. It would also make any new female members to not know if their presence was based on merit, or if they were just fulfilling a quota.
This law is clear discrimination based upon sex. It isn't even affirmative action, but blatant in your face sex based discrimination.
No, because no woman has ever been attacked in a highly highly gendered fashion, called "bitches" when aggressive (though less than their "go-get-it" male counterparts), accused of sleeping around, or of being pre-menstrual, etc, etc, etc. You're livin in fucken dreamland matey.
I know - my wife was the highest paid person in her company - Higher indeed than the owner. It was a company involved in flooring and construction, so lots of "traditional men" worked there.
All those things happened.
She was called a bitch - by women.
She was accused all the time of sleeping with the boss - by women.
All of that stuff that people try to attribute to men. Man, there were some nasty sexist bigot women there.
One thing both she and I learned was that there is a interesting relationship between loud people and what they say, and what they do.
These women were very loud about how they were oppressed because of their sex, but if a woman did well, they made excuses for that success based soley on..... sex. Projection 101. They were sexist bigots, and the only positive thing they got out of their bigotry was a cheap easy excuse for their own lack of success.
Their projection was not unlike the Social Conservative gay hating folks who rail on about the unholy sinful acts of sodomy, but then are caught having sex with another of the same sex.
This is no accident, it is projection. Accuse others of what you are.
there are sexists of both sexes, obviously. I merely point out that if we use sexism to cure sexism, it will never work.
And since Animojo will chime in here, telling me I am doing the same - no, I'm not.
If I wrote something stupid like "All women are sexist", that would be a pretty good indicator that I was projecting, and probably am guilty of what I am accusing others of.
No, I just react, noting that a system that determines qualification for a position based on the equipment between a person's legs, is the very definition of sexist. These sexist women are trying to pass an overtly sex based law. To deny that is to be sexist.
When will California adopt similar diversity quotas for State Senators?
Also, I'm curious how this legislation defines "women"?
Bobs and vagene?
He's pointing out that "qualifed" just means a member in good standing of the financial nobility. Skill, intelligence, etc usually associated with "merit" have nothing to do with it.
In this instance, the qualification is distinctly called out. It is based upon the genitals of the qualified person.
We'll overlook that those who are born as a male are specifically denied x number of positions based upon their sex.
Regardless, this is an incredibly sexist and bigoted bill.
I guess I just don't understand how sexism is eliminated by sexism.
It isn't even affirmative action.
A perfect illustration of people who despite all evidence to the contrary. begger the imagination.
It beggers all belief to think that a tool so simply accessed is not utilized.
Here's a free clue - don't start a post with 'this post will certainly be censored'. It's just so weird and passive-aggressive, and makes any point you might have subsequently made seem a bit weak, or dodgy.
But AC waasn't wrong. It got the downmodding it deserved.
This post will certainly be censored to -1 for telling the truth that moderation is a form of censorship. Moderation suppresses and reduces the visibility of speech, which means that, by definition, moderation is censorship. That truth is highly unpopular here, but it's necessary to speak truth to power. Posts that express unpopular views like supporting the United States, the Republican Party, Microsoft, or law enforcement are quickly censored to -1.
The result is that Slashdot is now becoming an echo chamber and the real nerds are being driven away. That is why Slashdot comments are at their lowest rate in well over a decade and continue to decline. Moderation is a form of censorship, and it is killing Slashdot. If Slashdot is to survive, moderation must be abolished.
Of course you are modded to -1. Your reply is off topic, and it is about as stupid as a reply can be, and it is simply 100 percent wrong. Here's the issue sparky. I was browsing at -1 because I was moderating earlier today.
So I saw your pointless whiney wrong and stupid post. Here's the other thing Sparky. I am under no obligation to read your verbal vomit. You want to force me to? That isn't freedom of speech, its having to listen to a 3 year old screaming about being pissed off that he can't kiss his elbow.
Now here's the yummy part. As soon as I finish this post. I'm pushing that little slider to obliterate your posts from my computer. So you can still post all the drivel you like, but your freedom of expression does not mean I'm forced to look kat it. Bye Bye, and if you post something worthwhile, it'll get modded up.
But the elephant under the rug is, it's actually better to do it the other way: run Windows in a vm, that way you can keep your critical work and data entirely out of the hands of Microsoft. Microsoft knows this and now has a whole bunch of money invested in various efforts to forestall it. To be honest, it's hard to see that as a bad thing, it's the nearest thing to honest competition I have ever seen from that gang.
And now Chromebook users can share in the Microsoft BOHICA update experience. Microsoft is drooling over the prospect os BSOD'ing a Chromebook.
And I've booted Linux on Chromebooks just about since they came out.
Women should avoid it for all the same reasons.
One exception. As a natural fertility treatment when a woman has low estrogen. And women are not as affected by being doused with estrogen.
The scary part is the estrogen mimics. These have been implicated in birth defect in male children https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
And the really nifty one https://www.wfaa.com/article/n...
It is incredibly interesting that there is no national program, no hue and cry to eliminate this problem, other than the BPA mimic issue. It's real, it's proven, and I'll leave it to others to discuss why no one seems to give a shit about it.
I doubt soybean oil in any variety is all that healthy compared to current alternatives. Soybean oil is just a really cheap waste product leftover from making cheap livestock feed.
The winged bean and it's use in the food production revolution might just make the downfall all that much worse when it happens. People who are all concerned about hypothetical effects of GMO foods don't have much to say about soy's general lack of nutrition, or it's phytoestrogen contents. Men should be careful about their consumption of foods like Soy and peas. https://draxe.com/phytoestroge...
Consumption of Soy products is proven to lower testosterone levels https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Low testosterone affects libido, fertility and erectile function: https://lomalindafertility.com...
These are not kook sites, being the National Institute of Health and a real university. Now let's all have a soy and sweet pea smoothie. Very very healthy!
Good Science demands proper verification through peer review and testing for safety and efficacy, that stance is not anti-science as the shills suggest. The pharmaceutical industry manages this, there is no good reason GMO should avoid this burden of proof. GMO offer great potential, but a disaster such thalidomide, DDT, asbestos could set progress back decades.
Then, your good science demands that the same rigorous tests and standards be applied to all food products.
Natural, Pesticide free, Organic, Cross pollination, grafting, Every single method of growing food. Some number of generations of humans to be certain that hidden issues might not crop up.
Because without some pre-defined standard of each item I challenge anyone to make an accurate claim that say, unaltered soybean oil is healthier than modified.
And then there is that bitch evolution. It doesn't take Monsanto and their stupid roundup ready party trick to make something that is bad for you.
Plain old accepted cross breeding can do that for ya. I present, the Lenape Potato: https://boingboing.net/2013/03...
Crafted by "acceptable" methods, This superior potato chip cultivar was the cross between the familiar russet potato and a Peruvian variety. It made a beautiful potato chip.
It was toxic. Solamine levels way too high
So there is a small, but non-zero chance that anything you eat might have made that genetic leap from wholesome, organic food to a killer veggie.
But reductio ad absurdum examples aside, it is not possible to make any accurate test of the safety of any GMO food without running the same tests on the non-GMO version of that same food.
Everyone ready for 50 dollar loaves of bread? The level of research to make a definitive conclusion at the levels demanded don't come cheap. It isn't difficult to figure out macro level toxicity, but finding out subtleties is a bit more pricey.
Christ, I'm fucking worthless some days.
Release the Dung Beetles!
Gender identity politics was very much present in science in the past, and led to a failure to recognise female scientists.
Of that, there is no doubt. But eventually, we have to move on. the best way to eliminate 'isms is to do good work.
The horse has bolted the stable, and has probably led a full life and gone to the knacker's yard by now. Thankfully there is now less discrimination.
The problem with activist groups is that they tend to want to remain activist. After achieving their goals, they tend to overreach, or move the goalposts. Mothers against Drunk Driving is an example. After quite a bit of success in getting legislation passed, they continued, to the point of a BAC that isn't drunk is considered DUI. Around here, after the new laws were passed, MADD started sporting "Impairment Starts With the First Drink" stickers.
They had become prohibitionists rather than say "We did it!" and folded the tents.
We are seeing the overreach occurring in third wave feminism, which has abandoned the concept of the strong capable female, and substituted the idea of the weak but superior woman, the woman who can command the world, yet who can be terribly damaged if a man winks at her. The woman who needs to give consent for a man to speak to her. This is like some mutated Victorian ethos.
I wouldn't be opposed to the good professor getting a Nobel Prize. But the whining about it and attributing it to those evil misogynistic men is just part of the overreach.
I do know the female Engineers and scientists I worked with and were friends with actually molded my opinions on this. To a person, they loathed modern feminism. My own views are still more liberal than theirs. Also to a person, they said that they got more pushback and abuse from other women. My spouse who isn't an engineer, but a suit, concurs.