So you are calling children slaves now too? That is why I called you an imbecile. Asserting something is a "truth" does not make it so. No legitimate historian or legal expert would say men owned their wives like "slaves". It is untrue; insulting to the men, the women you are calling slaves, and definitely to anyone that has actually experienced slavery.
So your entire premise is because the man was financially liable for providing for the woman? That makes a slave to you? "Dependent" and "slave" are not the same thing! I know feminists like to go off on histrionic exaggerations to manipulate people's emotions but that doesn't make it true. How about I use your very reference as an example of my point? "But whereas married women might have recourse to certain rights and traditions, slave women had none whatsoever."
Did women's role as dependents hold them back? Of course. Was it some conspiracy that evil while men did to oppress women? Absolutely not. Was it comparable to slavery? Absolutely not. Go ask an African America descended from slaves what they think about their ancestors being on essentially the same level as massa's wife.
I am a rich white male. Why would you think that I don't know anything about "my people"?
I know you are. You are one of the "good ones" right? You recognize your privilege and atone for it by asserting other white men are bad people.
You think men should ditch the "real man" stereotype of being a protector and provider for their wife? Always putting her needs above his own? Why Mojo, mon ami, how very MRA of you. I didn't know feminists were so progressive.
Your idea that women weren't "real" people prior to the 60s is.. Well probably insulting to a lot of women. As is your assertion that housewives aren't "real" people. And feminists seem seriously confused that people have the idea that feminists hate traditional women that don't fit the feminist narrative.
I'm also confused at your conclusion? Tail end of what? Our society still shows a distinct gender difference in spatial abilities but you assert that our women are "real" women so shouldn't we be more balanced like the study's women?
Men never owned their wives you imbecile. Equating marriage to slavery is insulting to everyone involved. You are a good example of the damage hyperbole can cause to simple minds.
It is hilarious that you take offense to someone saying the problem is women being constantly told they are oppressed, go on to say that women are unbelievably oppressed (they were slaves!) then said "Methinks the man doest protest too much". Seriously, you damage the feminist movement more than any rich white misogynist ever could.
The way you continuously go on about white males and rich white males being such a huge problem makes it seem like you think you are fighting the protocols of the elders of the white man. Hilariously ignorant.
Women are only encouraged to enter STEM fields at this point. If you fall outside of the normal of the overwhelming majority you are going to have a different experience in life. There is no way around this. This is not oppression.
If you can show me where girls are taught that you might have a point. Do you have any evidence that girls are more socially discouraged than boys? The fact that it is constantly heralded as a problem that needs fixed leads me to believe girls are receiving more encouragement than boys are.
Your diatribe about rich white males also hurts your point. Maybe leave out such idiocy when trying to make a case for yourself.
I managed to track down more information on that paper. It had some very interesting results. The non-traditional gender role group outperformed both males and females from the traditional gender role group (The men still outperformed but just within the margin of error). It doesn't have anything to do with curiosity though. They offered a quarter of a day's wage to put 4 puzzle pieces together which is a pretty high incentive I'd say.
Likewise it is a pretty large jump to form a conclusion that spatial abilities are limited by nurture based on a four-piece puzzle. That is a pretty simplistic spatial ability. It's like comparing men and women's ability to lift 40 pounds and concluding they have equal upper-body strength.
We can make sweeping assertive conclusions because, as we all know here, the computing industry has remained stagnant and hasn't changed at all in the last 30 years. Has to be social because that's the only possible thing that could have changed.
It tracks murderers, but doesn't track any behavior leading up to the point.
Of course they do. FBI Behavioral analysis unit is a big one doing this. But all of this behavioral profiling leads to shaky results at best. Almost as if it might be useless to try to assert online trolling somehow leads to murder.
it doesn't help your argument, it just makes you look like a fool.
I'll just let you stew on that one.
The story is always the same. "Oh, I can't believe he would do such a thing". Then they start researching, and they find that there's actually this big long trail of disturbing behavior and warning signs. Things like anti-social behavior,
Because there are millions of people that share this exact behavioral trait. What you gonna do? Lock up all people you consider "anti-social"? I believe there are a few not-too-friendly words to describe such actions.
threatening people, torturing animals, etc, etc, etc. All of which are ignored. Then one day.....
Not actually present in most people that go on mass shootings. "Threatening" people is something done, literally, constantly. The authorities can't go researching every threat made on the Internet. I have never heard of a mass shooter torturing animals; you might be thinking serial killer. And even so I don't think it is as easy as: person did this therefore they will also do this.
Why don't you leave behavioral analysis to the behavior analysts? The fact that you don't even know they exist is a pretty good indication that you are unqualified to have an opinion on the subject.
The legal system doesn't track people's shift from "troll" to "stalker" to "murderer"
The legal system doesn't track murderers? Or stalkers for that matter? If there was a connection between online trolling and murder it would be apparent. Apparent like a group of people holding nooses and threatening to kill people and then, you know, actually killing them like the KKK did.
A good example of histrionic behaviour: Someone saying mean things on the Internet could lead to people getting murdered! You can't prove it's not true!
If you are comparing something to the KKK you are most likely being histrionic.
Well if the KKK could be avoided by ignoring them I guess you'd have a point. But being as they didn't troll for reaction and instead actively harassed, assaulted and murdered people you're just making a histrionic non-sequitur.
Not different opinions on a discussion forum! Well I'm certainly glad you are here to set the story straight by labeling other opinions as the problem.
Can we first then agree one what exactly constitutes a troll?
A definition of a troll is "problematic" to the people pushing this. Trolls are common and most people in the real world would view them as stupid and annoying but ultimately harmless and ignorable. So it has to be conflated with the astoundingly rarer harassment.
Maybe it was because that statement was clearly inflammatory and designed to troll a reaction? Now with an added assertion of your righteousness over theirs.
Claim something is huge problem, accuse any opposing views as denialism and just as bad as the problem itself. "You don't want to be part of the problem do you?"
Well if everyone would stop feeding the trolls they'd have to find a new hobby. "Victim blaming" isn't some carpet statement you can apply to anything. "Here are some easy steps to avoid nasty trolls" is not victim blaming. That's like "don't run across the freeway if you don't want to get hit" level advice.
As non-white males became empowered, it no longer made sense to imply only men were doing things.
Are non-white males not men? That's pretty racist. As is bringing up skin colour for no reason.
Seriously though that has nothing at all to do with the reason. They/them/their has been used as a third person singular gender-neutral pronoun since before modern English was modern English so it's nothing about "back in the day". At some point some prescriptivist decided we shouldn't be using a plural pronoun as a singular (although took no umbrage to "you") and made a grammar rule to use "he". It was a woman I might add.
Personally I still use "they" because nobody likes prescriptivists.
Sometimes to get the best fit you have to ignore the outliers. It might not be "fair", but if your main concern is the fitness of your team, their survival and mission success then an individual's feelings (who may or may not be able to fit the other areas) aren't that important.
This would also be addressed by considering a certain smaller set of men. If only 5% of men fit the required metabolic rate whereas 70% of women do (I don't know what the real numbers would be but I guarantee it will be small for men) it simply does not make sense to do a 50/50 gender split when considering candidates. It is a waste of the available resources for such an important task.
I'm afraid you are wrong about that. Men simply burn more calories. There are many reasons for this ranging from muscle mass/density to metabolic rates. Any fitness plan will have a man consuming significantly more calories than a woman. Even for pure cardiovascular exercises.
Perhaps but when you're looking for the best of the best you need to limit your short-list however you can. If scientifically speaking women are going to fit your criteria better than men at astounding rates why waste short-list spots? It's a statistics game. Might be beneficial to make an estimate about percentage of men that would meet that criteria and give them that much on the short-list.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the answer to dogma you say? Dogma? That will probably work.
If banter and one-up-manship thrives in these "new and hip" companies perhaps labeling it "bad behaviour" might not be correct.
So you are calling children slaves now too? That is why I called you an imbecile. Asserting something is a "truth" does not make it so. No legitimate historian or legal expert would say men owned their wives like "slaves". It is untrue; insulting to the men, the women you are calling slaves, and definitely to anyone that has actually experienced slavery.
So your entire premise is because the man was financially liable for providing for the woman? That makes a slave to you? "Dependent" and "slave" are not the same thing! I know feminists like to go off on histrionic exaggerations to manipulate people's emotions but that doesn't make it true. How about I use your very reference as an example of my point? "But whereas married women might have recourse to certain rights and traditions, slave women had none whatsoever."
Did women's role as dependents hold them back? Of course. Was it some conspiracy that evil while men did to oppress women? Absolutely not. Was it comparable to slavery? Absolutely not. Go ask an African America descended from slaves what they think about their ancestors being on essentially the same level as massa's wife.
I am a rich white male. Why would you think that I don't know anything about "my people"?
I know you are. You are one of the "good ones" right? You recognize your privilege and atone for it by asserting other white men are bad people.
You think men should ditch the "real man" stereotype of being a protector and provider for their wife? Always putting her needs above his own? Why Mojo, mon ami, how very MRA of you. I didn't know feminists were so progressive.
Your idea that women weren't "real" people prior to the 60s is.. Well probably insulting to a lot of women. As is your assertion that housewives aren't "real" people. And feminists seem seriously confused that people have the idea that feminists hate traditional women that don't fit the feminist narrative.
I'm also confused at your conclusion? Tail end of what? Our society still shows a distinct gender difference in spatial abilities but you assert that our women are "real" women so shouldn't we be more balanced like the study's women?
Yeah that's just not true. Might border on "paranoid delusion" actually.
Men never owned their wives you imbecile. Equating marriage to slavery is insulting to everyone involved. You are a good example of the damage hyperbole can cause to simple minds.
It is hilarious that you take offense to someone saying the problem is women being constantly told they are oppressed, go on to say that women are unbelievably oppressed (they were slaves!) then said "Methinks the man doest protest too much". Seriously, you damage the feminist movement more than any rich white misogynist ever could.
The way you continuously go on about white males and rich white males being such a huge problem makes it seem like you think you are fighting the protocols of the elders of the white man. Hilariously ignorant.
Women are only encouraged to enter STEM fields at this point. If you fall outside of the normal of the overwhelming majority you are going to have a different experience in life. There is no way around this. This is not oppression.
If you can show me where girls are taught that you might have a point. Do you have any evidence that girls are more socially discouraged than boys? The fact that it is constantly heralded as a problem that needs fixed leads me to believe girls are receiving more encouragement than boys are.
Your diatribe about rich white males also hurts your point. Maybe leave out such idiocy when trying to make a case for yourself.
I managed to track down more information on that paper. It had some very interesting results. The non-traditional gender role group outperformed both males and females from the traditional gender role group (The men still outperformed but just within the margin of error). It doesn't have anything to do with curiosity though. They offered a quarter of a day's wage to put 4 puzzle pieces together which is a pretty high incentive I'd say.
Likewise it is a pretty large jump to form a conclusion that spatial abilities are limited by nurture based on a four-piece puzzle. That is a pretty simplistic spatial ability. It's like comparing men and women's ability to lift 40 pounds and concluding they have equal upper-body strength.
We can make sweeping assertive conclusions because, as we all know here, the computing industry has remained stagnant and hasn't changed at all in the last 30 years. Has to be social because that's the only possible thing that could have changed.
It tracks murderers, but doesn't track any behavior leading up to the point.
Of course they do. FBI Behavioral analysis unit is a big one doing this. But all of this behavioral profiling leads to shaky results at best. Almost as if it might be useless to try to assert online trolling somehow leads to murder.
it doesn't help your argument, it just makes you look like a fool.
I'll just let you stew on that one.
The story is always the same. "Oh, I can't believe he would do such a thing". Then they start researching, and they find that there's actually this big long trail of disturbing behavior and warning signs. Things like anti-social behavior,
Because there are millions of people that share this exact behavioral trait. What you gonna do? Lock up all people you consider "anti-social"? I believe there are a few not-too-friendly words to describe such actions.
threatening people, torturing animals, etc, etc, etc. All of which are ignored. Then one day.....
Not actually present in most people that go on mass shootings. "Threatening" people is something done, literally, constantly. The authorities can't go researching every threat made on the Internet. I have never heard of a mass shooter torturing animals; you might be thinking serial killer. And even so I don't think it is as easy as: person did this therefore they will also do this.
Why don't you leave behavioral analysis to the behavior analysts? The fact that you don't even know they exist is a pretty good indication that you are unqualified to have an opinion on the subject.
The legal system doesn't track people's shift from "troll" to "stalker" to "murderer"
The legal system doesn't track murderers? Or stalkers for that matter? If there was a connection between online trolling and murder it would be apparent. Apparent like a group of people holding nooses and threatening to kill people and then, you know, actually killing them like the KKK did.
A good example of histrionic behaviour: Someone saying mean things on the Internet could lead to people getting murdered! You can't prove it's not true!
If you are comparing something to the KKK you are most likely being histrionic.
Well if the KKK could be avoided by ignoring them I guess you'd have a point. But being as they didn't troll for reaction and instead actively harassed, assaulted and murdered people you're just making a histrionic non-sequitur.
Not different opinions on a discussion forum! Well I'm certainly glad you are here to set the story straight by labeling other opinions as the problem.
Can we first then agree one what exactly constitutes a troll?
A definition of a troll is "problematic" to the people pushing this. Trolls are common and most people in the real world would view them as stupid and annoying but ultimately harmless and ignorable. So it has to be conflated with the astoundingly rarer harassment.
Maybe it was because that statement was clearly inflammatory and designed to troll a reaction? Now with an added assertion of your righteousness over theirs.
I didn't read any mention of telling women how they were allowed to dress.
Claim something is huge problem, accuse any opposing views as denialism and just as bad as the problem itself. "You don't want to be part of the problem do you?"
Well if everyone would stop feeding the trolls they'd have to find a new hobby. "Victim blaming" isn't some carpet statement you can apply to anything. "Here are some easy steps to avoid nasty trolls" is not victim blaming. That's like "don't run across the freeway if you don't want to get hit" level advice.
I'm fairly certain the parent post was directed at Americans that are pro gun control (or anyone really).
As non-white males became empowered, it no longer made sense to imply only men were doing things.
Are non-white males not men? That's pretty racist. As is bringing up skin colour for no reason.
Seriously though that has nothing at all to do with the reason. They/them/their has been used as a third person singular gender-neutral pronoun since before modern English was modern English so it's nothing about "back in the day". At some point some prescriptivist decided we shouldn't be using a plural pronoun as a singular (although took no umbrage to "you") and made a grammar rule to use "he". It was a woman I might add.
Personally I still use "they" because nobody likes prescriptivists.
"Be the change you want to see in the world". You don't change the world by yelling at other people to change it for you.
Sometimes to get the best fit you have to ignore the outliers. It might not be "fair", but if your main concern is the fitness of your team, their survival and mission success then an individual's feelings (who may or may not be able to fit the other areas) aren't that important.
This would also be addressed by considering a certain smaller set of men. If only 5% of men fit the required metabolic rate whereas 70% of women do (I don't know what the real numbers would be but I guarantee it will be small for men) it simply does not make sense to do a 50/50 gender split when considering candidates. It is a waste of the available resources for such an important task.
I'm afraid you are wrong about that. Men simply burn more calories. There are many reasons for this ranging from muscle mass/density to metabolic rates. Any fitness plan will have a man consuming significantly more calories than a woman. Even for pure cardiovascular exercises.
Perhaps but when you're looking for the best of the best you need to limit your short-list however you can. If scientifically speaking women are going to fit your criteria better than men at astounding rates why waste short-list spots? It's a statistics game. Might be beneficial to make an estimate about percentage of men that would meet that criteria and give them that much on the short-list.