There's no conspiracy, don't worry. "Patriarchy" is just a word for a society in which males are generally the authority figures, both on a family level and a societal level, like the one we live in.
Societies have cultures, and cultures have cultural narratives. The cultural narratives of patriarchal societies are necessarily sexist (just as narratives of a matriarchal society would be).
I didn't say that men need to change. We need to change our culture, which currently parrots patriarchal narratives. Most dudes aren't out there consciously making sexist decisions, just like most dudes don't rape people. That doesn't mean that, by virtue of being non-sexist, they suddenly stop being affected by our sexist culture (in both positive and negative ways, just like women).
Right in the paragraph your quoted there, I cited the low pay for jobs perceived as "feminine" by our culture as a reason that dudes (who are expected to be the primary breadwinners) might not want to take up teaching. If teacher pay were more in line with other "masculine" professions, or if men faced less social pressure to be the sole provider for their family, more men would take it up.
Our cultural narrative also codes both violence and sexuality as "masculine" (both as a form of strength) - so it's no surprise that a guy in a "feminine" role might be suspected of having violent or sexual reasons for it, ones that we would not usually attribute to lady teachers.
Men have been practically excluded from teaching, by being painted with the sexist assumptions that they are all child molesters and pedophiles with nothing positive to contribute.
In comparison to this particular problem, an imbalance in programmers is nothing.. bias in the teaching of our children should be a huge priority, and yet, its not....
Well, maybe you can start by combating the sexist assumptions that women are naturally more nurturing (a story uniquely suited to keeping those pesky women in the home). You can follow up by setting teacher pay to a reasonable level, so that they're competitively compensated for the amount of schooling and long hours that they need to put in.
The patriarchy (I wonder if I'll get modded down for using that word) tells us that women are gentler, weaker creatures more suited for "family" work than men are. Men are taught to assert their masculinity by displaying their power over others, which combined with the narrative of "men can't help raping women," naturally leads us to be suspicious of any man transgressing those gender roles. Because men are coded (by our culture) as inherently sexual beings, we assume their motivations for pursuing a "feminine" job are also sexual - that is, that they must be sexually interested in the children they are supposed to protect.
(I personally don't know anybody who has a problem with male teachers, but I'm going to take you at face value that this is a real problem that you've faced.)
I just accepted a job for a 50% pay raise, from one University to another (across the US). Plus, there's still promotion opportunities ahead, with corresponding pay raises.
Maybe the lesson is not to switch to lower-paying jobs, but simply to switch jobs.
Your method is actually pretty close to what the paper describes. The idea is that '00060000000D' and '00070000000F' are closely related, but '38439FDCA' and '921938312C' are not.
An important limitation of his approach is that it only works for "all organisms whose genomes can be aligned to each other." (With no mention of how "good" the alignment has to be, nor the fact that alignment is not objective.)
So, you'd have multiple schemas for each "group" of organisms. I think his idea is possibly applicable to, say, describing multiple samples within a species. It's clearly ill-suited for a universal naming strategy like the article proposes, though.
Trans women are women, we're not trying to trick you.:)
I was designated male at birth, but realized eventually (once I had the words to describe it) that I was a woman, despite the "It's a boy!" the doctors said.
Did you know that "you" is also supposed to be plural, and "thou" the singular? That's why we use "you *are* a silly person" - because language changes.
Also, you can quote Shakespeare, Chaucer, Austen, and the KJV for uses of singular their.
Labels are words that allow us to communicate things about ourselves. I'm not "allowing others to define" me by saying I'm a transgender woman - I'm describing myself.
Oh, you poor, poor Christians. Whatever will you do when we win the war on Christmas, and conifers are entirely outlawed, and you can't decorate your pagan trees anymore?
I agree, I don't think there's any moral obligation to respect an employer that doesn't respect you, and I think the idea of managers micro-tracking their employees is abhorrent.
But whether or not it's *moral* to quit or get (intentionally) fired, doing so is a bad decision for many people, especially those who live in/near poverty. Even if they can get another job quickly, there's still very likely to be a period of unemployment (that they can't collect for) in between the two, which is really hard to deal with when you're already living paycheck-to-paycheck. (They also may find it difficult to get enough hours, as new employees are often at the bottom of the totem pole, and only get what nobody else wants.)
They pretty much have to put up with whatever shit the employer throws at them, as long as it isn't too far out of standard industry conditions.
Whether they're hiring is different than whether or not they'll hire you.
"Oh, I see here that you were fired from your previous job. Why is that?" "Well, sir, they kept monitoring me to make sure I was working, so I broke company policy and subverted the monitoring system." "Thanks for your time, but we don't think you're right for this position."
High unemployment and low minimum wage work in concert to trap people in wage slavery. Even die-hard libertarians acknowledge that the current economic climate is an employer's market - which means they have five other applicants with less self-respect than you that they can choose from.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no conspiracy, don't worry. "Patriarchy" is just a word for a society in which males are generally the authority figures, both on a family level and a societal level, like the one we live in.
Societies have cultures, and cultures have cultural narratives. The cultural narratives of patriarchal societies are necessarily sexist (just as narratives of a matriarchal society would be).
I didn't say that men need to change. We need to change our culture, which currently parrots patriarchal narratives. Most dudes aren't out there consciously making sexist decisions, just like most dudes don't rape people. That doesn't mean that, by virtue of being non-sexist, they suddenly stop being affected by our sexist culture (in both positive and negative ways, just like women).
Right in the paragraph your quoted there, I cited the low pay for jobs perceived as "feminine" by our culture as a reason that dudes (who are expected to be the primary breadwinners) might not want to take up teaching. If teacher pay were more in line with other "masculine" professions, or if men faced less social pressure to be the sole provider for their family, more men would take it up.
Our cultural narrative also codes both violence and sexuality as "masculine" (both as a form of strength) - so it's no surprise that a guy in a "feminine" role might be suspected of having violent or sexual reasons for it, ones that we would not usually attribute to lady teachers.
You missed the big one.
Todd the Teacher.
Men have been practically excluded from teaching, by being painted with the sexist assumptions
that they are all child molesters and pedophiles with nothing positive to contribute.
In comparison to this particular problem, an imbalance in programmers is nothing.. bias in the
teaching of our children should be a huge priority, and yet, its not....
Well, maybe you can start by combating the sexist assumptions that women are naturally more nurturing (a story uniquely suited to keeping those pesky women in the home). You can follow up by setting teacher pay to a reasonable level, so that they're competitively compensated for the amount of schooling and long hours that they need to put in.
The patriarchy (I wonder if I'll get modded down for using that word) tells us that women are gentler, weaker creatures more suited for "family" work than men are. Men are taught to assert their masculinity by displaying their power over others, which combined with the narrative of "men can't help raping women," naturally leads us to be suspicious of any man transgressing those gender roles. Because men are coded (by our culture) as inherently sexual beings, we assume their motivations for pursuing a "feminine" job are also sexual - that is, that they must be sexually interested in the children they are supposed to protect.
(I personally don't know anybody who has a problem with male teachers, but I'm going to take you at face value that this is a real problem that you've faced.)
Sounds great to me. Why don't you go hop on over to a forum for nurses and pharmacists, and bring it up there?
I just accepted a job for a 50% pay raise, from one University to another (across the US). Plus, there's still promotion opportunities ahead, with corresponding pay raises.
Maybe the lesson is not to switch to lower-paying jobs, but simply to switch jobs.
Oh thanks, that is better than the method I described.
Your method is actually pretty close to what the paper describes. The idea is that '00060000000D' and '00070000000F' are closely related, but '38439FDCA' and '921938312C' are not.
An important limitation of his approach is that it only works for "all organisms whose genomes can be aligned to each other." (With no mention of how "good" the alignment has to be, nor the fact that alignment is not objective.)
So, you'd have multiple schemas for each "group" of organisms. I think his idea is possibly applicable to, say, describing multiple samples within a species. It's clearly ill-suited for a universal naming strategy like the article proposes, though.
I don't think "controversial UI" counts as "evil."
Why are you searching for URLs? If you add another word it'll be fine though - you can simply add a " ." if you like.
Yeah, but even at $500million a year, that's still 32 years till break-even.
I don't really think WhatsApp is going to last 32 years.
Trans women are women, we're not trying to trick you. :)
I was designated male at birth, but realized eventually (once I had the words to describe it) that I was a woman, despite the "It's a boy!" the doctors said.
They did, though? Pronoun choices are "he/she/they."
It's a many-to-many relationship, tag based. For example, you can enter "Intersex" and "Transgender Woman", if you want. So, probably relation table.
Did you know that "you" is also supposed to be plural, and "thou" the singular? That's why we use "you *are* a silly person" - because language changes.
Also, you can quote Shakespeare, Chaucer, Austen, and the KJV for uses of singular their.
Labels are words that allow us to communicate things about ourselves. I'm not "allowing others to define" me by saying I'm a transgender woman - I'm describing myself.
Because we've tried that, and it generally leads to suicide. Look up David Reimer.
Yes, one word vs fourteen words is certainly a "ton of work."
Oh, you poor, poor Christians. Whatever will you do when we win the war on Christmas, and conifers are entirely outlawed, and you can't decorate your pagan trees anymore?
Batteries self-discharge, too. (Actually, I'd wager that it's impossible to build an energy storage system that doesn't, but you know.)
I agree, I don't think there's any moral obligation to respect an employer that doesn't respect you, and I think the idea of managers micro-tracking their employees is abhorrent.
But whether or not it's *moral* to quit or get (intentionally) fired, doing so is a bad decision for many people, especially those who live in/near poverty. Even if they can get another job quickly, there's still very likely to be a period of unemployment (that they can't collect for) in between the two, which is really hard to deal with when you're already living paycheck-to-paycheck. (They also may find it difficult to get enough hours, as new employees are often at the bottom of the totem pole, and only get what nobody else wants.)
They pretty much have to put up with whatever shit the employer throws at them, as long as it isn't too far out of standard industry conditions.
Whether they're hiring is different than whether or not they'll hire you.
"Oh, I see here that you were fired from your previous job. Why is that?"
"Well, sir, they kept monitoring me to make sure I was working, so I broke company policy and subverted the monitoring system."
"Thanks for your time, but we don't think you're right for this position."
High unemployment and low minimum wage work in concert to trap people in wage slavery. Even die-hard libertarians acknowledge that the current economic climate is an employer's market - which means they have five other applicants with less self-respect than you that they can choose from.
Because you need to pay rent and buy food?
It's talking about physical location. Between the keyboard and the chair, the user is sitting.
Besides, between Keyboard & Monitor, from a control flow diagram, is the computer. :)
Well, if the suicide rate's 10%, just say "no soldiers commit suicide," and bam, you're 90% successful.