I'm not OP, but women being the writers of fashion magazines doesn't negate the point. Women perpetrate and reinforce sexism as much as men, which is why feminists try to reinforce that they are fighting sexism, NOT fighting men. Again, the "male gaze" remains the best name even if both men and women use it, because they are both practicing the gazing at (objectifying) of women. The fact that men and women both objectify women doesn't weaken the feminist argument. it IS the feminist argument.
Politics are interested in womens' interests, eh? I don't know if you noticed, but the more recent election made history by actually being partially determined by minorities and women. It was unprecedented. Oh, and have you seen that photo of the panel on women's health in congress? Not a uterus to be found. Women are currently fighting for the right to not have to get a big, plastic probe stuck up their vagina if they want an abortion. Does that sound like the group in power?
There are few mens' shelters because there are few problems homeless men can experience that would make the proximity of women inappropriate. Obviously, that is not true of women. A homeless women does not want to be in a mixed-gender environment, at all. This is one of many examples where asymmetry of response does not indicate some imagined sexism against men, but instead, just asymmetrical circumstances. This is the same false logic that says, because there are more scholarships for black students than white students, it is easier for black people to get into college. You also have to accept why affirmative action exists, and why it is still justified -- because racism still exists. And affirmative action doesn't even come close to making up for it. White people assume black people see racism where there is none, when in fact, there is. Similarly, some men think feminists see sexism where there is none, when in fact, well, sometime there isn't, but usually? There is. It's harder to see when it doesn't affect you. But when it does affect, boy is it inescapable.
Again, men are both the perpetrators and victims of most violent crimes because most violent crimes occur in spheres without many women. The significant violence affecting women is domestic.
I have no desire to take on the wage gap thing. Evidence is contradictory, and do you consider how women are discouraged from certain industries, or blah blah... no, just no. It's just such a headache. I can't.
Matriarchy vs. partriarchy: please see above. The idea of feminism is not that men hold women back. It is is that certain ideas are holding BOTH WOMEN AND MEN back, and those must be dealt with and overcome. The solution is not enforced equal demographic distribution among all professions (which is not actually what affirmative action is, fyi), but making it safe and viable for people of any race or gender or etc to enter any field, and making it safe and viable for them to succeed. That is the equality feminism wants. This equality involves respecting male victims of sexual assault, and changing the definition of rape to include any unwanted sexual contact, which just recently happened, and which basically happened because of feminism, so I think your facts might be actually completely 100% backwards there.
Mens' Rights being hatespeech means that feminists control the media... I. Um. really? Dude, have you ever, EVER known that to be true? Of any group, ever? Has nobody in power ever hated feminism? Then why aren't they a hate group, too?
Internet arguments. I don't know why we do this to ourselves.
"Oh, and before anyone starts attacking me with the "thin privilege" and "fat hatred" crap: I used to weigh greater than 300 pounds once upon a time"
Every person I know who hates fat people used to be fat. Just throwing that out there.
Very few genetic differences translate directly into career choices. What you're talking about there is social, not genetic. In fact, every profession will probably do best with a mixture of men and women, given their different processing styles.
Yes, a profession dominated by one gender implies either discrimination or huge social stigma. The example of male elementary schoolteachers SUPPORTS this argument. And BOTH of those things are a problem.
When women say they are just naturally no good at programming, what you are hearing is social programming. They didn't just all independently come up with this idea. This idea has been drilled into womens' brains, along with thousands (millions?) of other ideas of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. They are not due to "naturally evolved differences between men and women" I mean jesus CHRIST. Do people actually think that?
No, there are not fewer women in this profession because they all quit to have babies. That would just reduce the ratio of women in every profession, which it has not.
I'm also seeing a lot of comments about the "feminization of society" and how men are being discriminated against now that the feminazis are in power. I guess the MRM has a presence on/. as well, since they are really the only group that uses that rhetoric. Truly tragic. I don't really have the strength to tackle the incredible amounts of denial and misogyny inherent in Mens' Rights dogma, but if anyone's interested I'd imagine I can find a takedown pretty fast, given that MRM is considered a hate group.
In conclusion, that's enough/. for me today. Or maybe just enough altogether, if this is the userbase this place attracts.
This might be the most sexism in one comment *I've ever seen*. Holy shit dude, get help.
Let's see:
1) Women cry all the time and have too many feelings, because all women are emotionally just children
2) Making crude jokes is completely harmless and could never be, you know, sexual harassment
3) Being upset is not the same thing as saying things that upset someone else. There is literally no basis for this equivalence.
4) All men make crude jokes and dislike being censored by whiny women (sexist against men, too!)
5) Being made fun of for being awkward or short is exactly the same as being made fun of for being a woman. Or black. Or gay.
tl;dr Have you ever actually met a woman? Maybe look into it.
>But engineering? Software engineering? Dude, during my time in academia I saw them bend over BACKWARDS to get girls into their program. Between the scholarships, special clubs, awareness programs, and general reports like this that stated more women needed to go be geeks
This is to counter the well-known "boys club" environment and hostility toward women in the IT field. Like most such efforts, it is wholly inadequate.
>Even culturally, we geeks LOVE geek girls. It's a thing.
Yes, that is part of the hostile environment. Please stop doing this.
>Now, it might be some sort of culturally imbued sexism. The sort that diverts men from being grade-school teachers and women from being truckers. There are plenty of counter-examples, but they're a minority. But it's not so much social inequality, so much as latent social norms and expectations. Breaking them doesn't get you burnt at the stake, but it might raise some eyebrows.
Would you really be willing to raise eyebrows, to deal with the ill-concealed surprise, the condescension, the disapproval, for an entire 50-year career? Very few people can even withstand that. Otherwise, you've hit the nail on the head with this one.
>So don't get your panties in a twist.
Making fun of dudes for being too much like chicks, or making fun of chicks for having too many feelings? Either way, this statement is an example of one that would make many women feel uncomfortable and unwelcome.
>treating an entire gender as though they are likely perverts is discrimination in employment
ftfy
Men and women face the exact same problems: entering professions atypical of their gender is frowned on. Why are we then belittling women's problems to talk about men's problems? They are literally the same exact problem.
As someone with a disabled mother, trust me, the lengths gone to accommodate the disabled aren't NEARLY as excessive as you think they are. In fact I wouldn't even call them sufficient. Just because there are extra regulations that make no sense, doesn't erase how much necessary help is still missing. When you literally can't climb stairs, suddenly ramps don't seem quite as absurd. Next time you leave your home, try to pay attention to how much ISN'T handicap accessible. It's a lot more than is, and it's a lot more than you'd expect.
Of course I'm also skeptical in general of people not from a minority whining that the minority receives special treatment. It's almost always caused by a complete lack of understanding.
No, all presidents get a pass on a lot of terrible stuff. The only difference is people like you who believe that, this time, it's because he's black. Shockingly, not everything Obama does or every reaction he receives is directly related to his race. I will grant that it has been an overwhelming issue, though.
But there's already a huge body of data suggesting that this is true in almost every profession. His intuition is a very educated guess, even without challenging such an absurd false dichotomy.
So you also believe that everyone opposed to human experimentation should be denied any treatments resulting from data obtained by Nazi experiments? Or from the Japanese army's use of biological weapons? After all, if lifesaving knowledge was obtained immorally, it would be immoral for us to use it to save lives, eh?
Holy shit. What happened to compassion? People come here to escape awful living conditions, persecution, and threats to their physical safety, and then get mercilessly used and taken advantage of when they get here. Our economy relies on them, in fact. Giving them shitty jobs and shitty lives is the only thing sustaining our industry.
Like, seriously. How is this upvoted? What is wrong here? Is/. just republicans now? This is really upsetting to me.
Really? You think the public only has a negative reaction to things designed to attract men? So, you think that the 4,983 movies from the past ten years depicting female strippers caused a similar level of controversy to Magic Mike? You think the fanservice in Transformers was as publicly derided and mocked as the fanservice in Twilight? Female porn escapes banning not because it's more acceptable; only because it's more hidden, under names like "romance" -- because nobody really wants to admit that girls like to look at sexy guys (girls least of all, thanks to inculcated notions of modesty and innocence). When something breaks that mold by being direct in pursuing female ogling, the reaction is shockingly negative.
Incidentally, I have never met, never read, never spoken to, never even heard (in recent times) of a feminist who hates men. I don't even know a single one that dislikes men. I don't even know any who disapprove of sex! With men, even! You might be interested in the tvtropes page on "straw feminism", and the damage it does to demonize a huge, legitimate movement with outrageous caricatures. Or if you'd rather not, might I recommend Rush Limbaugh? I mean, the man who coined the term "feminazi" knows a little something about crazy man-hating women telling everyone what to do. I'm sure he can sympathize.
(There is in fact a reason many current feminists dislike porn, and it's a problem written porn doesn't share: the modern day porn industry is extremely, completely, utterly fucked up. To see the feminist solution, google "feminist porn" -- the idea is to make porn with people who weren't coerced into participating in it.)
Exactly my reaction. The more power the participant has, the more competence they apparently merit. If your company caters to high-end and rich customers who might leave if you screw it all up, you'll work hard to prevent mistakes. This is a perfect example of the opposite -- nobody can complain and nobody can leave the program, so who cares if we mess up and someone's kids don't get to eat for two days? I mean it's just poor people, right?
Oh, absolutely. But the dark side of this one is all the people affected by it who don't deserve to have their cash hinge on someone else's obvious mistake.
Boy, people sure love to talk about discrimination against white males. In fact, that's the only kind of discrimination I ever hear any kind of reaction to on/. -- funny how that is, right?
If ignorance is a choice, then what about all the ignorant people who don't know they're choosing it? I find your signature itself ignorant of the nature of misinformation and the influence of media biases.
You are quite clearly confusing two things -- persuasion, and deception. Obviously it's a spectrum, but informing someone of your strengths via a resume is a generally honest, if not objective, action. You draw attention to what would be relevant to them, and maybe you exaggerate a little, but the process is closely based on the truth.
None of this is true in advertising. Advertising is designed to distract you, play on your impulses (ideally without your conscious awareness) and manipulate you into considering their product good by making it familiar (a well-known psychological illusion). Does it seem like honest persuasion when McDonalds chooses the color scheme most proven to evoke hunger in the viewer? Does it seem like legitimate argument when companies create commercials that are designed to work BETTER, not worse, if you aren't really paying attention to them? Humans absorb a lot of information and a lot of biases from those around us. That data stream can be manipulated, because the part of you that remembers the lady on TV recommending a product is the exact same part of your brain that remembers Sheryll from next door recommending a product. Source amnesia leads us to remember dreams as real, remember facts without being able to recall where we heard them, and store observed attitudes and comments of others to inform our own attitudes and behavior. Advertising takes this area of great vulnerability, the instinct for social imitation, and uses it for profit.
Yes. I have a problem with advertising. And I think you should too.
So it couldn't possibly be that this is an extremely short-sighted solution that would probably cause a whole new slough of problems? Of course not, it's the environmentalists with their hidden agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly? Aggressive fear-based propaganda. About sums it up.
Politics are interested in womens' interests, eh? I don't know if you noticed, but the more recent election made history by actually being partially determined by minorities and women. It was unprecedented. Oh, and have you seen that photo of the panel on women's health in congress? Not a uterus to be found. Women are currently fighting for the right to not have to get a big, plastic probe stuck up their vagina if they want an abortion. Does that sound like the group in power?
There are few mens' shelters because there are few problems homeless men can experience that would make the proximity of women inappropriate. Obviously, that is not true of women. A homeless women does not want to be in a mixed-gender environment, at all. This is one of many examples where asymmetry of response does not indicate some imagined sexism against men, but instead, just asymmetrical circumstances. This is the same false logic that says, because there are more scholarships for black students than white students, it is easier for black people to get into college. You also have to accept why affirmative action exists, and why it is still justified -- because racism still exists. And affirmative action doesn't even come close to making up for it. White people assume black people see racism where there is none, when in fact, there is. Similarly, some men think feminists see sexism where there is none, when in fact, well, sometime there isn't, but usually? There is. It's harder to see when it doesn't affect you. But when it does affect, boy is it inescapable.
Again, men are both the perpetrators and victims of most violent crimes because most violent crimes occur in spheres without many women. The significant violence affecting women is domestic.
I have no desire to take on the wage gap thing. Evidence is contradictory, and do you consider how women are discouraged from certain industries, or blah blah ... no, just no. It's just such a headache. I can't.
Matriarchy vs. partriarchy: please see above. The idea of feminism is not that men hold women back. It is is that certain ideas are holding BOTH WOMEN AND MEN back, and those must be dealt with and overcome. The solution is not enforced equal demographic distribution among all professions (which is not actually what affirmative action is, fyi), but making it safe and viable for people of any race or gender or etc to enter any field, and making it safe and viable for them to succeed. That is the equality feminism wants. This equality involves respecting male victims of sexual assault, and changing the definition of rape to include any unwanted sexual contact, which just recently happened, and which basically happened because of feminism, so I think your facts might be actually completely 100% backwards there.
Mens' Rights being hatespeech means that feminists control the media... I. Um. really? Dude, have you ever, EVER known that to be true? Of any group, ever? Has nobody in power ever hated feminism? Then why aren't they a hate group, too?
Internet arguments. I don't know why we do this to ourselves.
I'm not OP, but whether they're made by women or men is irrelevant. Both women and men can buy into and reinforce sexism, and mostly, they do.
"Oh, and before anyone starts attacking me with the "thin privilege" and "fat hatred" crap: I used to weigh greater than 300 pounds once upon a time" Every person I know who hates fat people used to be fat. Just throwing that out there.
Very few genetic differences translate directly into career choices. What you're talking about there is social, not genetic. In fact, every profession will probably do best with a mixture of men and women, given their different processing styles.
When women say they are just naturally no good at programming, what you are hearing is social programming. They didn't just all independently come up with this idea. This idea has been drilled into womens' brains, along with thousands (millions?) of other ideas of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. They are not due to "naturally evolved differences between men and women" I mean jesus CHRIST. Do people actually think that?
No, there are not fewer women in this profession because they all quit to have babies. That would just reduce the ratio of women in every profession, which it has not.
I'm also seeing a lot of comments about the "feminization of society" and how men are being discriminated against now that the feminazis are in power. I guess the MRM has a presence on /. as well, since they are really the only group that uses that rhetoric. Truly tragic. I don't really have the strength to tackle the incredible amounts of denial and misogyny inherent in Mens' Rights dogma, but if anyone's interested I'd imagine I can find a takedown pretty fast, given that MRM is considered a hate group.
In conclusion, that's enough /. for me today. Or maybe just enough altogether, if this is the userbase this place attracts.
Let's see:
1) Women cry all the time and have too many feelings, because all women are emotionally just children 2) Making crude jokes is completely harmless and could never be, you know, sexual harassment 3) Being upset is not the same thing as saying things that upset someone else. There is literally no basis for this equivalence. 4) All men make crude jokes and dislike being censored by whiny women (sexist against men, too!) 5) Being made fun of for being awkward or short is exactly the same as being made fun of for being a woman. Or black. Or gay.
tl;dr Have you ever actually met a woman? Maybe look into it.
Why would this affect women in IT disproportionately? Women in other professions seem to have a sizeable presence despite also having wombs.
This is to counter the well-known "boys club" environment and hostility toward women in the IT field. Like most such efforts, it is wholly inadequate.
>Even culturally, we geeks LOVE geek girls. It's a thing.
Yes, that is part of the hostile environment. Please stop doing this.
>Now, it might be some sort of culturally imbued sexism. The sort that diverts men from being grade-school teachers and women from being truckers. There are plenty of counter-examples, but they're a minority. But it's not so much social inequality, so much as latent social norms and expectations. Breaking them doesn't get you burnt at the stake, but it might raise some eyebrows.
Would you really be willing to raise eyebrows, to deal with the ill-concealed surprise, the condescension, the disapproval, for an entire 50-year career? Very few people can even withstand that. Otherwise, you've hit the nail on the head with this one.
>So don't get your panties in a twist.
Making fun of dudes for being too much like chicks, or making fun of chicks for having too many feelings? Either way, this statement is an example of one that would make many women feel uncomfortable and unwelcome.
ftfy
Men and women face the exact same problems: entering professions atypical of their gender is frowned on. Why are we then belittling women's problems to talk about men's problems? They are literally the same exact problem.
As someone with a disabled mother, trust me, the lengths gone to accommodate the disabled aren't NEARLY as excessive as you think they are. In fact I wouldn't even call them sufficient. Just because there are extra regulations that make no sense, doesn't erase how much necessary help is still missing. When you literally can't climb stairs, suddenly ramps don't seem quite as absurd. Next time you leave your home, try to pay attention to how much ISN'T handicap accessible. It's a lot more than is, and it's a lot more than you'd expect. Of course I'm also skeptical in general of people not from a minority whining that the minority receives special treatment. It's almost always caused by a complete lack of understanding.
Ah /., where being ignorant means you don't deserve to live.
No, all presidents get a pass on a lot of terrible stuff. The only difference is people like you who believe that, this time, it's because he's black. Shockingly, not everything Obama does or every reaction he receives is directly related to his race. I will grant that it has been an overwhelming issue, though.
But there's already a huge body of data suggesting that this is true in almost every profession. His intuition is a very educated guess, even without challenging such an absurd false dichotomy.
So you also believe that everyone opposed to human experimentation should be denied any treatments resulting from data obtained by Nazi experiments? Or from the Japanese army's use of biological weapons? After all, if lifesaving knowledge was obtained immorally, it would be immoral for us to use it to save lives, eh?
I feel like watching a video of an actual human being losing their life is a little different than games and Barbies.
Like, seriously. How is this upvoted? What is wrong here? Is /. just republicans now? This is really upsetting to me.
Not bad, if you don't have anything left to do for the day.
Incidentally, I have never met, never read, never spoken to, never even heard (in recent times) of a feminist who hates men. I don't even know a single one that dislikes men. I don't even know any who disapprove of sex! With men, even! You might be interested in the tvtropes page on "straw feminism", and the damage it does to demonize a huge, legitimate movement with outrageous caricatures. Or if you'd rather not, might I recommend Rush Limbaugh? I mean, the man who coined the term "feminazi" knows a little something about crazy man-hating women telling everyone what to do. I'm sure he can sympathize.
(There is in fact a reason many current feminists dislike porn, and it's a problem written porn doesn't share: the modern day porn industry is extremely, completely, utterly fucked up. To see the feminist solution, google "feminist porn" -- the idea is to make porn with people who weren't coerced into participating in it.)
Exactly my reaction. The more power the participant has, the more competence they apparently merit. If your company caters to high-end and rich customers who might leave if you screw it all up, you'll work hard to prevent mistakes. This is a perfect example of the opposite -- nobody can complain and nobody can leave the program, so who cares if we mess up and someone's kids don't get to eat for two days? I mean it's just poor people, right?
Oh, absolutely. But the dark side of this one is all the people affected by it who don't deserve to have their cash hinge on someone else's obvious mistake.
Boy, people sure love to talk about discrimination against white males. In fact, that's the only kind of discrimination I ever hear any kind of reaction to on /. -- funny how that is, right?
If ignorance is a choice, then what about all the ignorant people who don't know they're choosing it? I find your signature itself ignorant of the nature of misinformation and the influence of media biases.
You are quite clearly confusing two things -- persuasion, and deception. Obviously it's a spectrum, but informing someone of your strengths via a resume is a generally honest, if not objective, action. You draw attention to what would be relevant to them, and maybe you exaggerate a little, but the process is closely based on the truth. None of this is true in advertising. Advertising is designed to distract you, play on your impulses (ideally without your conscious awareness) and manipulate you into considering their product good by making it familiar (a well-known psychological illusion). Does it seem like honest persuasion when McDonalds chooses the color scheme most proven to evoke hunger in the viewer? Does it seem like legitimate argument when companies create commercials that are designed to work BETTER, not worse, if you aren't really paying attention to them? Humans absorb a lot of information and a lot of biases from those around us. That data stream can be manipulated, because the part of you that remembers the lady on TV recommending a product is the exact same part of your brain that remembers Sheryll from next door recommending a product. Source amnesia leads us to remember dreams as real, remember facts without being able to recall where we heard them, and store observed attitudes and comments of others to inform our own attitudes and behavior. Advertising takes this area of great vulnerability, the instinct for social imitation, and uses it for profit. Yes. I have a problem with advertising. And I think you should too.
So it couldn't possibly be that this is an extremely short-sighted solution that would probably cause a whole new slough of problems? Of course not, it's the environmentalists with their hidden agenda.