If you have to dedicate a board seat to someone who's not necessarily the most competent and/or driven person to fill that it's obviously going to be to detriment of the company.
That begs the question. The assumption is that if it were not for this requirement all board positions would be filled purely on merit. That's demonstrably not the case.
That sounds a lot like "this is a private restaurant, and black people are not prevented from eating at restaurants, they can start their own whenever they like."
The problem isn't masculinity, it's toxic ideas about what masculinity is.
And yes, toxic femininity does exist too. Women's lib back in the 60s helped move away from the idea that a woman's worth was in how she looked, getting married and providing her husband with children and dinner on the table. Nothing wrong with doing those things if you want to, but not doing them was see as a dereliction or failure.
What we really need is men's lib. Get away from those old ideas about what a man should be and accept men as they are, doing what they want to do rather than what society expects of them.
People said the same thing about smart phones that needed charging daily instead of once a week like a Nokia 3310.
I'd get a smart watch if they provided useful functions that made it worth charging (wirelessly of course, Qi standard).
Something like an accurate, always on heart rate monitor and step counter. Bluetooth so it can vibrate on things like calendar event reminders or priority communications.
The problem with smartwatches at the moment is lack of a killer app.
But now go try to sit down and write detailed rules of exactly how "fairness" has to be implemented within an operating system kernel
That's now how it would work. The law would simply state that accepting any form of payment to prioritise certain traffic is illegal, and that prioritising any particular service or web site is illegal. The precise definition of "service" or "website" isn't too important, a jury will make that determination if it comes to it.
It's not a technical issue, it's a business issue.
VPNs and Tor are illegal in China, but also widely used.
They are not easy to detect either, even with their great firewall and full cooperation of the ISPs. For example, people host the VPNs and Tor proxies in the Microsoft Azure cloud so that the connections are indistinguishable for millions of others to secure web sites, streaming platforms, apps and games.
Part of the difficulty of addressing these issues is that people get upset over the language... Perhaps it could be rebranded somehow, but I can't think of a better name.
Toxic masculinity is not mild but wilful aggression, it's a whole number of behaviours and social pressures that cause mental health problems. Everything from seeing certain careers as unmanly, to the concept of an alpha male who must dominate all the betas.
I've got a Pixel XL and didn't notice this issue because I charge overnight from a slower charger anyway. In general though I'm very happy with the Pie update. It's fixed the small performance issues I was seeing, just slight lag here and there. Feels like a brand new phone again.
The only down side so far is that the new app switcher screen is swipe left/right instead of up/down, and I find the latter easier.
Thinking that a cradle of cronyism and nepotism magically becomes a place of genuine meritocracy, by just including women, is just a baseless delusion.
That's why I don't think that. It's a bizarre assumption on your part.
It's really just the start of a long process, the thin end of the wedge. It has worked fairly well in some areas, such as in British comedy where some initially all-female shows like Smack the Pony and later on a concerted effort to include more women on comedy panel shows has helped a new generation of funny women to come through.
Another example would be UK politics. Efforts were derided at first, such as the infamous "Blair babes", but now we have better representation in Parliament and are starting to deal with issues like harassment and bullying in that house. This is over a period of decades of course, in fact going back a century to the very first efforts. Things are speeding up now as we learn what works.
A strange argument... "Murder should be banned" is dubious because it has to be mandatory? Isn't the whole point of the constitution that it's mandatory and all citizens and laws must follow it?
Yes, you can. There are lots of groups active in this area but we need a bigger push at government level.
For example, we should be teaching young boys to communicate their feelings better and not get caught up in toxic ideas about masculinity that lead to depression and suicide.
I'd say the problem with your prison system is the prison-industrial complex more than any bias towards men, but it's worth looking at.
The Labor Board explains the problem with Damore's memo quite well. He cites certain studies and papers, but then draws his own conclusions that the authors have publicly rejected. That is a classic tactic used to justify discrimination in the past.
I doubt Damore meant to do that, he probably had good intentions and just screwed up. But it's also understandable that when people see him using the same bogus arguments as others who have practised discrimination in the past it creates a problem.
A good example would be the phrase "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Coined by a Nazi, a literal one from the 1940s. Most of the people saying it don't even realize that, and don't mean to repeat Nazi propaganda, but that doesn't change the nature of what they are saying and it's up to them to either be more careful or at least retract when it is pointed out. They are free to stick to it too of course, but only if they also accept that association.
The far right in America wants to create an ethnostate and murders people. The far left opposes an ethnostate and welcomes immigrants, and hasn't to my knowledge murdered anyone for decades but correct me if I'm wrong.
If you can't distinguish the two... I don't even know where to begin.
It's about the intersectional thing now. A woman? Why not a black muslim woman? Or better yet someone who is transgender or gender fluid?
That's not what intersectionality is.
Intersectionality is an understanding of how, for example, being male brings certain issues and being Jewish brings certain issues and being both male and Jewish is a different experience to either of those things individually. In other words what works for white guys might not be the best of Jewish guys necessarily, and it's best not to define people by just one attribute like gender for that reason.
White Americans do it too, it's just that for them their cultural/ethnic heritage is less of an issue in the present day. Even so, you have Irish-Americans, for example.
So close... It is the lowest hanging fruit, although hardly an easy one to pick. But you have to start somewhere, and given that ~50% of the population is female and women's rights is the oldest movement it makes sense.
If it works then we can look at expansion, but in practice you will probably find that as more women enter the board room it will open things up for other under-represented groups by breaking the cycle of cronyism and expanding the pool of candidates.
After decades of trying to address this if companies still have zero women on their boards we must conclude one of two things.
A) Women are just not good enough to be board members
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.
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.
Keeping in mind that a regular, or garden-variety centrist is one who believes that solutions to problems that provide the greatest good for the greatest number,
Centrists are people who believe in a balance of social equality/justice and hierarchy. Supporting things that produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people only goes so far as to not do serious harm to or seriously disadvantage anyone.
For example, taking strident voices and shooting them would be a step too far for centrists... I know you are only joking but it seemed like a good example.
Ironically though I've found you get better apps on Android than you do on the even more tightly controlled iOS.
An example would be apps for learning English as a foreign language at beginner level. There are a few good ones on Android, but iOS is just full of total crapware put together by amateurs, or outright malware. The only decent stuff is for more advanced students on iOS.
I'm not sure why that is, but it's interesting that the more controlled app store is also the worst.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, some real misandrists with mos points today. -1 troll to anyone trying to do something for men's health.
Well if companies don't have zero women on their boards then there is no need to worry about this proposed law, is there?
If you have to dedicate a board seat to someone who's not necessarily the most competent and/or driven person to fill that it's obviously going to be to detriment of the company.
That begs the question. The assumption is that if it were not for this requirement all board positions would be filled purely on merit. That's demonstrably not the case.
That sounds a lot like "this is a private restaurant, and black people are not prevented from eating at restaurants, they can start their own whenever they like."
The problem isn't masculinity, it's toxic ideas about what masculinity is.
And yes, toxic femininity does exist too. Women's lib back in the 60s helped move away from the idea that a woman's worth was in how she looked, getting married and providing her husband with children and dinner on the table. Nothing wrong with doing those things if you want to, but not doing them was see as a dereliction or failure.
What we really need is men's lib. Get away from those old ideas about what a man should be and accept men as they are, doing what they want to do rather than what society expects of them.
People said the same thing about smart phones that needed charging daily instead of once a week like a Nokia 3310.
I'd get a smart watch if they provided useful functions that made it worth charging (wirelessly of course, Qi standard).
Something like an accurate, always on heart rate monitor and step counter. Bluetooth so it can vibrate on things like calendar event reminders or priority communications.
The problem with smartwatches at the moment is lack of a killer app.
But now go try to sit down and write detailed rules of exactly how "fairness" has to be implemented within an operating system kernel
That's now how it would work. The law would simply state that accepting any form of payment to prioritise certain traffic is illegal, and that prioritising any particular service or web site is illegal. The precise definition of "service" or "website" isn't too important, a jury will make that determination if it comes to it.
It's not a technical issue, it's a business issue.
VPNs and Tor are illegal in China, but also widely used.
They are not easy to detect either, even with their great firewall and full cooperation of the ISPs. For example, people host the VPNs and Tor proxies in the Microsoft Azure cloud so that the connections are indistinguishable for millions of others to secure web sites, streaming platforms, apps and games.
Slashdot, where mods are triggered by the definitions of words.
Part of the difficulty of addressing these issues is that people get upset over the language... Perhaps it could be rebranded somehow, but I can't think of a better name.
Toxic masculinity is not mild but wilful aggression, it's a whole number of behaviours and social pressures that cause mental health problems. Everything from seeing certain careers as unmanly, to the concept of an alpha male who must dominate all the betas.
Perhaps you can suggest a better term for it.
I've got a Pixel XL and didn't notice this issue because I charge overnight from a slower charger anyway. In general though I'm very happy with the Pie update. It's fixed the small performance issues I was seeing, just slight lag here and there. Feels like a brand new phone again.
The only down side so far is that the new app switcher screen is swipe left/right instead of up/down, and I find the latter easier.
What is sexist about trying to tackle the mental health problems that lead to male suicide?
Thinking that a cradle of cronyism and nepotism magically becomes a place of genuine meritocracy, by just including women, is just a baseless delusion.
That's why I don't think that. It's a bizarre assumption on your part.
It's really just the start of a long process, the thin end of the wedge. It has worked fairly well in some areas, such as in British comedy where some initially all-female shows like Smack the Pony and later on a concerted effort to include more women on comedy panel shows has helped a new generation of funny women to come through.
Another example would be UK politics. Efforts were derided at first, such as the infamous "Blair babes", but now we have better representation in Parliament and are starting to deal with issues like harassment and bullying in that house. This is over a period of decades of course, in fact going back a century to the very first efforts. Things are speeding up now as we learn what works.
A strange argument... "Murder should be banned" is dubious because it has to be mandatory? Isn't the whole point of the constitution that it's mandatory and all citizens and laws must follow it?
Yes, you can. There are lots of groups active in this area but we need a bigger push at government level.
For example, we should be teaching young boys to communicate their feelings better and not get caught up in toxic ideas about masculinity that lead to depression and suicide.
I'd say the problem with your prison system is the prison-industrial complex more than any bias towards men, but it's worth looking at.
The Labor Board explains the problem with Damore's memo quite well. He cites certain studies and papers, but then draws his own conclusions that the authors have publicly rejected. That is a classic tactic used to justify discrimination in the past.
I doubt Damore meant to do that, he probably had good intentions and just screwed up. But it's also understandable that when people see him using the same bogus arguments as others who have practised discrimination in the past it creates a problem.
A good example would be the phrase "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Coined by a Nazi, a literal one from the 1940s. Most of the people saying it don't even realize that, and don't mean to repeat Nazi propaganda, but that doesn't change the nature of what they are saying and it's up to them to either be more careful or at least retract when it is pointed out. They are free to stick to it too of course, but only if they also accept that association.
Would it be "profoundly damaging" if it had the intended effect? How would having at least one woman on every board cause this profound damage?
The far right in America wants to create an ethnostate and murders people. The far left opposes an ethnostate and welcomes immigrants, and hasn't to my knowledge murdered anyone for decades but correct me if I'm wrong.
If you can't distinguish the two... I don't even know where to begin.
It's about the intersectional thing now. A woman? Why not a black muslim woman? Or better yet someone who is transgender or gender fluid?
That's not what intersectionality is.
Intersectionality is an understanding of how, for example, being male brings certain issues and being Jewish brings certain issues and being both male and Jewish is a different experience to either of those things individually. In other words what works for white guys might not be the best of Jewish guys necessarily, and it's best not to define people by just one attribute like gender for that reason.
White Americans do it too, it's just that for them their cultural/ethnic heritage is less of an issue in the present day. Even so, you have Irish-Americans, for example.
So close... It is the lowest hanging fruit, although hardly an easy one to pick. But you have to start somewhere, and given that ~50% of the population is female and women's rights is the oldest movement it makes sense.
If it works then we can look at expansion, but in practice you will probably find that as more women enter the board room it will open things up for other under-represented groups by breaking the cycle of cronyism and expanding the pool of candidates.
After decades of trying to address this if companies still have zero women on their boards we must conclude one of two things.
A) Women are just not good enough to be board members
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.
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.
Keeping in mind that a regular, or garden-variety centrist is one who believes that solutions to problems that provide the greatest good for the greatest number,
Centrists are people who believe in a balance of social equality/justice and hierarchy. Supporting things that produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people only goes so far as to not do serious harm to or seriously disadvantage anyone.
For example, taking strident voices and shooting them would be a step too far for centrists... I know you are only joking but it seemed like a good example.
What you want is utilitarianism.
In this case it's probably the Winnie the Pooh memes. Their "president" is the spitting image.
Ironically though I've found you get better apps on Android than you do on the even more tightly controlled iOS.
An example would be apps for learning English as a foreign language at beginner level. There are a few good ones on Android, but iOS is just full of total crapware put together by amateurs, or outright malware. The only decent stuff is for more advanced students on iOS.
I'm not sure why that is, but it's interesting that the more controlled app store is also the worst.