To me, this level of detail in nature is strong evidence for creation rather than evolution.
I suspect that Creationists would say the same thing about any complex biological structure. Interlocking gears are interesting because human beings manufacture similar structures, but there's nothing about them that's more miraculous than, say, a retina.
And if biologists can find fossils with more-primitive gear structures as we go back in time -- fewer teeth, less-effective interlocking, etc. -- that would actually support evolution even more, by demonstrating that it is able to produce interesting machines by gradual (and occasionally stark) mutation.
Of course, I doubt that most Creationists can ever be swayed from their opinions, no matter what scientific evidence is presented, because evidence for evolution in the fossil record is already overwhelming and yet there are still Creationists. That's the power of religion.
Don't forget antique pocket watches. I've owned a couple, and watching the movement is mesmerizing. Springs, gears, and sundry bits, all working together to convert linear time into circular motion, and all it takes is one simple winding to set it in motion. And you can carry it with you. Beautiful technology.
No argument. As I said in a different thread: -ism and -ist get everyone pissed.
But when you stop and think about how the acronym NAACP might be perceived if it had been minted today, you begin to realize how difficult it is to change a name that many in-group people gladly rally behind and have no problem with.
(Incidentally, I hear NAMBLA may be changing its name because they don't want to be associated with those Brando dudes.)
Commonplace? Really? So you're picking a radical behavior that hardly ever happens and then using it to label the majority of occurrences that are nothing like that.
Whoa, there, big fella! You said, "Also I disagree with the right to be treated with respect regardless of what you wear. That does not exist for either sex." Now, maybe you were talking about workplace standards of dress, but I was thinking more along the lines of the more serious consequences that women continue to face based on what they wear.
Even today, if a woman is sexually assaulted while wearing a short skirt or low-cut top, a significant number of people will shake their heads and say that she was "asking for it" because of what she was wearing. This happens, and it's nowhere near as rare as it should be.
I'm certainly not campaigning for women to start wearing bikinis in the office. Because if they do that, then I'm wearing my Speedo, dammit, and then everybody loses.
You mean the movie, or the author? Sorry... I'm a little dense.:-)
Also, I'm going to pick a little at your relating to women "exactly" the same as men. I don't think it should be the same. It depends on circumstances, but... you know what I mean? Not everyone has the same background and experiences and challenges, but yeah I'm going to make some basic adjustments--like maybe paying attention a bit more to whether I'm talking too much or taking up an aggressive physical posture, that sort of thing. It's just a matter of paying attention and using your head.
Yeah, I'm really thinking more along these lines, but for gender instead of race: For the white person who wants to know how to be my friend. It's a fine line to walk -- acknowledging and even celebrating the differences between men and women, but not being trapped by them to the point that you see the opposite gender as some "other" which must be tricked, supplicated, conquered, or patronized.
On the whole though, I agree with what you're saying here. Feminism isn't something you play along with to get what you want. It's something you incorporate because it's part of being a decent person.
Exactly. Basically, "don't be a dick", in both senses of the word.
Gosh, you're right! I've only dated a feminist gal for years, discuss politics regularly with numerous feminist friends and family, read pro-feminist political blogs, and attend rallies and marches to support a woman's right for reproductive freedom. Clearly I have no idea what real feminists are like. Care to enlighten me?
There are plenty of variations of feminism, but the most vocal are the kind that don't just want to be treated as equals, they want to be superior.
The most vocal continent of any group is always always the radical fringe. Try not to let it distract you from the majority, or you'll live your entire life in fear. And that's not a fun way to be.
Also, none of the smart geek girls I know are feminists, they don't have to.
What part of feminism do they disagree with? Equal pay for equal work? The right to use birth control? The right to work alongside men? Because that's all in the package.
No, I'm betting it's just the label they don't like. That's pretty common. Everywhere you go in the US, you'll find women who agree with all the major tenets of feminism -- they just don't like the label because they don't want to be associated with the sort of straw-feminists as portrayed by Talk Radio. Hell, I don't blame them. Consider this gem:
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." — Pat Robertson, 1992 Iowa fundraising letter opposing a state equal-rights amendment ("Equal Rights Initiative in Iowa Attacked", Washington Post, 23 August 1992).
Yeah, if I thought that was what feminism was all about, I'd be unwilling to adopt the label too.:-)
Pretty much every woman that I have known that actually believes in equal pay for equal work wouldn't call themselves a feminist.
Yup. It's a common misconception that feminism is always somewhere to the left of where you are politically. This has been noted time and again: people fill out surveys where they answer "Yes" to practically every point that defines a feminist belief system, but "No" to whether they label themselves feminist.
Would you also defend male presenters that got up on stage in nothing but a g-string and assless chaps?
Absolutely! Are we talking gay male strippers? Because those guys are a hoot. And if they're dancing to "YMCA" I will definitely throw a few singles their way.
but the vast majority of 'feminists' take the stance that any kind of dress is always appropriate for women, and that men should remain covered unless swimming.
Where on earth do you find these 'feminists'? Well, wherever it is, I'm glad they call themselves 'feminists' in scare quotes, and not simply feminists. Most of the feminists I know would be right up on that stage, dancing with those guys in the assless chaps. Seriously. A bunch of them are also involved in the SCA; they hang around men in kilts. Kilts, as in, with nothing on underneath. Some ladies are totally hot for it. I think it's a "Braveheart" thing.
I can tell you that if I showed up at work showing half as much chest as my female peers, someone would be having a conversation with me, and I might get fired for sexual harassment.
Not if you manscape first. Check with Human Resources to be sure.
All the really smart geek guys are too -- because they're the ones who end up with the smart geek girls.:-)
This comment shows how little you understand what you speak of. This comment basically says that the guys who CLAIM to be feminist are the really smart ones because they tell women what they want to hear so that they can bang them. Your views on what makes someone a 'feminist' is that they pretend to be PC so that they can objectify and manipulate the opposite gender. That is the kind of 'feminism' that so many men are complaining about.
(Laughs heartily.)No, you're confusing "talking the talk" with "walking the walk", and if it makes you feel any better, dudes who just "talk the talk" to scam some tail are found out pretty quickly by the smart gals. Because the mask always slips.
No, my friend, I have had many happy years of friendship -- and coupleship -- with women who proudly call themselves feminists. Straight and lesbian, black and white, and I have never had to "pretend" to be anything. And that's the point. It's about relating to women exactly the way you relate to men, treating them the way you'd like to be treated, and expecting nothing in return. No tricks, no scams, and certainly none of that "The Rules" psychological manipulation crap.
Honestly... why is that so difficult for people to understand?
The fight for legal equality did not end with the 19th Amendment. For instance: there was a time when women weren't allowed to serve in combat in the United States. It was just this year that the Pentagon allowed women to serve, provided they can clear the physical and mental hurdles. Women can now be Navy’s SEALs if they meet the current standards. That's feminism in action. You may not agree with that decision, but that's another discussion entirely.:-)
As for the assertion that "feminism today probably hurts women's causes more than helping them" -- well, I guess that depends on what you think those causes should be. "Being loved by everybody across the political spectrum" is not a cause. "Securing the rights of women to make their own reproductive choices" is. And that is not going to happen without pissing off a sizable portion of the United States.
Now, I do understand where you're coming from:
Recently I had what was probably the stupidest Internet argument imaginable* with someone who accused me of being a misogynist because I admonished her -- gently, I might add -- after she started swearing at a well-meaning but nevertheless clueless doofus on the message board. She accused me of attempting to use "tone control" to shut her down, which she said was a common tool of racists and misogynists.
I had to re-read our thread a few times before I could assure myself that she was, objectively, way out of bounds.
So I responded respectfully, and then I let the matter slide. Why?
Because someone as full of anger as she was probably had a reason to be angry. Maybe she was an African-American woman who remembers the South Boston riots and has had the b- and n-words thrown at her enough times to be justifiably raw about any possible attempt to shut her down or shut her up. Or hell, maybe she was just a white girl from the suburbs who latched onto political vitriol the way teenagers latch onto everything from Ayn Rand to Twilight. I don't know. I don't care. Because she may call herself a feminist, and she may use feminist keywords in her rhetoric, but she does not speak for feminists. She doesn't speak for me, and she doesn't speak for my friends in the movement.
There will always be people on the far sides of the bell-shaped curve. They're on the right wing and the left, and they cause people on their own side to roll their eyes and say "this idiot is costing us hearts and minds every time they open their mouth". But that's the price of supporting the right of people to be heard. They don't always make things better. But I would never try to shut her up. Because if I did that she'd be absolutely right: I wouldn't be a feminist.
If by "feminism" you mean "women should have the same legal rights as men", then I wouldn't call that feminism, I'd just call it not being misogynist.
Actually, "women should have the same legal rights and societal regard as men" is pretty much what most mainstream feminists mean by "feminism". The Dworkin-MacKinnon "all intercourse is rape" crowd is not mainstream. They're fringe. Radicals. The Bible thumpers and the Talk Radio Fright Jocks would have you believe otherwise, because nothing beats a good scary strawman (or straw-woman). Don't get fooled.
The best definition I've ever heard is simply this: "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." If that doesn't seem radical, then good for you: you're probably already on board and you didn't even know it. Most people assume that feminism is somewhere to the political left of where they are.
There are many women whom I admire, but academic feminists are not among them
Have you talked to any modern ones? I've been close friends with one for twenty-five years. She specializes in gender studies (including gay/lesbian/trans theory) and helps conduct her college's yearly production of "The Vagina Monologues". Her students of all genders love her. And she's about as typical an "academic feminist" as you'll find.
First, women who oppose abortion tend to be far, far more vehement about it than men who oppose it.
I haven't heard of any women who have shot and killed doctors who perform abortions, but I know of men like Scott Roeder who have: that's pretty vehement. And having attended several Washington D.C. rallies in my day, I can tell you that there were plenty of shouting folks of either gender on both sides of the barriers.
the women who shout "objectification! sexist! demeaning!" the most loudly also tend to be nasty and hateful towards women who receive such attention and don't object. One instance from a previous job sticks in my mind.
Yes yes yes, we've all met at least one person who's oversensitive or manipulative, and we all work for companies that are prone to overreact when confronting HR problems. Try not to let it sour you on a whole political movement composed of millions of reasonable individuals.
You're so naive! If that's all feminists want, they should unify around that message instead of all the garbage about the patriarchy. I mean really, what does the crusade against the word "women" (womyn!!!) have to do with what you said? Don't pretend that type of feminism doesn't also exist.
Of course that type of extremist feminism exists. So does the type of Christianity which believes that Jews are servants of Satan. Should we judge all Christians because a small percentage of self-declared Christians are irrational bigots? No. So don't pick the most radical fringe of self-declared feminism and argue that all feminists are like that. Because if you know better, then you're arguing disingenuously; and if you don't know better, then you're the one who's naive.
Also I disagree with the right to be treated with respect regardless of what you wear. That does not exist for either sex.
If it becomes commonplace for a man to be roofied and gang-raped by a bunch of women, and then told by the cops "well, he was asking for it because he was dressed provocatively", then I'll believe that we've achieved parity. But we both know that won't happen.
And if you don't believe in the right of all people to be treated with basic human respect regardless of gender and appearance, then you're on the wrong side of history.
As for those blogs, I won't go there any more because it's mostly man bashing and tripe about how women deserve things that they haven't earned.
So we've established that you don't know what you're talking about, since you criticize blogs you don't read. Excellent. Do continue.
Any man that's a feminist is a turn coat that should be avoided. Sort of like those self hating Jews. Never trust anybody that's learned to hate their own kind.
(Claps.) Outstanding! Since you obviously hate men who believe in equal rights for women, you're a turncoat by your own twisted logic. Arguing with you must be like facing an enemy on the battlefield who immediately points his gun backwards and shoots himself in the face. Thanks for the laughs!
(Laughs.) You don't know much about feminism, do you? It sounds like you're listening to too much talk radio, and not enough real people.
Your loss, my friend. Feminists are just people who believe that women should receive equal pay for equal work, should have the right to control their own bodies, and should have the right to be treated with respect regardless of what they're wearing.
All the smart geek girls I know are feminists. All the really smart geek guys are too -- because they're the ones who end up with the smart geek girls.:-)
Supporting feminism has nothing to do with your gender or sexual preference. It's about recognizing that women are still not treated with equal regard and respect in certain spheres -- the tech sphere being one of them.
If you support the rights and reproductive freedoms of your sisters, daughters, female friends, girlfriends, wife, and mother, then you might find interesting news and political writing on feminist blogs. If you're unconcerned about these issues but are curious about why so many women are angry at the treatment they get in society, you might want to read a few of those blogs to get an idea.
Millions of kids will now associate Microsoft products with homework and exams. Soon, adolescents everywhere will break out into stress-induced hives the moment they see the Windows logo come up. That will do wonders for sales in about ten years' time.:-)
I somewhat concur. Although I have a bias for illustrative stories, there is a time for entertaining metaphors and a time to impart information. Setting the stories off from the main text visually (as callouts or similar) would have helped us skip past them.
I produce a lot of documentation along with my coding, and the one thing that makes it palatable (even to me, re-reading it) are illustrations.
I'm not talking about UML class or activity diagrams, although those things are great where appropriate. It could be anything relevant to getting your point across, like a fragment of a database table showing sample data so people can visualize how a group of tables will work together. Screen grabs with arrows and circles.
My rule of thumb: if I ever find myself drawing a picture on a whiteboard as I'm explaining my module to someone, I immediately stop and take a picture of the diagram I just drew, and ASAP afterwards I turn that picture into an illustration in the user docs. Then next time I can just whip out the docs and point to the illustration.
If you want to use the Internet in a strange location to access something in the cloud, you're going to have to deal with the possibility that your connection isn't secure. Possible mitigation: change your password before you leave, and change it again when you come back. That at least reduces the window of opportunity for the black hats.
Basically correct. As I said to another poster, I don't want any government involvement in this issue. It's not that kind of shortage.
If, among the promising resumes, we had ten good candidates and ten unsuitable ones, there would be no problem. The problem is that we have ten good candidates and a hundred unsuitable ones -- where we only discern the unsuitable ones by a lengthy in-person tech interview. Because of the nature of our business, we only have a limited amount of time in which to find the good candidates.
What I really want is not more good candidates per se, but fewer unsuitable ones to wade through -- unsuitable meaning "not technically good, and not displaying any inclination of being able to improve with mentoring".
Slashdot Mirror
To me, this level of detail in nature is strong evidence for creation rather than evolution.
I suspect that Creationists would say the same thing about any complex biological structure. Interlocking gears are interesting because human beings manufacture similar structures, but there's nothing about them that's more miraculous than, say, a retina.
And if biologists can find fossils with more-primitive gear structures as we go back in time -- fewer teeth, less-effective interlocking, etc. -- that would actually support evolution even more, by demonstrating that it is able to produce interesting machines by gradual (and occasionally stark) mutation.
Of course, I doubt that most Creationists can ever be swayed from their opinions, no matter what scientific evidence is presented, because evidence for evolution in the fossil record is already overwhelming and yet there are still Creationists. That's the power of religion.
(I tried to have 128, but the DEL character disappears every time I hit it...)
I write solely in ASCII, so I'll never have more than 127 characters. :-(
Don't forget antique pocket watches. I've owned a couple, and watching the movement is mesmerizing. Springs, gears, and sundry bits, all working together to convert linear time into circular motion, and all it takes is one simple winding to set it in motion. And you can carry it with you. Beautiful technology.
It makes sense to me: he did not need to devote constant mental energy into keeping up with technology, so he was free to think about other things.
He wasn't serving machines, he was serving customers. They paid him to fix their machines, which he probably could do in his sleep.
Sounds pretty relaxing to me.
No argument. As I said in a different thread: -ism and -ist get everyone pissed.
But when you stop and think about how the acronym NAACP might be perceived if it had been minted today, you begin to realize how difficult it is to change a name that many in-group people gladly rally behind and have no problem with.
(Incidentally, I hear NAMBLA may be changing its name because they don't want to be associated with those Brando dudes.)
Commonplace? Really?
So you're picking a radical behavior that hardly ever happens and then using it to label the majority of occurrences that are nothing like that.
Whoa, there, big fella! You said, "Also I disagree with the right to be treated with respect regardless of what you wear. That does not exist for either sex." Now, maybe you were talking about workplace standards of dress, but I was thinking more along the lines of the more serious consequences that women continue to face based on what they wear.
Even today, if a woman is sexually assaulted while wearing a short skirt or low-cut top, a significant number of people will shake their heads and say that she was "asking for it" because of what she was wearing. This happens, and it's nowhere near as rare as it should be.
I'm certainly not campaigning for women to start wearing bikinis in the office. Because if they do that, then I'm wearing my Speedo, dammit, and then everybody loses.
Yeah, any word with an "-ism" or "-ist" suffix is going to have an adversarial connotation to it, one that smacks of dogma. No argument there.
You've heard of Hugo, haven't you? sigh
You mean the movie, or the author? Sorry... I'm a little dense. :-)
Also, I'm going to pick a little at your relating to women "exactly" the same as men. I don't think it should be the same. It depends on circumstances, but... you know what I mean? Not everyone has the same background and experiences and challenges, but yeah I'm going to make some basic adjustments--like maybe paying attention a bit more to whether I'm talking too much or taking up an aggressive physical posture, that sort of thing. It's just a matter of paying attention and using your head.
Yeah, I'm really thinking more along these lines, but for gender instead of race: For the white person who wants to know how to be my friend . It's a fine line to walk -- acknowledging and even celebrating the differences between men and women, but not being trapped by them to the point that you see the opposite gender as some "other" which must be tricked, supplicated, conquered, or patronized.
On the whole though, I agree with what you're saying here. Feminism isn't something you play along with to get what you want. It's something you incorporate because it's part of being a decent person.
Exactly. Basically, "don't be a dick", in both senses of the word.
Gosh, you're right! I've only dated a feminist gal for years, discuss politics regularly with numerous feminist friends and family, read pro-feminist political blogs, and attend rallies and marches to support a woman's right for reproductive freedom. Clearly I have no idea what real feminists are like. Care to enlighten me?
There are plenty of variations of feminism, but the most vocal are the kind that don't just want to be treated as equals, they want to be superior.
The most vocal continent of any group is always always the radical fringe. Try not to let it distract you from the majority, or you'll live your entire life in fear. And that's not a fun way to be.
Also, none of the smart geek girls I know are feminists, they don't have to.
What part of feminism do they disagree with? Equal pay for equal work? The right to use birth control? The right to work alongside men? Because that's all in the package.
No, I'm betting it's just the label they don't like. That's pretty common. Everywhere you go in the US, you'll find women who agree with all the major tenets of feminism -- they just don't like the label because they don't want to be associated with the sort of straw-feminists as portrayed by Talk Radio. Hell, I don't blame them. Consider this gem:
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." — Pat Robertson, 1992 Iowa fundraising letter opposing a state equal-rights amendment ("Equal Rights Initiative in Iowa Attacked", Washington Post, 23 August 1992).
Yeah, if I thought that was what feminism was all about, I'd be unwilling to adopt the label too. :-)
Pretty much every woman that I have known that actually believes in equal pay for equal work wouldn't call themselves a feminist.
Yup. It's a common misconception that feminism is always somewhere to the left of where you are politically. This has been noted time and again: people fill out surveys where they answer "Yes" to practically every point that defines a feminist belief system, but "No" to whether they label themselves feminist.
Would you also defend male presenters that got up on stage in nothing but a g-string and assless chaps?
Absolutely! Are we talking gay male strippers? Because those guys are a hoot. And if they're dancing to "YMCA" I will definitely throw a few singles their way.
but the vast majority of 'feminists' take the stance that any kind of dress is always appropriate for women, and that men should remain covered unless swimming.
Where on earth do you find these 'feminists'? Well, wherever it is, I'm glad they call themselves 'feminists' in scare quotes, and not simply feminists. Most of the feminists I know would be right up on that stage, dancing with those guys in the assless chaps. Seriously. A bunch of them are also involved in the SCA; they hang around men in kilts. Kilts, as in, with nothing on underneath. Some ladies are totally hot for it. I think it's a "Braveheart" thing.
I can tell you that if I showed up at work showing half as much chest as my female peers, someone would be having a conversation with me, and I might get fired for sexual harassment.
Not if you manscape first. Check with Human Resources to be sure.
All the really smart geek guys are too -- because they're the ones who end up with the smart geek girls. :-)
This comment shows how little you understand what you speak of. This comment basically says that the guys who CLAIM to be feminist are the really smart ones because they tell women what they want to hear so that they can bang them. Your views on what makes someone a 'feminist' is that they pretend to be PC so that they can objectify and manipulate the opposite gender. That is the kind of 'feminism' that so many men are complaining about.
(Laughs heartily.)No, you're confusing "talking the talk" with "walking the walk", and if it makes you feel any better, dudes who just "talk the talk" to scam some tail are found out pretty quickly by the smart gals. Because the mask always slips.
No, my friend, I have had many happy years of friendship -- and coupleship -- with women who proudly call themselves feminists. Straight and lesbian, black and white, and I have never had to "pretend" to be anything. And that's the point. It's about relating to women exactly the way you relate to men, treating them the way you'd like to be treated, and expecting nothing in return. No tricks, no scams, and certainly none of that "The Rules" psychological manipulation crap.
Honestly... why is that so difficult for people to understand?
The fight for legal equality did not end with the 19th Amendment. For instance: there was a time when women weren't allowed to serve in combat in the United States. It was just this year that the Pentagon allowed women to serve, provided they can clear the physical and mental hurdles. Women can now be Navy’s SEALs if they meet the current standards. That's feminism in action. You may not agree with that decision, but that's another discussion entirely. :-)
As for the assertion that "feminism today probably hurts women's causes more than helping them" -- well, I guess that depends on what you think those causes should be. "Being loved by everybody across the political spectrum" is not a cause. "Securing the rights of women to make their own reproductive choices" is. And that is not going to happen without pissing off a sizable portion of the United States.
Now, I do understand where you're coming from:
Recently I had what was probably the stupidest Internet argument imaginable* with someone who accused me of being a misogynist because I admonished her -- gently, I might add -- after she started swearing at a well-meaning but nevertheless clueless doofus on the message board. She accused me of attempting to use "tone control" to shut her down, which she said was a common tool of racists and misogynists.
I had to re-read our thread a few times before I could assure myself that she was, objectively, way out of bounds.
So I responded respectfully, and then I let the matter slide. Why?
Because someone as full of anger as she was probably had a reason to be angry. Maybe she was an African-American woman who remembers the South Boston riots and has had the b- and n-words thrown at her enough times to be justifiably raw about any possible attempt to shut her down or shut her up. Or hell, maybe she was just a white girl from the suburbs who latched onto political vitriol the way teenagers latch onto everything from Ayn Rand to Twilight. I don't know. I don't care. Because she may call herself a feminist, and she may use feminist keywords in her rhetoric, but she does not speak for feminists. She doesn't speak for me, and she doesn't speak for my friends in the movement.
There will always be people on the far sides of the bell-shaped curve. They're on the right wing and the left, and they cause people on their own side to roll their eyes and say "this idiot is costing us hearts and minds every time they open their mouth". But that's the price of supporting the right of people to be heard. They don't always make things better. But I would never try to shut her up. Because if I did that she'd be absolutely right: I wouldn't be a feminist.
* And that's saying something, innit?
If by "feminism" you mean "women should have the same legal rights as men", then I wouldn't call that feminism, I'd just call it not being misogynist.
Actually, "women should have the same legal rights and societal regard as men" is pretty much what most mainstream feminists mean by "feminism". The Dworkin-MacKinnon "all intercourse is rape" crowd is not mainstream. They're fringe. Radicals. The Bible thumpers and the Talk Radio Fright Jocks would have you believe otherwise, because nothing beats a good scary strawman (or straw-woman). Don't get fooled.
The best definition I've ever heard is simply this: "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." If that doesn't seem radical, then good for you: you're probably already on board and you didn't even know it. Most people assume that feminism is somewhere to the political left of where they are.
There are many women whom I admire, but academic feminists are not among them
Have you talked to any modern ones? I've been close friends with one for twenty-five years. She specializes in gender studies (including gay/lesbian/trans theory) and helps conduct her college's yearly production of "The Vagina Monologues". Her students of all genders love her. And she's about as typical an "academic feminist" as you'll find.
First, women who oppose abortion tend to be far, far more vehement about it than men who oppose it.
I haven't heard of any women who have shot and killed doctors who perform abortions, but I know of men like Scott Roeder who have: that's pretty vehement. And having attended several Washington D.C. rallies in my day, I can tell you that there were plenty of shouting folks of either gender on both sides of the barriers.
the women who shout "objectification! sexist! demeaning!" the most loudly also tend to be nasty and hateful towards women who receive such attention and don't object. One instance from a previous job sticks in my mind.
Yes yes yes, we've all met at least one person who's oversensitive or manipulative, and we all work for companies that are prone to overreact when confronting HR problems. Try not to let it sour you on a whole political movement composed of millions of reasonable individuals.
You're so naive! If that's all feminists want, they should unify around that message instead of all the garbage about the patriarchy. I mean really, what does the crusade against the word "women" (womyn!!!) have to do with what you said? Don't pretend that type of feminism doesn't also exist.
Of course that type of extremist feminism exists. So does the type of Christianity which believes that Jews are servants of Satan. Should we judge all Christians because a small percentage of self-declared Christians are irrational bigots? No. So don't pick the most radical fringe of self-declared feminism and argue that all feminists are like that. Because if you know better, then you're arguing disingenuously; and if you don't know better, then you're the one who's naive.
Also I disagree with the right to be treated with respect regardless of what you wear. That does not exist for either sex.
If it becomes commonplace for a man to be roofied and gang-raped by a bunch of women, and then told by the cops "well, he was asking for it because he was dressed provocatively", then I'll believe that we've achieved parity. But we both know that won't happen.
And if you don't believe in the right of all people to be treated with basic human respect regardless of gender and appearance, then you're on the wrong side of history.
So we've established that you don't know what you're talking about, since you criticize blogs you don't read. Excellent. Do continue.
(Claps.) Outstanding! Since you obviously hate men who believe in equal rights for women, you're a turncoat by your own twisted logic. Arguing with you must be like facing an enemy on the battlefield who immediately points his gun backwards and shoots himself in the face. Thanks for the laughs!
(Laughs.) You don't know much about feminism, do you? It sounds like you're listening to too much talk radio, and not enough real people.
Your loss, my friend. Feminists are just people who believe that women should receive equal pay for equal work, should have the right to control their own bodies, and should have the right to be treated with respect regardless of what they're wearing.
All the smart geek girls I know are feminists. All the really smart geek guys are too -- because they're the ones who end up with the smart geek girls. :-)
Me. And a number of my married male friends.
Supporting feminism has nothing to do with your gender or sexual preference. It's about recognizing that women are still not treated with equal regard and respect in certain spheres -- the tech sphere being one of them.
If you support the rights and reproductive freedoms of your sisters, daughters, female friends, girlfriends, wife, and mother, then you might find interesting news and political writing on feminist blogs. If you're unconcerned about these issues but are curious about why so many women are angry at the treatment they get in society, you might want to read a few of those blogs to get an idea.
:-) I'm reminded of this quote from "House, M.D.":
Cuddy: "How is it that you always assume you're right?
House: "I don't. I just find it hard to operate on the opposite assumption."
Anyone who only shows you the negative of something is trying to manipulate you. That's a heuristic.
And the fact that you're only pointing out the negative side of this report would mean...? :-)
Millions of kids will now associate Microsoft products with homework and exams. Soon, adolescents everywhere will break out into stress-induced hives the moment they see the Windows logo come up. That will do wonders for sales in about ten years' time. :-)
I somewhat concur. Although I have a bias for illustrative stories, there is a time for entertaining metaphors and a time to impart information. Setting the stories off from the main text visually (as callouts or similar) would have helped us skip past them.
I produce a lot of documentation along with my coding, and the one thing that makes it palatable (even to me, re-reading it) are illustrations.
I'm not talking about UML class or activity diagrams, although those things are great where appropriate. It could be anything relevant to getting your point across, like a fragment of a database table showing sample data so people can visualize how a group of tables will work together. Screen grabs with arrows and circles.
My rule of thumb: if I ever find myself drawing a picture on a whiteboard as I'm explaining my module to someone, I immediately stop and take a picture of the diagram I just drew, and ASAP afterwards I turn that picture into an illustration in the user docs. Then next time I can just whip out the docs and point to the illustration.
If you want to use the Internet in a strange location to access something in the cloud, you're going to have to deal with the possibility that your connection isn't secure. Possible mitigation: change your password before you leave, and change it again when you come back. That at least reduces the window of opportunity for the black hats.
Basically correct. As I said to another poster, I don't want any government involvement in this issue. It's not that kind of shortage.
If, among the promising resumes, we had ten good candidates and ten unsuitable ones, there would be no problem. The problem is that we have ten good candidates and a hundred unsuitable ones -- where we only discern the unsuitable ones by a lengthy in-person tech interview. Because of the nature of our business, we only have a limited amount of time in which to find the good candidates.
What I really want is not more good candidates per se, but fewer unsuitable ones to wade through -- unsuitable meaning "not technically good, and not displaying any inclination of being able to improve with mentoring".