My propeller beanie comment was directed at people that rejected the notion out of hand without even considering the issue.
As to other discussions, I'm not going to let you cloud this issue with your ad hominems against me.
You can either talk about the issue which is what I have always done... or you can go fuck yourself with a chain saw sideways.
Are you ABLE to have a discussion without falling into ad hominem or not?
Because when I throw out an insult, it isn't an ad hominem. I'm not saying "you're wrong because you're an idiot" I am saying "you are an idiot because you are wrong."
Pretty big difference from a logical stand point.
And for all my faults, I am logical.
From what I've seen of you lately, you have not been logical. You don't like to have discussions and you don't like to discuss issues. You just like to insult people, exclude people from discussions, dismiss people, throw out stupid insults, and generally troll.
So, you can either get on topic or go fuck yourself.
You can't dictate who sovereign nations ally with or not. Who the hell do you think you are? Does the US go to war or engage in hostilities because country A1 makes an alliance with country B1? The US is not telling people who they can and cannot ally with and why Russia would think it has that right is beyond comprehension.
You're just another country. Get over yourself.
Time is running out for Russia. The economic ruin you are setting yourselves up for will cause your military to collapse and when that happens your more violent neighbors will eat you alive.
In regards to non-proliferation of NATO, that can't hold indefinitely.
The people of the world can make alliances if they want and associate with whomever they want. What is more Gorbachev gave away things that he couldn't control anymore. Much as the French sold parts of America to the United States. Of course they did... they couldn't hold the territory so they sold it. Had they not sold it, they would have lost it and gotten nothing for it.
As to your economic situation, the US has offered Russia help with economic development for many years. Your country could have rail running from Europe to China. You are in the middle of everything and you could profit by being a trusted interlocutor between powers and economies.
Your natural resources are also vast... on that alone you could be incredibly rich. Look at the Norwegians, they are very wealthy in large part because they have oil from the north sea. Russia has vastly more oil and so much more. And yet you fail to exploit it properly.
Recently Russia said "hey we could have a highway through Alaska and Siberia that connects the Americas to the Eurasian continent. No one is going to sign off on that because we don't trust you.
And we don't trust you because of this sort of behavior. If you just stopped being crazy for awhile we'd invest in you more. But we don't feel safe investing in you because we know you'll just use it as leverage to hurt us.
On topic with this push for a new space station, the US felt the shared voyage into space that our countries shared could help bridge a gap between our cultures. We thought, maybe by cooperating with that we could grow closer together and become friends.
When we needed your help launching things into space, you instead used our lack of launch capability as leverage to hurt us. You said things like "maybe the americans could use trampolines to get into space"... This was a betrayal and a petty one.
We don't need to go to the ISS station at all. The only reason we have the ISS at all was for political reasons. We wanted to be your friends. It was a shared project.
And when we tested whether it had been at all successful... you betrayed us. The ISS is a failure. Our diplomatic efforts with your country are a failure.
And because you won't stop... we're going to have grind you down for a few more generations until you're so weak that your neighbors start eating at your borders. We won't invade you. But the Russian frountier is large and your neighbors are only kept in check by fear of retailiation. You will grow weaker and they will grow stronger.
Your country has spread nuclear technology around the world.And to where more than anywhere else? The countries near you. You are sowing the seeds of your own destruction. You will be torn apart by a dozen countries... while we watch.
Your are the children of the Eastern Roman Empire... and like your forefathers you have made the same mistake all over again.
We could have been friends. But you have shown yourselves to be unworthy of that. We trust the Chinese more than we trust you. They're smarter than you. It is why they broke with the Soviets during the cold war and made peace with the US.
Look at the result. They have prospered while you have withered.
I pity your children. They do not deserve the consequences of what your generation and your father's generation and your father's father's generation has brought upon them. But it is unavoidable.
I'm going to logically evaluate your post because I logically evaluate everything.
Your first two sentences were meaningless insults.
Your third questioned my logic without specifically citing what I did that was wrong. It is very important that if you want your comment to have any credibility that you cite what you had a problem with so that I can logically evaluate your comment.
The remainder of your post was just more foolish insults.
Boiled down, you had something in the third sentence but because it was not expanded upon I cannot know whether your comment has merit or not. Absent that... your entire post is null.
No one is forgetting that. But why is the employer responsible for it either? You want to take ten years off and then come back and earn the same as the man OR woman that didnt' leave? How is that fair? The best way to track the effect of children on the earning power of a woman is is to compare the earning power of women that don't have children versus the ones that do.
The women that do not have children earn almost the exact same amount as men. That was how the gender cap statistic was first debunked. They just removed all the women that have children and the gap vanished. Now you say we need kids? No disagreement. But that is a different issue from gender discrimination or a wage gap.
All you're asking for now is maternity welfare. Which already exists. Nearly all the public subsidy money for healthcare etc goes to women. Roughly 90 percent goes to women. So... you're being paid. And the next time you want to talk about how hard it is being a woman, lets look at the gender imbalance in homeless people. Nearly all homeless people are men.
This issue is bullshit. It needs to be cut in to little pieces, dosed with holy water, and then buried on opposing sides of a church on holy ground. Otherwise known as another fun way to deal with vampires. The issue is bullshit. Nuke it from orbit.""
Now apparently you have to take me seriously. That was your bargain and I held my end of it.
We forgave them after the cold war and they've just started it all over again.
We could have been their partners before. But because their treachery we could only accept them as subordinates in any cooperative arrangement going forward. They have shown themselves to be unworthy of being trusted as equal partners.
As to universal truths, that is a double edged sword. Stab me with it and you annihilate this entire discussion and every one after it forever.
So by all means... do that. I'll win if you do because my real interest is in not being bothered with a stupid argument like this again. You only win by showing that your position in valid and keeping the discussion going. And that requires you to be dropping those universal truths.
As to what is and is not sexism, correlation and causation. Very simple concepts. Many things correlate with sex but if they are not caused by sex then it is not a gender issue but rather specific to that correlative variable.
This is basic logic. You either understand that or you're in no position discuss anything more complex than whether you like puppies.
As to not having the right to not be offended, okay... but that means that neither you nor these women have that right either. Their offense or uncomfortableness with something is therefore irrelevant. This works to my favor again.
I am very much more comfortable working in an environment where offense is irrelevant then is your position. Your position will inherently demand rights and concessions from mine on this basis. Since you don't have a right to not be offended anymore, that argument can no longer be used by you.
Do you feel the ratchet tightening? This is why logic wins. It is another way of describing "competent" thought.
We'll see if you have any rational rebuttals or if you're just going to fully devolve into meaningless insults.
FYI, when you do that... I win. I will have hounded you out of any pretense at logic or valid argument into the most petty childish behavior possible on these boards.
There is no higher victory on the internet.
You say you argue with people for fun on the internet? You're not very good at it.
1. It was the women that self selected themselves into and out of that position. Neither the university nor the companies did that.
2. You're conflating two different jobs with each other. The programmers of 30 years ago were doing a very different job them the programmers of the 1980s. The "programmers" that she says women used to become were actually not programmers but people trained in data entry into those old computers. That is not a programmer. Yes, they were technically CS courses but that's a bit like confusing MS word skills with programming skills. They stopped getting involved with it when data entry didn't require those classes and the programming became actual programming.
So no. It is not a valid point. You cannot conflate data entry with programming just because they were both at one time in the CS department.
I neither hate science nor discount the effort that goes into earning such accreditations. I merely point out that the number of such people has increased radically and that doing things the way we did them in the 19th century might not be the best way to do them in the 21st century.
Except I referenced that already. Go back and read my post again... I can't be bothered to repeat myself if you can't be bothered to read my post the first time.
As to universal truths, actually your study doesn't prove anything. Do you have a study that shows what women working in academia are paid compared to men? Those actually hired and actually working because they're actual people doing actual jobs?
That introductory offer might not reflect anything more than an introductory salary that is increased to some average rate upon proof of competence. Possibly the grades of women in academia are known to be inflated? I don't know... but that could be a reality for all I know. As such, perhaps scientists have to be a bit more careful when hiring women for that reason? Any number of such reasons are possible and none of them would technically be bigotry. It is only rational to try and manage risks as you perceive them. If a woman is walking through a bad part of town, is it sexism if she feels threatened by a group of men walking down the street but not threatened when a group of women walk down the street? It is just rational threat assessment. That isn't bigotry and complaining about it is completely pointless because it will never go away... ever. Any society that banishes rational threat assessment will destroy itself, devolve into barbarism, the anarchy will cull anyone that doesn't know how to manage risk, and the society that forms from the chaos will be wiser.
Trying to remove rational threat assessment is about as clever as lobotomizing yourself. It won't happen and if it did you'd destroy yourself. Pointless.
And once we have that bit of information, if there is a wage gap... I will want to separate out the women that have children versus not to see if the wage gap remains. I understand your study, I am saying what happens to the wages when they actually get the job... and what happens to their wages over the course of their career given different choices and how does that compare to the men.
Absent any ability to evaluate these things, we do not know enough about the situation to draw any firm conclusions.
I grant that it is intriguing and I'd love to see a more exhaustive study. However, that study is not proof of anything. It is too thin. I cannot emphasize enough that I do completely agree that this study should be expanded upon to figure out what is actually going on. We have some data here that is suggestive but we don't actually know what would happen if we really dug into these institutions and figured out what was really going on.
As to reasons... here are some non-sexist reasons:
1. Liability. Female workers might involve different legal and ethical strictures and thus increased risk.
2. Commitment. It is possible that female workers get hired, work for a short time and then quit to start a family or something requiring the people that hired her to go find someone else. This is avoided to some extent by just hiring a man.
3. Overwork. Men are known to overwork. This is one of the reasons men dominate programming and a few other fields. They don't go home at 6pm. They obsesses and invest themselves. Not all men... but certain personality types that tend to be the sorts of men that dominate given fields. Overwork is valuable to companies and is generally compensated in various ways. It also implies a flexibility in the worker in that they will do what is needed to get the job done even if that means coming in on week ends and working through the night.
And I can come up with other reasons as well.
This is not sexist because it is correlative. It is based on an assumption that a given worker is going to follow a given pattern of behavior based on the past experience of the person hiring. The reason for hiring or not hiring in this case is not because of their gender but because of those assumptions about what they'll be getting in a worker.
That said, that is only applicable in your study.
And I would point out again that it is very thin and there were lots of women in that study showing the same hiring pattern. You say I am arguing that sexism is right... I would point out that if I w
Don't be a killjoy. Halo was a pretty cool game especially for a console. I'm a PC guy so I've only played the Halo games that have made it to PC. But they're pretty fun.
its just funny that MS is using all these references from halo to name their smartphone crap.
Friend, I value empiricism. I am not a belief cultist... apparently you are.
You're also apparently a very petty person that likes to bring ad hominems into any discussion he possibly can. You are what is wrong with the internet.
If you valued the discussion more than your pathetic insults, perhaps you might have profitable discussions here... So far as I have seen, you don't. Not just with me. But with anyone.
I however have such discussions on this board all the time. Instead of disagreeing with me or offering up alternative opinions you have to devolve into this... pitiful.
Okay, so her first issue is that there are a lot of men in tech.
That isn't a valid complaint or evidence of discrimination. Do men in the fashion industry or any female dominated business have the right to whine about discrimination because they're surrounded by women? Obviously not.
next issue.
Her next point about computer science degrees and women 30 years ago is a half truth. Yes, women were getting those degrees but it was because at that time the job was seen as clerical and like typists, women tended to dominate such professions at that time. When the personal computer came around and programming stopped being about managing the giant business computer in the basement... it stopped being seen as a clerical position and so not part of the traditional female jobs. The lack of women in programming these days is not due to companies not wanting to hire women. It is due to women not thinking that they need to CS because they don't think it is part of that traditionally female career path.
There is no discrimination there.
Next issue.
She then busts out with an out of context quote from a 1980s silicon valley programer saying that he didn't have time for women... He was mostly talking about girlfriends and relationships... not female peers in his industry.
Next issue.
She then blames it on lack of role models. Which begs the question of who are the male role models? The thing about technology is that you get into it because you love it. You don't do it because of role models.
How is lack of female role models the fault of MEN? That's on you ladies. Women have to take some responsibility for themselves. Providing their own fucking role models is a pretty low standard to meet. I mean, if they really can't then we men can of course provide such role models for them. However, they will be abdicating that choice to us. Comes with the territory.
I don't see how this issue is the fault of men or even society.
She talks also about games marketed to men forgetting that the game companies have tried to market to women all along. THey've just not been very successful at it. It isn't that games for women aren't made. It is that women don't buy them. That is until Candy Crush came along and now women love all those facebook games. But that won't stop people from complaining that there are games made that men like. Why is that a problem? There are books and movies made for men. And there are books and movies made for women. there are also games made for men and games made for women. These various markets meet different levels of success.
No, my view is of someone that understands the employer employee relationship.
As to society needing children, yes... but it is not the corporation's responsibility to do that. That is up to the family and the community. Not the company.
What is more, the community does help women. Again, about 90 percent of government medical subsidies go to women. Why is that?
What percentage of homeless people are men versus women? Why is that?
Women are taken care of far better by our society than are men. We recognize that women must be protected. But no one owes you a job. And if you show up with this entitlement that you should be paid more than you are worth, then you are in for disappointment.
You will be paid what you are worth. What you get beyond that will be charity.
Furthermore, if the point is for women to have children, then why are we putting women into the labor force and encouraging them to have careers? This does not help women have children.
What is more, why do we not encourage women more strongly to be bound into some sort of sexual relationship with the opposite sex? It would help the birth rate.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say society should give you a career because society needs babies. That is not an argument for giving women jobs. That is an argument for denying them jobs, compelling them into the kitchen, and giving their male partners the jobs instead.
The argument for giving women careers is EQUALITY. Not babies. Equality. And equality means you get paid what you are worth.
You cite babies and I have to ask how giving you a career helps society get babies? Limiting the opportunities of women has a proven track record of improving birth rates. Actually, the more opportunities women have, the lower the birth rate becomes.
Think about it.
You can't use babies in this argument. If society really needed the babies then the last thing it should do is give women anything to do besides have babies.
Again. Think. Be. Rational.
As to your various welfare recommendations, that is fine. The government can raise taxes and give more women welfare and subsidies. That is however not the company's responsibility. You can tax the company and use those taxes for various things. But as an employee you're going to get paid what you are worth.
Crying discrimination when you're not being discriminated against is dishonest and foolish.
They sent those to both male and female employers.
What is more, it was exclusively in academia. You don't know how that would be received in other institutions.
What is more still, we're talking about wage gaps that tend to form over time. Your entire premise is based on the notion that at hiring the prices people are paid are different and you're not taking anything beyond that into consideration.
Your study while interesting is hardly definitive of anything... even in academia.
There was also no follow up to find out why any of that happened. The could be correlative problems associated with female applications.
This recent lawsuit by a woman against a company has already been noted BY professional women to be damaging to women because it increases the RISK of hiring women.
If I don't hire a woman because I'm afraid she's going to sue me for example that isn't discrimination against women. That is fear of lawsuits.
You can't damn our entire society using that one flimsy study as evidence. It isn't remotely enough.
The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.:-P
Neither of your sources actually found dark matter.
I'm going to have to reject your attempt to browbeat me until you can show that there is evidence of dark matter outside of the hypothetical or the gravitational observations of distant galaxies.
Slashdot Mirror
Stupid insults from an Anonymous Coward? Shocking.
My propeller beanie comment was directed at people that rejected the notion out of hand without even considering the issue.
As to other discussions, I'm not going to let you cloud this issue with your ad hominems against me.
You can either talk about the issue which is what I have always done... or you can go fuck yourself with a chain saw sideways.
Are you ABLE to have a discussion without falling into ad hominem or not?
Because when I throw out an insult, it isn't an ad hominem. I'm not saying "you're wrong because you're an idiot" I am saying "you are an idiot because you are wrong."
Pretty big difference from a logical stand point.
And for all my faults, I am logical.
From what I've seen of you lately, you have not been logical. You don't like to have discussions and you don't like to discuss issues. You just like to insult people, exclude people from discussions, dismiss people, throw out stupid insults, and generally troll.
So, you can either get on topic or go fuck yourself.
How about, shit for brains?
You can't dictate who sovereign nations ally with or not. Who the hell do you think you are? Does the US go to war or engage in hostilities because country A1 makes an alliance with country B1? The US is not telling people who they can and cannot ally with and why Russia would think it has that right is beyond comprehension.
You're just another country. Get over yourself.
Time is running out for Russia. The economic ruin you are setting yourselves up for will cause your military to collapse and when that happens your more violent neighbors will eat you alive.
And America will watch.
I looked for a point in there and found only sputtering insults... so, I win?
because when my opposition is reduced to making sputtering insults... that's game over.
You want to try again or is this Good Game?
I don't use their phone but I don't have this insane fucked up cultist hatred of MS either.
You've completely lost your tiny little mind.
In regards to non-proliferation of NATO, that can't hold indefinitely.
The people of the world can make alliances if they want and associate with whomever they want. What is more Gorbachev gave away things that he couldn't control anymore. Much as the French sold parts of America to the United States. Of course they did... they couldn't hold the territory so they sold it. Had they not sold it, they would have lost it and gotten nothing for it.
As to your economic situation, the US has offered Russia help with economic development for many years. Your country could have rail running from Europe to China. You are in the middle of everything and you could profit by being a trusted interlocutor between powers and economies.
Your natural resources are also vast... on that alone you could be incredibly rich. Look at the Norwegians, they are very wealthy in large part because they have oil from the north sea. Russia has vastly more oil and so much more. And yet you fail to exploit it properly.
Recently Russia said "hey we could have a highway through Alaska and Siberia that connects the Americas to the Eurasian continent. No one is going to sign off on that because we don't trust you.
And we don't trust you because of this sort of behavior. If you just stopped being crazy for awhile we'd invest in you more. But we don't feel safe investing in you because we know you'll just use it as leverage to hurt us.
On topic with this push for a new space station, the US felt the shared voyage into space that our countries shared could help bridge a gap between our cultures. We thought, maybe by cooperating with that we could grow closer together and become friends.
When we needed your help launching things into space, you instead used our lack of launch capability as leverage to hurt us. You said things like "maybe the americans could use trampolines to get into space"... This was a betrayal and a petty one.
We don't need to go to the ISS station at all. The only reason we have the ISS at all was for political reasons. We wanted to be your friends. It was a shared project.
And when we tested whether it had been at all successful... you betrayed us. The ISS is a failure. Our diplomatic efforts with your country are a failure.
And because you won't stop... we're going to have grind you down for a few more generations until you're so weak that your neighbors start eating at your borders. We won't invade you. But the Russian frountier is large and your neighbors are only kept in check by fear of retailiation. You will grow weaker and they will grow stronger.
Your country has spread nuclear technology around the world.And to where more than anywhere else? The countries near you. You are sowing the seeds of your own destruction. You will be torn apart by a dozen countries... while we watch.
Your are the children of the Eastern Roman Empire... and like your forefathers you have made the same mistake all over again.
We could have been friends. But you have shown yourselves to be unworthy of that. We trust the Chinese more than we trust you. They're smarter than you. It is why they broke with the Soviets during the cold war and made peace with the US.
Look at the result. They have prospered while you have withered.
I pity your children. They do not deserve the consequences of what your generation and your father's generation and your father's father's generation has brought upon them. But it is unavoidable.
We could have been friends... *shrugs*
Suppositions are not evidence of anything.
You mad, bro? :)
I'm going to logically evaluate your post because I logically evaluate everything.
Your first two sentences were meaningless insults.
Your third questioned my logic without specifically citing what I did that was wrong. It is very important that if you want your comment to have any credibility that you cite what you had a problem with so that I can logically evaluate your comment.
The remainder of your post was just more foolish insults.
Boiled down, you had something in the third sentence but because it was not expanded upon I cannot know whether your comment has merit or not. Absent that... your entire post is null.
Do better, Mr or Ms AC. :-)
takes longer, but just for you:
""
No one is forgetting that. But why is the employer responsible for it either? You want to take ten years off and then come back and earn the same as the man OR woman that didnt' leave? How is that fair? The best way to track the effect of children on the earning power of a woman is is to compare the earning power of women that don't have children versus the ones that do.
The women that do not have children earn almost the exact same amount as men. That was how the gender cap statistic was first debunked. They just removed all the women that have children and the gap vanished. Now you say we need kids? No disagreement. But that is a different issue from gender discrimination or a wage gap.
All you're asking for now is maternity welfare. Which already exists. Nearly all the public subsidy money for healthcare etc goes to women. Roughly 90 percent goes to women. So... you're being paid. And the next time you want to talk about how hard it is being a woman, lets look at the gender imbalance in homeless people. Nearly all homeless people are men.
This issue is bullshit. It needs to be cut in to little pieces, dosed with holy water, and then buried on opposing sides of a church on holy ground. Otherwise known as another fun way to deal with vampires. The issue is bullshit. Nuke it from orbit.""
Now apparently you have to take me seriously. That was your bargain and I held my end of it.
How does saying phd papers instead of thesis papers either suggest or prove that I hate science?
Either back off that position and apologize or you've been caught in a lie and we're done.
We forgave them after the cold war and they've just started it all over again.
We could have been their partners before. But because their treachery we could only accept them as subordinates in any cooperative arrangement going forward. They have shown themselves to be unworthy of being trusted as equal partners.
As to universal truths, that is a double edged sword. Stab me with it and you annihilate this entire discussion and every one after it forever.
So by all means... do that. I'll win if you do because my real interest is in not being bothered with a stupid argument like this again. You only win by showing that your position in valid and keeping the discussion going. And that requires you to be dropping those universal truths.
As to what is and is not sexism, correlation and causation. Very simple concepts. Many things correlate with sex but if they are not caused by sex then it is not a gender issue but rather specific to that correlative variable.
This is basic logic. You either understand that or you're in no position discuss anything more complex than whether you like puppies.
As to not having the right to not be offended, okay... but that means that neither you nor these women have that right either. Their offense or uncomfortableness with something is therefore irrelevant. This works to my favor again.
I am very much more comfortable working in an environment where offense is irrelevant then is your position. Your position will inherently demand rights and concessions from mine on this basis. Since you don't have a right to not be offended anymore, that argument can no longer be used by you.
Do you feel the ratchet tightening? This is why logic wins. It is another way of describing "competent" thought.
We'll see if you have any rational rebuttals or if you're just going to fully devolve into meaningless insults.
FYI, when you do that... I win. I will have hounded you out of any pretense at logic or valid argument into the most petty childish behavior possible on these boards.
There is no higher victory on the internet.
You say you argue with people for fun on the internet? You're not very good at it.
1. It was the women that self selected themselves into and out of that position. Neither the university nor the companies did that.
2. You're conflating two different jobs with each other. The programmers of 30 years ago were doing a very different job them the programmers of the 1980s. The "programmers" that she says women used to become were actually not programmers but people trained in data entry into those old computers. That is not a programmer. Yes, they were technically CS courses but that's a bit like confusing MS word skills with programming skills. They stopped getting involved with it when data entry didn't require those classes and the programming became actual programming.
So no. It is not a valid point. You cannot conflate data entry with programming just because they were both at one time in the CS department.
I neither hate science nor discount the effort that goes into earning such accreditations. I merely point out that the number of such people has increased radically and that doing things the way we did them in the 19th century might not be the best way to do them in the 21st century.
*crushes mental insect and moves on*
Except I referenced that already. Go back and read my post again... I can't be bothered to repeat myself if you can't be bothered to read my post the first time.
That's fine... keep making epicycles... maybe that is just how the universe works. In all sincerity, how would I know?
Just know I'll be over here chuckling when you find dark magnetism, dark weak nuclear force, dark strong nuclear force, and turtles all the way down.
I didn't say anything about blacks. I said men.
I'd rather not let you cloud the issue with your tangent. If you want to drift into sophistry then you can do it without me.
As to universal truths, actually your study doesn't prove anything. Do you have a study that shows what women working in academia are paid compared to men? Those actually hired and actually working because they're actual people doing actual jobs?
That introductory offer might not reflect anything more than an introductory salary that is increased to some average rate upon proof of competence. Possibly the grades of women in academia are known to be inflated? I don't know... but that could be a reality for all I know. As such, perhaps scientists have to be a bit more careful when hiring women for that reason? Any number of such reasons are possible and none of them would technically be bigotry. It is only rational to try and manage risks as you perceive them. If a woman is walking through a bad part of town, is it sexism if she feels threatened by a group of men walking down the street but not threatened when a group of women walk down the street? It is just rational threat assessment. That isn't bigotry and complaining about it is completely pointless because it will never go away... ever. Any society that banishes rational threat assessment will destroy itself, devolve into barbarism, the anarchy will cull anyone that doesn't know how to manage risk, and the society that forms from the chaos will be wiser.
Trying to remove rational threat assessment is about as clever as lobotomizing yourself. It won't happen and if it did you'd destroy yourself. Pointless.
And once we have that bit of information, if there is a wage gap... I will want to separate out the women that have children versus not to see if the wage gap remains. I understand your study, I am saying what happens to the wages when they actually get the job... and what happens to their wages over the course of their career given different choices and how does that compare to the men.
Absent any ability to evaluate these things, we do not know enough about the situation to draw any firm conclusions.
I grant that it is intriguing and I'd love to see a more exhaustive study. However, that study is not proof of anything. It is too thin. I cannot emphasize enough that I do completely agree that this study should be expanded upon to figure out what is actually going on. We have some data here that is suggestive but we don't actually know what would happen if we really dug into these institutions and figured out what was really going on.
As to reasons... here are some non-sexist reasons:
1. Liability. Female workers might involve different legal and ethical strictures and thus increased risk.
2. Commitment. It is possible that female workers get hired, work for a short time and then quit to start a family or something requiring the people that hired her to go find someone else. This is avoided to some extent by just hiring a man.
3. Overwork. Men are known to overwork. This is one of the reasons men dominate programming and a few other fields. They don't go home at 6pm. They obsesses and invest themselves. Not all men... but certain personality types that tend to be the sorts of men that dominate given fields. Overwork is valuable to companies and is generally compensated in various ways. It also implies a flexibility in the worker in that they will do what is needed to get the job done even if that means coming in on week ends and working through the night.
And I can come up with other reasons as well.
This is not sexist because it is correlative. It is based on an assumption that a given worker is going to follow a given pattern of behavior based on the past experience of the person hiring. The reason for hiring or not hiring in this case is not because of their gender but because of those assumptions about what they'll be getting in a worker.
That said, that is only applicable in your study.
And I would point out again that it is very thin and there were lots of women in that study showing the same hiring pattern. You say I am arguing that sexism is right... I would point out that if I w
Don't be a killjoy. Halo was a pretty cool game especially for a console. I'm a PC guy so I've only played the Halo games that have made it to PC. But they're pretty fun.
its just funny that MS is using all these references from halo to name their smartphone crap.
Friend, I value empiricism. I am not a belief cultist... apparently you are.
You're also apparently a very petty person that likes to bring ad hominems into any discussion he possibly can. You are what is wrong with the internet.
If you valued the discussion more than your pathetic insults, perhaps you might have profitable discussions here... So far as I have seen, you don't. Not just with me. But with anyone.
I however have such discussions on this board all the time. Instead of disagreeing with me or offering up alternative opinions you have to devolve into this... pitiful.
Okay, so her first issue is that there are a lot of men in tech.
That isn't a valid complaint or evidence of discrimination. Do men in the fashion industry or any female dominated business have the right to whine about discrimination because they're surrounded by women? Obviously not.
next issue.
Her next point about computer science degrees and women 30 years ago is a half truth. Yes, women were getting those degrees but it was because at that time the job was seen as clerical and like typists, women tended to dominate such professions at that time. When the personal computer came around and programming stopped being about managing the giant business computer in the basement... it stopped being seen as a clerical position and so not part of the traditional female jobs. The lack of women in programming these days is not due to companies not wanting to hire women. It is due to women not thinking that they need to CS because they don't think it is part of that traditionally female career path.
There is no discrimination there.
Next issue.
She then busts out with an out of context quote from a 1980s silicon valley programer saying that he didn't have time for women... He was mostly talking about girlfriends and relationships... not female peers in his industry.
Next issue.
She then blames it on lack of role models. Which begs the question of who are the male role models? The thing about technology is that you get into it because you love it. You don't do it because of role models.
How is lack of female role models the fault of MEN? That's on you ladies. Women have to take some responsibility for themselves. Providing their own fucking role models is a pretty low standard to meet. I mean, if they really can't then we men can of course provide such role models for them. However, they will be abdicating that choice to us. Comes with the territory.
I don't see how this issue is the fault of men or even society.
She talks also about games marketed to men forgetting that the game companies have tried to market to women all along. THey've just not been very successful at it. It isn't that games for women aren't made. It is that women don't buy them. That is until Candy Crush came along and now women love all those facebook games. But that won't stop people from complaining that there are games made that men like. Why is that a problem? There are books and movies made for men. And there are books and movies made for women. there are also games made for men and games made for women. These various markets meet different levels of success.
So yet again, no discrimination.
And that got me past 10 minutes.
I want the last ten minutes of my life back. X-(
No, my view is of someone that understands the employer employee relationship.
As to society needing children, yes... but it is not the corporation's responsibility to do that. That is up to the family and the community. Not the company.
What is more, the community does help women. Again, about 90 percent of government medical subsidies go to women. Why is that?
What percentage of homeless people are men versus women? Why is that?
Women are taken care of far better by our society than are men. We recognize that women must be protected. But no one owes you a job. And if you show up with this entitlement that you should be paid more than you are worth, then you are in for disappointment.
You will be paid what you are worth. What you get beyond that will be charity.
Furthermore, if the point is for women to have children, then why are we putting women into the labor force and encouraging them to have careers? This does not help women have children.
What is more, why do we not encourage women more strongly to be bound into some sort of sexual relationship with the opposite sex? It would help the birth rate.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say society should give you a career because society needs babies. That is not an argument for giving women jobs. That is an argument for denying them jobs, compelling them into the kitchen, and giving their male partners the jobs instead.
The argument for giving women careers is EQUALITY. Not babies. Equality. And equality means you get paid what you are worth.
You cite babies and I have to ask how giving you a career helps society get babies? Limiting the opportunities of women has a proven track record of improving birth rates. Actually, the more opportunities women have, the lower the birth rate becomes.
Think about it.
You can't use babies in this argument. If society really needed the babies then the last thing it should do is give women anything to do besides have babies.
Again.
Think.
Be.
Rational.
As to your various welfare recommendations, that is fine. The government can raise taxes and give more women welfare and subsidies. That is however not the company's responsibility. You can tax the company and use those taxes for various things. But as an employee you're going to get paid what you are worth.
Crying discrimination when you're not being discriminated against is dishonest and foolish.
They sent those to both male and female employers.
What is more, it was exclusively in academia. You don't know how that would be received in other institutions.
What is more still, we're talking about wage gaps that tend to form over time. Your entire premise is based on the notion that at hiring the prices people are paid are different and you're not taking anything beyond that into consideration.
Your study while interesting is hardly definitive of anything... even in academia.
There was also no follow up to find out why any of that happened. The could be correlative problems associated with female applications.
This recent lawsuit by a woman against a company has already been noted BY professional women to be damaging to women because it increases the RISK of hiring women.
If I don't hire a woman because I'm afraid she's going to sue me for example that isn't discrimination against women. That is fear of lawsuits.
You can't damn our entire society using that one flimsy study as evidence. It isn't remotely enough.
The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant. :-P
Try to be less of a ragetard.
Neither of your sources actually found dark matter.
I'm going to have to reject your attempt to browbeat me until you can show that there is evidence of dark matter outside of the hypothetical or the gravitational observations of distant galaxies.