Karen Straughn is an MRA, and a staunch anti-feminist.
I don't know if that changes your opinion of her, or will change your quoting of what she says (though that particular fact is touted by equity feminist Christina Hoff Sommers as well), but let's at least be honest about who we're dealing with here.
Slightly off-topic observation that I know I will get modded down for, but it's still a peeve of mine, so I'm going to say it:
Is it just me, or does it bother anyone else that anyone who usually uses the term "MRA" only does so to remind people that MRAs are bad?
Nobody brought up the MRM. And yet when an argument gets raised that may be construed as anti-woman, it's automatically assumed that the person making an argument is an MRA, as if it's some sort of nebulous movement that one is a part of based on a set of beliefs (or non-beliefs, as if the MRM is like atheism) rather than it actually being an activism-based concept the way feminism is regarded.
I don't consider myself one, and I don't agree with everything they stand for, but if you mean "misogynists" then SAY "misogynists".
One more thing: I can't identify even one person on Slashdot that openly identifies as an MRA. I can't even find one person that overwhelmingly argues most of the positions that the MRM stands for. So, when you say "MRA", it seems to me you're invoking a big, bad boogeyman to end the argument because "OMG, misogyny", and it's a logic fail that I frankly find problematic.
"Fair" means if you're better qualified walking in the door, you get paid more. "Fair" means if you're not afraid to establish your worth and can make a decent argument for it, then you get it. "Fair" means you earned that extra few $K a year.
And how do you know what is "fair" in this instance anyway, unless you did the research and came in educated on the subject?
Should "fair" mean that someone who gets paid less than someone who didn't bother coming in understanding what "fair wage" actually is and is willing to take whatever has been offered, thereby driving down the wage of someone who knows what their worth and is willing to make a decent argument for it?
So what you're saying is that feminism can't possibly be corrupted or otherwise used for nefarious ends?
Or that anyone who suggests as much (or points out a movement that may be engaging in such practices using an umbrella term - divisive and derogatory though it may be) must be dealt with as a child throwing a tantrum?
I want to preface this with the following disclaimers:
1. I find that disallowing salary negotiations is a nefarious business practice and I wouldn't work for a company that disallowed them simply because if they're not open to negotiations at the outset, who knows what else they'll disallow once you're in the door and invested. 2. I find Ellen Pao to be a deeply shady (at best estimation) individual. She's a lawyer and yet discourages negotiation? Something about that seems largely off-center; I can't imagine any lawyer in the process of learning law didn't ever learn about where negotiation is necessary.
That having been said, on the off-off-off-OFF chance that she has the best of intentions (road to hell and all that) she may be trying to correct the problem of not being good negotiators in the first place and never having had the resources to learn. Had she proposed that once an employee (male or female) has been hired and the company is more open to negotiations based on merit (given her very open biases, this is hardly likely of course) after a several-month probation period, and mentoring that allows open discussion on salary and how to get ahead, this course of action would be acceptable.
I don't really believe she has the best of intentions, but I'm willing to play with generous interpretations every so often.
TV glamorizes a profession and makes it seem more exciting than it is? The shocking truth, tonight on News at 11!
I'm being sarcastic here, but as someone who used to hold a rather high level of security clearance, that's kind of a "well, duh". Most people who have to deal with Top Secret information generally hate dealing with it, because typically less than 5% of what they do is that level of classified, and getting it, having it, keeping it, transferring it, and everything associated with it makes life harder, all for maybe a few bits of information. And that's in between the pain-in-the-ass known as the investigation to get and keep your clearance every five years.
The more you deal with it, the less you feel like a spy and the more you feel like a paper-pusher, well-compensated though you may be.
There was a joke in my family for a while where they'd say: "she'd tell you what she does for a living, but she'd have to kill you". My response was: "No, not really. If I told you what I did for a living, it would bore you to death."
Oh, and no matter how unimportant you are and how little classified information you may be exposed to, on a yearly basis, you're exposed to paranoia-inducing training that tells you that you'll be targeted for all sorts of criminal activity because of what you have access to.
I haven't had a clearance in over five years, so thankfully, anything I knew is out of date, so it's no longer of value, and I feel generally happier for it.
I don't disagree that merit's pretty well disregarded, I was simply pointing out what is arguably one of the most obvious examples of it, that we're going to hear a lot of in the next year and a half, give or take a couple of months.
That said, Obama did just fine not pointing out that he was black in 2008. The irony there is that he didn't have to; the other side was doing a fine enough job of it for him.
That is to say, in order to win hearts and minds, politicians, journalists, and others are trying to override the "mind" part, using engagement of feelings before the brain can even smack the snooze alarm. Feelings are simple, analysis is hard. Lure people into doing the simple thing so they have no desire to get to the hard thing.
Thus, we hear things like Hillary asking if we'd like to see a woman president. A lot of the media nowadays is laser-focused on making sure women achieve parity whether or not it's practical so much that if you dare question that sentiment (never mind the obvious agenda that favors Hillary over most other candidates), you're branded a misogynist.
Now people's feelings are overwhelmed with the ideas of justice and suppressing hatred (and how those things make us feel) that the question "But is the woman in question the right person for the job?" gets lost in all all the other noise, rhetoric and general shouting over each other.
I will contend that in this day and age, when we talk about any -ism in this country, what we are really talking about is "capitalism". (There is evidence that it's always been that way, of course, but I'm going to keep this as succinct as possible.)
Rich people will always put profit first. If the product doesn't sell to women, no big deal; if it does, marketing blitz including a few token scholarships. Support a few redundant laws that establish women as a protected class, even. (Side note: let's ask Fiorina how she feels about supporting women with children below the poverty line and watch the fireworks.)
If gay rights is an issue, address it where it's at least tolerated without an overwhelming amount of violence as being progressive, and look like a hero paying lip service to American exceptionalism. Anywhere where it is not largely accepted, pipe down; no need to drive up operating costs. (Let's ask Republicans about alternative suppliers that support gay rights, though...isn't this game fun?)
For extra fun, let's see if we can bait Fiorina into calling Democrats hypocrites on things like racism, or belief.
I would agree that I'm probably missing out (I knew about the other three and the other books by Kevin J. Anderson, which killed any curiosity I had about those books). I don't really have the attention span for books anymore unless I have someone to discuss them with; kind of the same way many people have workout partners.
The last book I read was "Song of Spider-Man" (about the backstage shenanigans with "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark"), because I knew it would get traction at dinner discussions with friends. But mostly, we talk TV and movies.
I taught at a community college for a while and if there's one thing that's self-evident, it's that a lot of students see classes as another "chore" on the way to a career, and haven't seemed to consider the reason why they're in that class in the first place: that it's supposed to make you think, and be enriching to you.
Instead, students just wanted to formula and didn't want to process how it worked or why. Just as long as it cranked out the right answer on the test, that was good enough. Those students were frequently miserable and didn't do well.
I am not saying at all that there were no students that enjoyed learning, but those were few and far between. There was a lot of overlap between those students and the ones that received an "A" in the class.
I believe the phrase "Fuck you, I've got mine" that I'd say is a common attitude of many among even the better-off middle classes seems to indicate there are plenty of fucks to be given, and they all land squarely among the have-nots.
For instance, I was at some point not too long ago, subject to a Facebook rant among a guy my age (mid-30s) with a stable Government job that netted him six-figures easily, because he had a high clearance, railing against Obamacare. With no evident whiff of parody, he basically said that he was going to be forced to give up space in his basement and even one of his kidneys to "someone who will never contribute to society". He said money would be stolen from "his family" for this.
This guy had clearly never been impoverished, knew anyone who was, or even spoken to anyone near the poverty line. He (despite being rather book-smart) understood nothing about class mobility (or lack thereof), the cycle of poverty, or personal responsibility to being your brother's keeper.
Point being, this guy sure gave a fuck.
People who don't give a fuck can reasonably be expected to say "You know what? I can live without a new luxury car every few years because I'm helping make the country stronger by having less impoverished people in it."
You may think it's apathy that drives people not to help others, but apathy implies no expenditure of anything. It takes far more energy to be selfish.
When I did a short stint at Fiverr for grins, I would occasionally get people who would try and send me links to direct me offsite so we could haggle without the limitations set by Fiverr.
I have no doubt people will be doing this on Amazon, too.
I've been in the position during the past year where I've needed a new accountant and a lawyer for running a new business.
Know how I found them? Friends who run their own businesses.
Good ratings on Amazon are absolutely nothing compared to a single recommendation from a trustworthy friend, and I most certainly would look for contractors the exact same way.
Look, consumer electronics these days are for everyone (they're not like the Casio calculator watch from back in the day), so they need to look sexy and even a little bit "exclusive". Apple hasn't been "exclusive" for years now, and I suspect they want to take the idea back a little: being fashion-forward AND having something that not everyone else has yet.
Except...I've had a smart-watch for months. People notice and ask questions, but I've observed that the questions I get aren't from people who WANT one of their own, even the iPhone users (people still have phones that are glued to them anyway), they're just wondering why I have it in the first place. So Apple is probably limiting supply to increase perception of demand.
I find that my opinion on the matter is increasingly unpopular: I say, let 'em tell us who they are. Don't make it hard for me to come to the realization that you aren't someone I want to do business with. Make it perfectly clear why I shouldn't give you my money. Make my life easy and spare me the time to do research if I should feel it's necessary. Since I hate surprises, don't let them hide something that might shock or irritate me.
Granted, while I think "religious freedom" laws are likely unconstitutional (or at least, ethically and morally questionable), I kind of don't mind that certain groups are feeling a little freer to tell me why I should take my business elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm also pedantic as a motherfucker.
Well behaved women rarely make history, no? ;-)
Eh, I never know for sure when it comes to conversations like this, so I'm sorry if my tone was a little cheeky.
Karen Straughn is an MRA, and a staunch anti-feminist.
I don't know if that changes your opinion of her, or will change your quoting of what she says (though that particular fact is touted by equity feminist Christina Hoff Sommers as well), but let's at least be honest about who we're dealing with here.
current infestation of MRAs
Slightly off-topic observation that I know I will get modded down for, but it's still a peeve of mine, so I'm going to say it:
Is it just me, or does it bother anyone else that anyone who usually uses the term "MRA" only does so to remind people that MRAs are bad?
Nobody brought up the MRM. And yet when an argument gets raised that may be construed as anti-woman, it's automatically assumed that the person making an argument is an MRA, as if it's some sort of nebulous movement that one is a part of based on a set of beliefs (or non-beliefs, as if the MRM is like atheism) rather than it actually being an activism-based concept the way feminism is regarded.
I don't consider myself one, and I don't agree with everything they stand for, but if you mean "misogynists" then SAY "misogynists".
One more thing: I can't identify even one person on Slashdot that openly identifies as an MRA. I can't even find one person that overwhelmingly argues most of the positions that the MRM stands for. So, when you say "MRA", it seems to me you're invoking a big, bad boogeyman to end the argument because "OMG, misogyny", and it's a logic fail that I frankly find problematic.
In this case "equally" =/= "fairly".
"Fair" means if you're better qualified walking in the door, you get paid more. "Fair" means if you're not afraid to establish your worth and can make a decent argument for it, then you get it. "Fair" means you earned that extra few $K a year.
And how do you know what is "fair" in this instance anyway, unless you did the research and came in educated on the subject?
Should "fair" mean that someone who gets paid less than someone who didn't bother coming in understanding what "fair wage" actually is and is willing to take whatever has been offered, thereby driving down the wage of someone who knows what their worth and is willing to make a decent argument for it?
So what you're saying is that feminism can't possibly be corrupted or otherwise used for nefarious ends?
Or that anyone who suggests as much (or points out a movement that may be engaging in such practices using an umbrella term - divisive and derogatory though it may be) must be dealt with as a child throwing a tantrum?
I want to preface this with the following disclaimers:
1. I find that disallowing salary negotiations is a nefarious business practice and I wouldn't work for a company that disallowed them simply because if they're not open to negotiations at the outset, who knows what else they'll disallow once you're in the door and invested.
2. I find Ellen Pao to be a deeply shady (at best estimation) individual. She's a lawyer and yet discourages negotiation? Something about that seems largely off-center; I can't imagine any lawyer in the process of learning law didn't ever learn about where negotiation is necessary.
That having been said, on the off-off-off-OFF chance that she has the best of intentions (road to hell and all that) she may be trying to correct the problem of not being good negotiators in the first place and never having had the resources to learn. Had she proposed that once an employee (male or female) has been hired and the company is more open to negotiations based on merit (given her very open biases, this is hardly likely of course) after a several-month probation period, and mentoring that allows open discussion on salary and how to get ahead, this course of action would be acceptable.
I don't really believe she has the best of intentions, but I'm willing to play with generous interpretations every so often.
TV glamorizes a profession and makes it seem more exciting than it is? The shocking truth, tonight on News at 11!
I'm being sarcastic here, but as someone who used to hold a rather high level of security clearance, that's kind of a "well, duh". Most people who have to deal with Top Secret information generally hate dealing with it, because typically less than 5% of what they do is that level of classified, and getting it, having it, keeping it, transferring it, and everything associated with it makes life harder, all for maybe a few bits of information. And that's in between the pain-in-the-ass known as the investigation to get and keep your clearance every five years.
The more you deal with it, the less you feel like a spy and the more you feel like a paper-pusher, well-compensated though you may be.
There was a joke in my family for a while where they'd say: "she'd tell you what she does for a living, but she'd have to kill you". My response was: "No, not really. If I told you what I did for a living, it would bore you to death."
Oh, and no matter how unimportant you are and how little classified information you may be exposed to, on a yearly basis, you're exposed to paranoia-inducing training that tells you that you'll be targeted for all sorts of criminal activity because of what you have access to.
I haven't had a clearance in over five years, so thankfully, anything I knew is out of date, so it's no longer of value, and I feel generally happier for it.
I don't disagree that merit's pretty well disregarded, I was simply pointing out what is arguably one of the most obvious examples of it, that we're going to hear a lot of in the next year and a half, give or take a couple of months.
That said, Obama did just fine not pointing out that he was black in 2008. The irony there is that he didn't have to; the other side was doing a fine enough job of it for him.
Nuance is a pesky thing, ain't it?
Of course she is. She's going to take the stance that makes people harp on the flaws that aren't in line with their values.
If it causes division within the opposing party, more's the better.
We're in an era of "how do you feel?"
That is to say, in order to win hearts and minds, politicians, journalists, and others are trying to override the "mind" part, using engagement of feelings before the brain can even smack the snooze alarm. Feelings are simple, analysis is hard. Lure people into doing the simple thing so they have no desire to get to the hard thing.
Thus, we hear things like Hillary asking if we'd like to see a woman president. A lot of the media nowadays is laser-focused on making sure women achieve parity whether or not it's practical so much that if you dare question that sentiment (never mind the obvious agenda that favors Hillary over most other candidates), you're branded a misogynist.
Now people's feelings are overwhelmed with the ideas of justice and suppressing hatred (and how those things make us feel) that the question "But is the woman in question the right person for the job?" gets lost in all all the other noise, rhetoric and general shouting over each other.
I will contend that in this day and age, when we talk about any -ism in this country, what we are really talking about is "capitalism". (There is evidence that it's always been that way, of course, but I'm going to keep this as succinct as possible.)
Rich people will always put profit first. If the product doesn't sell to women, no big deal; if it does, marketing blitz including a few token scholarships. Support a few redundant laws that establish women as a protected class, even. (Side note: let's ask Fiorina how she feels about supporting women with children below the poverty line and watch the fireworks.)
If gay rights is an issue, address it where it's at least tolerated without an overwhelming amount of violence as being progressive, and look like a hero paying lip service to American exceptionalism. Anywhere where it is not largely accepted, pipe down; no need to drive up operating costs. (Let's ask Republicans about alternative suppliers that support gay rights, though...isn't this game fun?)
For extra fun, let's see if we can bait Fiorina into calling Democrats hypocrites on things like racism, or belief.
Wow, thanks for the recommendation! I think I need to check that out.
I would agree that I'm probably missing out (I knew about the other three and the other books by Kevin J. Anderson, which killed any curiosity I had about those books). I don't really have the attention span for books anymore unless I have someone to discuss them with; kind of the same way many people have workout partners.
The last book I read was "Song of Spider-Man" (about the backstage shenanigans with "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark"), because I knew it would get traction at dinner discussions with friends. But mostly, we talk TV and movies.
I really need to start a sci-fi book club.
Good on ya, mate. I got lost somewhere in the third and never picked it back up again.
I consider hanging in there an achievement.
I lost 218 with this simple weight loss trick!
And I earned 50K from home! Ask me how!
Why, because it lacks ponies?
Well, look, Equestria's not known for STEM. More for liberal arts than anything.
STEM's big problem? No flying ponies.
Agreed.
I taught at a community college for a while and if there's one thing that's self-evident, it's that a lot of students see classes as another "chore" on the way to a career, and haven't seemed to consider the reason why they're in that class in the first place: that it's supposed to make you think, and be enriching to you.
Instead, students just wanted to formula and didn't want to process how it worked or why. Just as long as it cranked out the right answer on the test, that was good enough. Those students were frequently miserable and didn't do well.
I am not saying at all that there were no students that enjoyed learning, but those were few and far between. There was a lot of overlap between those students and the ones that received an "A" in the class.
I believe the phrase "Fuck you, I've got mine" that I'd say is a common attitude of many among even the better-off middle classes seems to indicate there are plenty of fucks to be given, and they all land squarely among the have-nots.
For instance, I was at some point not too long ago, subject to a Facebook rant among a guy my age (mid-30s) with a stable Government job that netted him six-figures easily, because he had a high clearance, railing against Obamacare. With no evident whiff of parody, he basically said that he was going to be forced to give up space in his basement and even one of his kidneys to "someone who will never contribute to society". He said money would be stolen from "his family" for this.
This guy had clearly never been impoverished, knew anyone who was, or even spoken to anyone near the poverty line. He (despite being rather book-smart) understood nothing about class mobility (or lack thereof), the cycle of poverty, or personal responsibility to being your brother's keeper.
Point being, this guy sure gave a fuck.
People who don't give a fuck can reasonably be expected to say "You know what? I can live without a new luxury car every few years because I'm helping make the country stronger by having less impoverished people in it."
You may think it's apathy that drives people not to help others, but apathy implies no expenditure of anything. It takes far more energy to be selfish.
When I did a short stint at Fiverr for grins, I would occasionally get people who would try and send me links to direct me offsite so we could haggle without the limitations set by Fiverr.
I have no doubt people will be doing this on Amazon, too.
Agreed.
I've been in the position during the past year where I've needed a new accountant and a lawyer for running a new business.
Know how I found them? Friends who run their own businesses.
Good ratings on Amazon are absolutely nothing compared to a single recommendation from a trustworthy friend, and I most certainly would look for contractors the exact same way.
Look, consumer electronics these days are for everyone (they're not like the Casio calculator watch from back in the day), so they need to look sexy and even a little bit "exclusive". Apple hasn't been "exclusive" for years now, and I suspect they want to take the idea back a little: being fashion-forward AND having something that not everyone else has yet.
Except...I've had a smart-watch for months. People notice and ask questions, but I've observed that the questions I get aren't from people who WANT one of their own, even the iPhone users (people still have phones that are glued to them anyway), they're just wondering why I have it in the first place. So Apple is probably limiting supply to increase perception of demand.
I find that my opinion on the matter is increasingly unpopular: I say, let 'em tell us who they are. Don't make it hard for me to come to the realization that you aren't someone I want to do business with. Make it perfectly clear why I shouldn't give you my money. Make my life easy and spare me the time to do research if I should feel it's necessary. Since I hate surprises, don't let them hide something that might shock or irritate me.
Granted, while I think "religious freedom" laws are likely unconstitutional (or at least, ethically and morally questionable), I kind of don't mind that certain groups are feeling a little freer to tell me why I should take my business elsewhere.