Mother/grandmother/sister/niece is incest territory. Do you think that's normal? All the other examples, yes.
I think you understood OP differently than I did. You clearly think OP said that since some women use their charms to influence men, men assume ALL women (including their grandmothers, mothers, sisters...) use sexual charms ON THEM at all times.
I took it to mean that since some women influence men through flirtation, that men look for it and understand that it exists. It then becomes an issue of misunderstanding.. is that girl wearing a short skirt because she wants attention, or for some other reason? Some men will take it as an invitation, others won't.
It's compounded by the fact that many goals in life are a numbers game. The more job interviews you go to, the more likely you get a job. The more women you hit on, the more women you sleep with. That's indisputable.
You must be pretty naive. Why do you think companies like Google are actively discriminating against boys by having programs targeted at girls? Because they are secretly misogynists?
Here's another example for you: If meritocracy were a real thing, GM and Chrysler would have gone out of business in the 1980s (probably Ford too).
1. Just because meritocracy is real doesn't mean changes happen instantly. GM and Chrysler WERE very good car companies at one time (and many people still think they are). If you think they aren't, that doesn't change history. It takes time to fall.
2. Maybe their meritocratic skill is in navigating politics and unions, not car making.
Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps part of the reason they as so god damn fucking angry is BECAUSE of the dropped bombs?
Yeah I stopped to think that. Then I realized, wait a minute, the Christians in Egypt didn't drop bombs on the Muslim Brotherhood, why are their churches being bombed?
The Yazidi didn't drop bombs on ISIS, why are they being killed, raped, enslaved?
The schoolgirls in Chibok didn't drop bombs on Boko Haram, why are they being killed, raped, enslaved?
I'm sure that dropping bombs on Muslim terrorists and soldiers and killing Muslim civilians angers Muslims, and some of them become terrorists. I don't think it plays a large part because it doesn't explain the vast majority of Islamic terrorism which is committed either against other Muslims or against already horrifically oppressed groups living in Muslim areas. It also doesn't explain why that seething anger has to wait until a benign event like an art show to activate.
Like "They've been dropping bombs on my family for years, and drones continue to kill innocent people every day. They've been kidnapping innocent people and torturing them. Their prisons are like torture chambers where they humiliate the prisoners. They've destabilized governments. They've propped up evil dictators who use chemical weapons against innocent people. But OMFG TOMORROW IN TEXAS THEY ARE DRAWING MOHAMMED!!!!! Finally I have the motivation needed!"
I mean come on, I have very little respect for terrorists but even I don't think they are that dumb and/or disconnected from reality.
I just wonder, how many years of bombs being dropped on your families would it take for you to consider a driveby on the people doing it?
Christians in the Middle East have been oppressed for a thousand years. Why don't we read about the Christian underwear bomber on an Etihad Airways flight? Why aren't Christian suicide bombers attacking the Kaaba and the crowds around it?
Yeah.. unfortunately something being "possible" isn't really useful to the conversation.
Something being "possible" with no evidence that it actually happened certainly isn't strong enough to draw an equivalence between different groups of zealots.
Google's lifetime plan only provides 5/1mbps, but the capacity for gigabit is still there. I wonder if they'll start selling that extra capacity to whoever wants it.. like if you sign up for Netflix, Netflix says "You can't stream our highest quality HD content, but for an extra $3.95/month we can enable that." Then they pay Google for 10mbps on your behalf just for use with their service.
There is a school opening just for boys to help them in the areas they are behind.
False equivalence. Helping people where "they are behind" is not the goal. The area where boys are behind that the new school purports to help is not as conducive to good jobs as the girls school.
Like you said in another post, nobody's helping people get into the toilet cleaning industry, because that's not really a worthy goal.
Banned from that particular school, but not banned in general. It's like the girl's bathroom, Boys are banned from going in to it, but not from peeing in a separate boy's bathroom.
If there's a boys school that focuses on STEM, then it's fine, just like separate bathrooms are fine. In this article, the boys school is going to be focused on language skills.
Strangely there isn't much of an effort to get more men into toilet cleaning either, perhaps because the goal is for more people to have good jobs instead of shitty ones.
And that's the same reasoning as why the boys language school is not good enough.
I think segregation would be okay if it were optional and not mandated by the state. If all boys and all girls (or all blacks and all whites) must attend segregated schools, that's not nice. But if there were options available so that you could attend whichever type of school you want, the arguments made in Brown would not apply.
Simply that human nature doesn't change that quickly and the separate facilities will soon be funded inequitably because of that.
Separate facilities are already funded inequitably because of the way school funding works in most areas.
By this logic of "It didn't work out like the theoretical model and still has a lot of inequality, so we should ban it" we should ban non-segregated schools I guess. Maybe ban public schools in general? I don't know. The logic of making something illegal because it didn't work as expected just doesn't make sense. It can work in principle, that's what counts.
If you're worried about a situation where public officials start making boys schools really awesome and girls schools really bad, then make THAT illegal. Put mechanisms in place to protect against THAT. Do you think that can't be done for some reason?
Show me any time in the past where that hasn't happened instead.
I know plenty of gender-segregated schools that seem to work out pretty well.
Gender-segregation was explicitly carved out as an exception to anti-discrimination laws. "If a private school gets federal funding, it can’t discriminate against a student based on his race, sex (unless it’s a single-sex school), national origin and religion."
There are plenty of single-sex schools that A) operate legally and B) even get federal money.
So clearly segregation works and is seen as "ok" in some cases.
Size, attention, funding. Those are important characteristics of the movements. Since the movements to help men are much smaller, leaving out those salient points and just saying "Oh yeah, movements are afoot to help men, it's fine" is misleading.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence):
"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result."
Do you think that because at one time "separate but equal" was not really equal, that it *can't* be?
Separate but equal failed in the US because of widespread racism and lack of accountability among public officials. Do you have any argument to show that the same thing would happen now?
What would be wrong with single-race schools if there were equal alternatives? I guess race is harder because there are so many races and only 2 genders... but in principle it's not bad.
I've read studies that show girls (and boys) learn better in single-sex classrooms, and also when their teacher is the same sex. I think segregated schools like the one in this article are a great idea. There's nothing wrong with "separate but equal" if they're really equal... and that's the big problem here. The boys' school is not the same as the girls' school.
Actually that fits in well with the prevailing black/white dichotomy in most race discussions. If Hispanics and Asians do well with teachers of different races, then we can continue to ignore them.
Seriously sounds like they are drifting towards an apartheid education system.
Aside from the negative connotations, there's nothing specifically wrong with that. We do have optionally segregated-by-gender schools and they seem to work out pretty well. As long as the segregation isn't mandated by the state, what's the problem?
Race - biological [...] was only extended into arbitrary human [...] classification purely as a result of rampant prejudice and a specific desire to exclude people from competitive access in capitalist societies
Yeah right, race consciousness never existed in non-capitalist economies. I recall reading about an isolated tribe whose name for themselves basically meant "human" and whose name for other people who didn't look like them (like white anthropologists) meant "non-human."
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm "Social Justice Warrior" vs "Penis-Worshipping Douchebag"
Yeah that's about the same level of pejorative...
Actually there is a white studies class. Well, it's called whiteness studies actually.
Unlike the other ones, it's more about disparaging whites... that's why it's "okay" I guess.
Mother/grandmother/sister/niece is incest territory. Do you think that's normal? All the other examples, yes.
I think you understood OP differently than I did. You clearly think OP said that since some women use their charms to influence men, men assume ALL women (including their grandmothers, mothers, sisters...) use sexual charms ON THEM at all times.
I took it to mean that since some women influence men through flirtation, that men look for it and understand that it exists. It then becomes an issue of misunderstanding.. is that girl wearing a short skirt because she wants attention, or for some other reason? Some men will take it as an invitation, others won't.
It's compounded by the fact that many goals in life are a numbers game. The more job interviews you go to, the more likely you get a job. The more women you hit on, the more women you sleep with. That's indisputable.
You must be pretty naive. Why do you think companies like Google are actively discriminating against boys by having programs targeted at girls? Because they are secretly misogynists?
Here's another example for you: If meritocracy were a real thing, GM and Chrysler would have gone out of business in the 1980s (probably Ford too).
1. Just because meritocracy is real doesn't mean changes happen instantly. GM and Chrysler WERE very good car companies at one time (and many people still think they are). If you think they aren't, that doesn't change history. It takes time to fall.
2. Maybe their meritocratic skill is in navigating politics and unions, not car making.
You should contact Elisabeth Rosenthal, the author, and let her know about this. It would definitely make for an interesting followup article.
Perhaps your doctor friend is paying the bill for the entire practice, including nurses and other staff, because he's the owner?
Or maybe it really is that high for just one person, but there are many other doctors paying much less to bring the average down.
Like this guy: http://truecostofhealthcare.or...
He pays about $5000/year it seems.
Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps part of the reason they as so god damn fucking angry is BECAUSE of the dropped bombs?
Yeah I stopped to think that. Then I realized, wait a minute, the Christians in Egypt didn't drop bombs on the Muslim Brotherhood, why are their churches being bombed?
The Yazidi didn't drop bombs on ISIS, why are they being killed, raped, enslaved?
The schoolgirls in Chibok didn't drop bombs on Boko Haram, why are they being killed, raped, enslaved?
I'm sure that dropping bombs on Muslim terrorists and soldiers and killing Muslim civilians angers Muslims, and some of them become terrorists. I don't think it plays a large part because it doesn't explain the vast majority of Islamic terrorism which is committed either against other Muslims or against already horrifically oppressed groups living in Muslim areas. It also doesn't explain why that seething anger has to wait until a benign event like an art show to activate.
Like "They've been dropping bombs on my family for years, and drones continue to kill innocent people every day. They've been kidnapping innocent people and torturing them. Their prisons are like torture chambers where they humiliate the prisoners. They've destabilized governments. They've propped up evil dictators who use chemical weapons against innocent people. But OMFG TOMORROW IN TEXAS THEY ARE DRAWING MOHAMMED!!!!! Finally I have the motivation needed!"
I mean come on, I have very little respect for terrorists but even I don't think they are that dumb and/or disconnected from reality.
I just wonder, how many years of bombs being dropped on your families would it take for you to consider a driveby on the people doing it?
Christians in the Middle East have been oppressed for a thousand years. Why don't we read about the Christian underwear bomber on an Etihad Airways flight? Why aren't Christian suicide bombers attacking the Kaaba and the crowds around it?
Yeah.. unfortunately something being "possible" isn't really useful to the conversation.
Something being "possible" with no evidence that it actually happened certainly isn't strong enough to draw an equivalence between different groups of zealots.
Google's lifetime plan only provides 5/1mbps, but the capacity for gigabit is still there. I wonder if they'll start selling that extra capacity to whoever wants it.. like if you sign up for Netflix, Netflix says "You can't stream our highest quality HD content, but for an extra $3.95/month we can enable that." Then they pay Google for 10mbps on your behalf just for use with their service.
There are always worse things. Loss of privileges or even full isolation seem pretty effective even for people already in prison.
Wow I've never heard that one before!!! That's only like one of the most famous Supreme Court cases ever (and btw it's not Bolling v Sharpe).
There is a school opening just for boys to help them in the areas they are behind.
False equivalence. Helping people where "they are behind" is not the goal. The area where boys are behind that the new school purports to help is not as conducive to good jobs as the girls school.
Like you said in another post, nobody's helping people get into the toilet cleaning industry, because that's not really a worthy goal.
Banned from that particular school, but not banned in general. It's like the girl's bathroom, Boys are banned from going in to it, but not from peeing in a separate boy's bathroom.
If there's a boys school that focuses on STEM, then it's fine, just like separate bathrooms are fine. In this article, the boys school is going to be focused on language skills.
Strangely there isn't much of an effort to get more men into toilet cleaning either, perhaps because the goal is for more people to have good jobs instead of shitty ones.
And that's the same reasoning as why the boys language school is not good enough.
I think segregation would be okay if it were optional and not mandated by the state. If all boys and all girls (or all blacks and all whites) must attend segregated schools, that's not nice. But if there were options available so that you could attend whichever type of school you want, the arguments made in Brown would not apply.
Simply that human nature doesn't change that quickly and the separate facilities will soon be funded inequitably because of that.
Separate facilities are already funded inequitably because of the way school funding works in most areas.
By this logic of "It didn't work out like the theoretical model and still has a lot of inequality, so we should ban it" we should ban non-segregated schools I guess. Maybe ban public schools in general? I don't know. The logic of making something illegal because it didn't work as expected just doesn't make sense. It can work in principle, that's what counts.
If you're worried about a situation where public officials start making boys schools really awesome and girls schools really bad, then make THAT illegal. Put mechanisms in place to protect against THAT. Do you think that can't be done for some reason?
Show me any time in the past where that hasn't happened instead.
I know plenty of gender-segregated schools that seem to work out pretty well.
http://education-law.lawyers.c...
Gender-segregation was explicitly carved out as an exception to anti-discrimination laws. "If a private school gets federal funding, it can’t discriminate against a student based on his race, sex (unless it’s a single-sex school), national origin and religion."
There are plenty of single-sex schools that A) operate legally and B) even get federal money.
So clearly segregation works and is seen as "ok" in some cases.
Did you not read the rest of my post?
Size, attention, funding. Those are important characteristics of the movements. Since the movements to help men are much smaller, leaving out those salient points and just saying "Oh yeah, movements are afoot to help men, it's fine" is misleading.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence):
"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result."
Do you think that because at one time "separate but equal" was not really equal, that it *can't* be?
Separate but equal failed in the US because of widespread racism and lack of accountability among public officials. Do you have any argument to show that the same thing would happen now?
What would be wrong with single-race schools if there were equal alternatives? I guess race is harder because there are so many races and only 2 genders... but in principle it's not bad.
I've read studies that show girls (and boys) learn better in single-sex classrooms, and also when their teacher is the same sex. I think segregated schools like the one in this article are a great idea. There's nothing wrong with "separate but equal" if they're really equal... and that's the big problem here. The boys' school is not the same as the girls' school.
"Movements are afoot" sounds like a false equivalence. What's the relative size of the movements? How much attention and funding do they get?
Actually that fits in well with the prevailing black/white dichotomy in most race discussions. If Hispanics and Asians do well with teachers of different races, then we can continue to ignore them.
then logically you could benefit the highest percentage of students by having only white teachers
That would only be true if students were proportionally represented in every classroom, but they're not.
Seriously sounds like they are drifting towards an apartheid education system.
Aside from the negative connotations, there's nothing specifically wrong with that. We do have optionally segregated-by-gender schools and they seem to work out pretty well. As long as the segregation isn't mandated by the state, what's the problem?
Race - biological [...] was only extended into arbitrary human [...] classification purely as a result of rampant prejudice and a specific desire to exclude people from competitive access in capitalist societies
Yeah right, race consciousness never existed in non-capitalist economies. I recall reading about an isolated tribe whose name for themselves basically meant "human" and whose name for other people who didn't look like them (like white anthropologists) meant "non-human."
The person I replied to described him as "likely as a typical internet tough guy."