Why are H1B visas even permitted if there's an unemployment rate for whatever industry that visa is being requested for? Employ those at home before bringing in even more people which drives down rates and compounds the unemployment problem.
I've got a 24" monitor that's 10 yeas old and it's native resolution is1900x1200. Why the regression in recent years back to 1080? You'd think monitors today would have continued advancing. Sure, give them 1080 capability, but still they should have a much higher native resolution by now.
Under who's authority? Has anyone ran this ban past the FCC and/or FAA? You know, the controlling agencies for radio frequencies and the nation's air space?
I question the police's unilateral authority on this to just up and arrest RC operators willy nilly without a crime having been committed. At best someone may be guilty of trespassing if they are operating one on the property, but if they're not and just fly one overhead and take pics/video, then what?
"There is far too much speculation and not enough actual research in this area."
That's not true. There's a good amount of research on the topic, it's just you'll never hear about it since the mainstream media largely leans to the left. Christina Hoff Sommers cited two studies in a recent Factual Feminist video that more or less confirmed the final premise of this documentary, which is chock full of research relating to this subject:
The idea is that the more free and safe a society becomes, the more likely men and women are pursue their biological predispositions. This manifests as men having careers in hands-on jobs & STEM fields and women in jobs with high social quotients.
In all seriousness this is a very valid point. Women and girls just aren't interested in STEM. And research now shows it's less to do with nurture than previously thought. Christina Hoff Sommers cited two studies in a recent video that more or less confirmed the final premise of this documentary:
The idea is that the more free and safe a society becomes, the more likely men and women are pursue their biological predispositions. This manifests as men having careers in hands-on jobs & STEM fields and women in jobs with high social quotients.
"“In fact, more women as a whole now graduate from college than men,” Obama wrote. “This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.”"
The article continues...
"So if a 17% deficit was a catastrophe requiring federal intervention, what are we to conclude when that same federal intervention has created a 25% level of inequality?"
This is a good question, when women had a 17% deficit the govt enacted a host of laws to balance things out, to include Title IX. Now that there's a 25% deficit for men, where's the action to fix things? It'd be bad enough it was just crickets, but instead our president is lauding this even GREATER deficit than what women suffered. In what way does that make any sense?
And yes, federal intervention most certainly has made colleges more inhospitable to men. Case in point, the Dear Colleague letter and the kangaroo courts that have followed.
"The feminist argument is that this skew in gender balance is the result of prior socialization. But this claim of nurture over nature is not only unproven, it is utterly untestable."
Sorta. What research has been done on the subject actually shows there is a heavy biological component involved.
tl;dw - the more free and stable a society becomes, the more likely people are to follow their biological predispositions. This manifests as men gravitating to STEM and women to soft sciences and jobs with a high social component.
People who reject the status quo regarding gender issues, relationships, and/or who don't toe the feminist line are said to have taken the red pill a la The Matrix movies. There's an entire network of subreddits for men and women who reject feminism and look for alternative way of having relationships and living their lives. The three principle subs are:
The manosphere is growing every day with new blogs, youtube channels, websites, etc. Something about this counter-culture resonates with people, evidenced by the fact our sub has grown from just a few hundred people in 2012/2013 to almost 100,000 members today.
"There's also other groups that do, indeed, get to the extremes of thinking men are the oppressed minority. Redpillers most certainly do fit that category."
There's no evidence that supports your assertion that the bulk of TRP folks believe men are oppressed.
Actually, a fair number of us made our way to TRP via men's rights and/or PUA. More often than not there's a lot of bleed-over in all of those areas, which ultimately is the manosphere at large. It tends to be the hardliner ideologues who have a problem with one group or another.
As a moderator of TRP I can say with authority it's not a men's rights subreddit. There's already one for that:/r/mensrights.
TRP is more of an amalgam of Mens Rights, MGTOW, and PUA, each distinctly separate areas of the manosphere. For those who are getting a straw man argument version of what we're about, come over, kick the tires, and check it out for yourselves.
And when I say they're lazy, look at the jobs leftists often hold. It's not in actual productivity jobs, but instead things like govt, non-profits, etc. Any time you hear about jobs pertaining to diversity or equality, that's leftist make-work. It's not productive and merely fulfills their egos. These videos do a much better job explaining this than I ever could:
Leftists are lazy, often histrionic personality disordered, and use fascism to achieve their political goals when their opponents don't acquiesce. Case in point:
To be clear, them unfriending you is just an example of censorship and shutting down discourse when it suits them, which is a classic tool of fascists.
"“In fact, more women as a whole now graduate from college than men,” Obama wrote. “This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.”"
The article continues...
"So if a 17% deficit was a catastrophe requiring federal intervention, what are we to conclude when that same federal intervention has created a 25% level of inequality?"
This is a good question, when women had a 17% deficit the govt enacted a host of laws to balance things out, to include Title IX. Now that there's a 25% deficit for men, where's the action to fix things? It'd be bad enough it was just crickets, but instead our president is lauding this even GREATER deficit than what women suffered. In what way does that make any sense?
And yes, federal intervention most certainly has made colleges more inhospitable to men. Case in point, the Dear Colleague letter and the kangaroo courts that have followed.
Food for thought, when you compare women who are raped and men who are "made to penetrate", the numbers are nearly identical. Made to penetrate is a special term feminists came up with who guided the FBI's crime report statistics so to mask male victims of rape. Some people dismiss this as tinfoil hat bullshit, but it literally is what happened. Mary Koss was the one behind it.
"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. "
Look up in-group or same-group preference. Women have it, men do not. Furthermore, men prefer women over their own gender in those studies more often than not. It's a bit of a paradox, but the theory is that men who kowtowed to women were sexually successful and that's why the preference exists. It kinda makes sense if you accept evolutionary psychology. Also, watch these for more in how this manifests in society:
On a related note, notice the complete lack of caring by gender ideologues about the men who are killed in games or how men are depicted with unrealistic physiques. Only when women are the ones on the receiving end of violence does anyone perk up and take notice.
With or without the Hayden rider? People need to be aware that had the ERA passed with it attached then it in no way would have been about "equality", but instead privilege for women.
It boiled down to "Oh, all those cookies men and women get? Men have to give theirs up, but women can keep theirs because we say so."
Slashdot Mirror
Why are H1B visas even permitted if there's an unemployment rate for whatever industry that visa is being requested for? Employ those at home before bringing in even more people which drives down rates and compounds the unemployment problem.
I've got a 24" monitor that's 10 yeas old and it's native resolution is1900x1200. Why the regression in recent years back to 1080? You'd think monitors today would have continued advancing. Sure, give them 1080 capability, but still they should have a much higher native resolution by now.
Under who's authority? Has anyone ran this ban past the FCC and/or FAA? You know, the controlling agencies for radio frequencies and the nation's air space?
I question the police's unilateral authority on this to just up and arrest RC operators willy nilly without a crime having been committed. At best someone may be guilty of trespassing if they are operating one on the property, but if they're not and just fly one overhead and take pics/video, then what?
"The age old advice still stands: be yourself."
WRONG. Be your _best_ self.
"There is far too much speculation and not enough actual research in this area."
That's not true. There's a good amount of research on the topic, it's just you'll never hear about it since the mainstream media largely leans to the left. Christina Hoff Sommers cited two studies in a recent Factual Feminist video that more or less confirmed the final premise of this documentary, which is chock full of research relating to this subject:
http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,...
The idea is that the more free and safe a society becomes, the more likely men and women are pursue their biological predispositions. This manifests as men having careers in hands-on jobs & STEM fields and women in jobs with high social quotients.
And that's exactly what's wrong with Title IX. Schools gutted male sports programs to build teams for women that they weren't even interested in.
In all seriousness this is a very valid point. Women and girls just aren't interested in STEM. And research now shows it's less to do with nurture than previously thought. Christina Hoff Sommers cited two studies in a recent video that more or less confirmed the final premise of this documentary:
http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,...
The idea is that the more free and safe a society becomes, the more likely men and women are pursue their biological predispositions. This manifests as men having careers in hands-on jobs & STEM fields and women in jobs with high social quotients.
"School is not biased towards the boys at all."
What's worse is that people up and down the chain, going as high as the President, thinks this is a great idea!
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012...
"“In fact, more women as a whole now graduate from college than men,” Obama wrote. “This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.”"
The article continues...
"So if a 17% deficit was a catastrophe requiring federal intervention, what are we to conclude when that same federal intervention has created a 25% level of inequality?"
This is a good question, when women had a 17% deficit the govt enacted a host of laws to balance things out, to include Title IX. Now that there's a 25% deficit for men, where's the action to fix things? It'd be bad enough it was just crickets, but instead our president is lauding this even GREATER deficit than what women suffered. In what way does that make any sense?
And yes, federal intervention most certainly has made colleges more inhospitable to men. Case in point, the Dear Colleague letter and the kangaroo courts that have followed.
"The feminist argument is that this skew in gender balance is the result of prior socialization. But this claim of nurture over nature is not only unproven, it is utterly untestable."
Sorta. What research has been done on the subject actually shows there is a heavy biological component involved.
http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,...
tl;dw - the more free and stable a society becomes, the more likely people are to follow their biological predispositions. This manifests as men gravitating to STEM and women to soft sciences and jobs with a high social component.
People who reject the status quo regarding gender issues, relationships, and/or who don't toe the feminist line are said to have taken the red pill a la The Matrix movies. There's an entire network of subreddits for men and women who reject feminism and look for alternative way of having relationships and living their lives. The three principle subs are:
http://www.reddit.com/r/thered...
http://www.reddit.com/r/redpil...
http://www.reddit.com/r/asktrp
The manosphere is growing every day with new blogs, youtube channels, websites, etc. Something about this counter-culture resonates with people, evidenced by the fact our sub has grown from just a few hundred people in 2012/2013 to almost 100,000 members today.
"There's also other groups that do, indeed, get to the extremes of thinking men are the oppressed minority. Redpillers most certainly do fit that category."
There's no evidence that supports your assertion that the bulk of TRP folks believe men are oppressed.
Actually, a fair number of us made our way to TRP via men's rights and/or PUA. More often than not there's a lot of bleed-over in all of those areas, which ultimately is the manosphere at large. It tends to be the hardliner ideologues who have a problem with one group or another.
As a moderator of TRP I can say with authority it's not a men's rights subreddit. There's already one for that: /r/mensrights.
TRP is more of an amalgam of Mens Rights, MGTOW, and PUA, each distinctly separate areas of the manosphere. For those who are getting a straw man argument version of what we're about, come over, kick the tires, and check it out for yourselves.
http://www.reddit.com/r/thered...
All I ask is you read the sidebar threads first before making up your mind.
And when I say they're lazy, look at the jobs leftists often hold. It's not in actual productivity jobs, but instead things like govt, non-profits, etc. Any time you hear about jobs pertaining to diversity or equality, that's leftist make-work. It's not productive and merely fulfills their egos. These videos do a much better job explaining this than I ever could:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Leftists are lazy, often histrionic personality disordered, and use fascism to achieve their political goals when their opponents don't acquiesce. Case in point:
http://www.science20.com/scien...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://news.investors.com/poli...
To be clear, them unfriending you is just an example of censorship and shutting down discourse when it suits them, which is a classic tool of fascists.
Right?! She's hardly a "victim" in all of this. If anything, the article just betrays their anti-gamer stance and leftist politics.
Well, the first thing we need is a leadership that doesn't actually _celebrate_ men being worse off in college:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012...
"“In fact, more women as a whole now graduate from college than men,” Obama wrote. “This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.”"
The article continues...
"So if a 17% deficit was a catastrophe requiring federal intervention, what are we to conclude when that same federal intervention has created a 25% level of inequality?"
This is a good question, when women had a 17% deficit the govt enacted a host of laws to balance things out, to include Title IX. Now that there's a 25% deficit for men, where's the action to fix things? It'd be bad enough it was just crickets, but instead our president is lauding this even GREATER deficit than what women suffered. In what way does that make any sense?
And yes, federal intervention most certainly has made colleges more inhospitable to men. Case in point, the Dear Colleague letter and the kangaroo courts that have followed.
Because feminist patriarchy "theory" (in reality it barely qualifies as a functional hypothesis) is ultimately a fallacy of composition.
Food for thought, when you compare women who are raped and men who are "made to penetrate", the numbers are nearly identical. Made to penetrate is a special term feminists came up with who guided the FBI's crime report statistics so to mask male victims of rape. Some people dismiss this as tinfoil hat bullshit, but it literally is what happened. Mary Koss was the one behind it.
Ahem:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert...
"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. "
Look up in-group or same-group preference. Women have it, men do not. Furthermore, men prefer women over their own gender in those studies more often than not. It's a bit of a paradox, but the theory is that men who kowtowed to women were sexually successful and that's why the preference exists. It kinda makes sense if you accept evolutionary psychology. Also, watch these for more in how this manifests in society:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
And then there's the Amazing Atheist's "It's only sexist when men do it" video, which I can't find the link for at the moment.
On a related note, notice the complete lack of caring by gender ideologues about the men who are killed in games or how men are depicted with unrealistic physiques. Only when women are the ones on the receiving end of violence does anyone perk up and take notice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
With or without the Hayden rider? People need to be aware that had the ERA passed with it attached then it in no way would have been about "equality", but instead privilege for women.
It boiled down to "Oh, all those cookies men and women get? Men have to give theirs up, but women can keep theirs because we say so."
Stow that ideology before you hurt yourself.
http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,...
I wish this was the #1 comment. Everyone wondering about how this came to be needs to watch this:
http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,...