Either it is irrelevant to be a woman and all appointments should be based upon qualification, competance, skills etc or gender is relevant and the appointment process should factor in gender wherever it can be shown that aptitude statistically divides along gender lines.
Or gender is relevant but only as a proxy for directly relevant skills, and we should attempt to discriminate according to those skills directly, rather than by the proxy of gender. The problem with that approach, if you would call it a problem, is it means there will be inequality of result; if gender is a proxy for directly relevant skills, then (given the roughly 50-50 split of the population) directly relevant skills are also a proxy for gender.
Those women who ARE competitive should certainly not be held back because they are women - but get any group of women together, and they quickly determine how to COOPERATE.
You haven't been paying too much attention, then. Groups of women "cooperate" the same way groups of men do -- a leader is found, and then those remaining follow the leader or drop out. The way they choose the leader, and the ways those discontented with the chosen leader act, are different than with men. But they're certainly competitive with each other.
Frankly, I think the political and other events of the last decade have vndicated technophoria completely. Our democracy, in the United States, is stronger than it has ever been in our lifetimes. This is a golden age for the people to have a voice and it should be held up in history as such.
Everyone has a voice, but nobody is heard. Our democracy amounts to the tiniest share of a choice between two similar groups of people who end up doing similar things. More and more laws are passed, resulting in an ever-narrowing box within which we have "freedom". Golden? I think not; gold does not tarnish.
Then you have other organizations, like the WHO, hyping false "pandemics" again and again.
If you mean swine flu, it DID become a pandemic. It was a lot less virulent than originally thought, but it's pandemic because of its spread. If you're going to bash WHO, at least do it for the right reasons.
Perhaps Apple doesn't want to support the ever changing linux environment and is bound by contracts to their media partners that media transfers are done through a controlled channel?
Then they shouldn't have made that diabolical deal.
I'm ready to serve my country. But if you want me on the team I'll need Top Secret clearance, one of those cool James Bond gun pens, a military uniform so I can get laid in bars, and a lifetime supply of Diet Mountain Dew Code Red and Doritos.
Sorry, with your physique the military uniform will only get you laughed at in some bars and beaten up in others. Back in the day the Top Secret clearance might have gotten you laid by one of the KGBs finest, but I think they've cut the budget for that. And you'd probably just shoot your balls off with the pen gun, so you're not getting it.
It's no great surprise the cops want this. But can you imagine the response of banks (and customers) if the police were to demand a special door in every bank so they could waltz in and search the safety deposit boxes at their convenience? Of homeowners if the cops were to demand a master key to every house to make search warrants easier to execute?
Unfortunately, when it comes to electronic records, lawmakers seem to think expanding the AT&T NSA rooms to access portals for every cop in the country is a great idea.
For the victim of bullying, the real pain from it starts in your own head. Another reason nobody is citing here for bullying is that bullies go after people they can bother. If it doesn't bother you (I don't mean ACTING like it doesn't bother you. I mean it REALLY doesn't bother you), the bullies will smell that too, and often lose interest.
I found if the bullies couldn't bother you one way, they'd escalate. Sure, after a few years of it it's easy enough to allow verbal taunts to slide off. The physical stuff isn't so easy. Ok, maybe you can get used to getting "accidentally" body-checked into a wall every time you pass a bully in the hall, or counting on having anything in your hands being knocked out of them. It gets a bit harder when you don't see it coming, when bullies decide it's fun to whack you in the back of the head from behind (and trying to watch for it only makes you a more inviting target). And it's even harder when they escalate to outright surrounding you, knocking you down and kicking the shit out of you. If you can not be bothered by that, fine.
It's also healthier to look inside and think about WHY it bothers you so much, and whether or not you've got hidden problems you didn't know about. I'm not "blaming the victim" here, because that would assume the victim is responsible for the bullying. The bully is responsible for what happens. The victim, however, is responsible for what happens next.
To search exclusively for an internal problem when the problem is plainly external is as much a mistake as searching externally for an internal problem. That is not healthy; that's analogous to the pathetic cry of battered-wife syndrome: "What did I do wrong?"
But hey, if this is too tough for you guys to comprehend, then by all means, go back to bloodying your knuckles. Fight violence with violence. Well done. Glad to see you're above all that.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent... the competent get to it somewhat sooner. There's only two problems to solving bullying with violence. One is that authority will punish you for it; so be it, authority will punish you for being a victim of bullying anyway. The other is managing to apply enough violence without using a weapon (which will get authority to _seriously_ punish you), given that the bullies are generally stronger.
Well, I would still contend the article is focused on helping the victim without confronting the aggressor, and is also assuming the child has a mental condition.
The latter is the problem. It assumes the victim has a mental condition which causes him/her to be bullied.
There are always ways out. If a child is having serious problems, they simply should not be there.
That is not an alternative the child can take.
But that still doesn't mean exits do not exist. Going postal or suicide are prime examples of exits, and they both happen to require immense amounts of bravery.
No, they don't. They just require someone to believe that the alternative is continuing torture. It's doesn't take an immense amount of bravery to do something quixotic when you believe you have nothing to lose.
There are many others that require far less. The problem is with believing there is no way out. If they believed there was, then it would be really easy to find one. But that lack of imagination is precisely the problem.
Yeah. That's cute. Tell the bullied kids that there's an easy way out of their problems (short of suicide or homicide) if only they were imaginative enough to come up with it. I'm betting that if such a kid would ask you exactly what that way was, you'd tell them they had to come up with it themselves. And you know what they'd think then? They'd think you were full of shit and merely teasing them for your own amusement.
please do not assume I am arguing for one side or the other.
How about if I make deductions based on your arguments as to which side you're on? Or am I supposed to pretend you're impartial on your say-so.
These rules have been around for centuries. As a juror, your information about the case you're hearing is to come through testimony given in court. This allows for a fair trail, since both sides can attempt to refute the evidence and testimony.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that, along with voir dire, it allows the judges and lawyers to control the process and the verdict while providing the veneer of a trial by jury.
Mods on crack as usual. GP (modded "Troll") is correct (according to the article, anyway) and parent (modded "Informative") is wrong.
Dehelean was employed in IT security support, according to police. He reportedly was in charge of monitoring illegal music downloads on university computers.
A lot of angry replies here about blaming the victim, but this article isn't necessarily about blame!!
I think you're missing some of those "non verbal" cues. The article is full of blame. Step 1 is "listen without judgement" and then steps 2-4 assume the bullied child was in the wrong!
Some children really are sissies, and believe it or not, they can get inherently non-bullies to bully them.
No, the very passive types get dominated, but not usually extensively bullied. I think they just aren't much fun for the bully. It's the ones who can't fit in and won't give in who are bullied.
This kind of thing is 120% preventable, and the illusion that these victims succumb to that there is no way out, really is the worst fiction imaginable.
The victim is hemmed in on one side by adults who force him to be exposed to the bullies, on another side by policies that prevent him from effectively responding, and on another side by the bullies themselves. He's known no different for most of his life. Why should he believe there's a way out? (There is in time, but adulthood is a long way away)
Is your kid being bullied? Stopadabully TM is here now!
Consumer Reporter Troy McClure tested this product, and found that rather than being the miracle drug it's touted as, it's actually a combination of 7% cocaine, 3% oxycodone, and 90% anabolic steroids. However, when used as directed, it really is effective at stopping bullies.
In all seriousness: The lesson is/was/should be overcome it. In the case of bullying, true victory is found in making the bully not matter.
You mean killing him, dissolving the body in quicklime, and erasing all records of his existence? It would probably work but it's beyond the capacity of most schoolchildren.
If a bully is determined, there's no way to make him "not matter". If the bullying is just words, perhaps. But the standard advice to "just ignore it" doesn't work. They often take your ignoring it as a reason to escalate to physical harassment, and to outright beatings.
The sad fact is that many of us are subject to bullying in one form or another *all the time.* It just changes as we get older.
No, there's a difference. As an adult, Authority is not there metaphorically holding me down for the bully to beat on me, through mandatory school attendance and various bully-friendly policies. Boss rides me like hell, I look for another job. End user verbally abuses me, he doesn't get any more help from me. And physical abuse (at least in the white-collar jobs I've been in) simply isn't tolerated; I've never had a co-worker physically harass me, and the few cases I know about resulted in dismissals and in one case a lawsuit.
At least when I was in high school even if you didn't throw a single punch in a fight, you still got 3 days of out of school suspension.
Basically the same here, and that was 20 years ago. They'd recite a platitude about it taking two to fight (patently false, unless you consider the resistance of one person's face to another's punch to be "fighting back"). However, their attitude means if you do get into a fight, there's no reason NOT to fight back; you're going to be punished either way. Unfortunately most bullies aren't quite as dumb as they look and will typically pick on smaller kids and/or attack two on one or worse.
This study appears to take the usual premise that the problem lies with the victim of bullying. It also apparently assumes the victim is stupid:
Instead of lecturing with the word "should," offer options the child "could" have taken in the moment, such as: "You could have asked Emma to join you or told her you would give her the swing after your turn.
Uh, yeah, even when I was a kid I could tell when "could" meant "should". And if Emma had simply walked up behind the victim and shoved her off the swing without warning (as bullies are wont to do), this is hardly relevant.
In any human group, there's going to be dominant ones, and there's going to be outcasts. If you're not strong enough to be dominant and don't fit with the followers, you'll be an outcast.
Slashdot Mirror
Or gender is relevant but only as a proxy for directly relevant skills, and we should attempt to discriminate according to those skills directly, rather than by the proxy of gender. The problem with that approach, if you would call it a problem, is it means there will be inequality of result; if gender is a proxy for directly relevant skills, then (given the roughly 50-50 split of the population) directly relevant skills are also a proxy for gender.
You haven't been paying too much attention, then. Groups of women "cooperate" the same way groups of men do -- a leader is found, and then those remaining follow the leader or drop out. The way they choose the leader, and the ways those discontented with the chosen leader act, are different than with men. But they're certainly competitive with each other.
Isn't a lot of plastic welding ultrasonic? It's got an "ultra" in it, so it must be extremely dangerous, right?
Yep, that's the stuff.
Do you really expect to win a rigged game by playing by the rules?
Everyone has a voice, but nobody is heard. Our democracy amounts to the tiniest share of a choice between two similar groups of people who end up doing similar things. More and more laws are passed, resulting in an ever-narrowing box within which we have "freedom". Golden? I think not; gold does not tarnish.
My countertops are totally non-toxic melamine, you ignorant clod.
And who worked harder to make sure McCain didn't get elected than Obama?
It's climate when it agrees with the climate scientists, and weather when it's not.
If you mean swine flu, it DID become a pandemic. It was a lot less virulent than originally thought, but it's pandemic because of its spread. If you're going to bash WHO, at least do it for the right reasons.
Yeah, but lately it's been just one finger, and not so invisible.
Then they shouldn't have made that diabolical deal.
And is there an equivalent in the state of Virginia?
Sorry, with your physique the military uniform will only get you laughed at in some bars and beaten up in others. Back in the day the Top Secret clearance might have gotten you laid by one of the KGBs finest, but I think they've cut the budget for that. And you'd probably just shoot your balls off with the pen gun, so you're not getting it.
It's no great surprise the cops want this. But can you imagine the response of banks (and customers) if the police were to demand a special door in every bank so they could waltz in and search the safety deposit boxes at their convenience? Of homeowners if the cops were to demand a master key to every house to make search warrants easier to execute?
Unfortunately, when it comes to electronic records, lawmakers seem to think expanding the AT&T NSA rooms to access portals for every cop in the country is a great idea.
I found if the bullies couldn't bother you one way, they'd escalate. Sure, after a few years of it it's easy enough to allow verbal taunts to slide off. The physical stuff isn't so easy. Ok, maybe you can get used to getting "accidentally" body-checked into a wall every time you pass a bully in the hall, or counting on having anything in your hands being knocked out of them. It gets a bit harder when you don't see it coming, when bullies decide it's fun to whack you in the back of the head from behind (and trying to watch for it only makes you a more inviting target). And it's even harder when they escalate to outright surrounding you, knocking you down and kicking the shit out of you. If you can not be bothered by that, fine.
To search exclusively for an internal problem when the problem is plainly external is as much a mistake as searching externally for an internal problem. That is not healthy; that's analogous to the pathetic cry of battered-wife syndrome: "What did I do wrong?"
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent... the competent get to it somewhat sooner. There's only two problems to solving bullying with violence. One is that authority will punish you for it; so be it, authority will punish you for being a victim of bullying anyway. The other is managing to apply enough violence without using a weapon (which will get authority to _seriously_ punish you), given that the bullies are generally stronger.
The latter is the problem. It assumes the victim has a mental condition which causes him/her to be bullied.
That is not an alternative the child can take.
No, they don't. They just require someone to believe that the alternative is continuing torture. It's doesn't take an immense amount of bravery to do something quixotic when you believe you have nothing to lose.
Yeah. That's cute. Tell the bullied kids that there's an easy way out of their problems (short of suicide or homicide) if only they were imaginative enough to come up with it. I'm betting that if such a kid would ask you exactly what that way was, you'd tell them they had to come up with it themselves. And you know what they'd think then? They'd think you were full of shit and merely teasing them for your own amusement.
How about if I make deductions based on your arguments as to which side you're on? Or am I supposed to pretend you're impartial on your say-so.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that, along with voir dire, it allows the judges and lawyers to control the process and the verdict while providing the veneer of a trial by jury.
In space, it is. Astronomers divide the universe into hydrogen, helium, and "metals".
What are you going to use as an indenter? Besides, that's a different measure of hardness; resistance to abrasion is different than indent hardness.
Mods on crack as usual. GP (modded "Troll") is correct (according to the article, anyway) and parent (modded "Informative") is wrong.
I think you're missing some of those "non verbal" cues. The article is full of blame. Step 1 is "listen without judgement" and then steps 2-4 assume the bullied child was in the wrong!
No, the very passive types get dominated, but not usually extensively bullied. I think they just aren't much fun for the bully. It's the ones who can't fit in and won't give in who are bullied.
The victim is hemmed in on one side by adults who force him to be exposed to the bullies, on another side by policies that prevent him from effectively responding, and on another side by the bullies themselves. He's known no different for most of his life. Why should he believe there's a way out? (There is in time, but adulthood is a long way away)
Consumer Reporter Troy McClure tested this product, and found that rather than being the miracle drug it's touted as, it's actually a combination of 7% cocaine, 3% oxycodone, and 90% anabolic steroids. However, when used as directed, it really is effective at stopping bullies.
You mean killing him, dissolving the body in quicklime, and erasing all records of his existence? It would probably work but it's beyond the capacity of most schoolchildren.
If a bully is determined, there's no way to make him "not matter". If the bullying is just words, perhaps. But the standard advice to "just ignore it" doesn't work. They often take your ignoring it as a reason to escalate to physical harassment, and to outright beatings.
No, there's a difference. As an adult, Authority is not there metaphorically holding me down for the bully to beat on me, through mandatory school attendance and various bully-friendly policies. Boss rides me like hell, I look for another job. End user verbally abuses me, he doesn't get any more help from me. And physical abuse (at least in the white-collar jobs I've been in) simply isn't tolerated; I've never had a co-worker physically harass me, and the few cases I know about resulted in dismissals and in one case a lawsuit.
Basically the same here, and that was 20 years ago. They'd recite a platitude about it taking two to fight (patently false, unless you consider the resistance of one person's face to another's punch to be "fighting back"). However, their attitude means if you do get into a fight, there's no reason NOT to fight back; you're going to be punished either way. Unfortunately most bullies aren't quite as dumb as they look and will typically pick on smaller kids and/or attack two on one or worse.
This study appears to take the usual premise that the problem lies with the victim of bullying. It also apparently assumes the victim is stupid:
Uh, yeah, even when I was a kid I could tell when "could" meant "should". And if Emma had simply walked up behind the victim and shoved her off the swing without warning (as bullies are wont to do), this is hardly relevant.
In any human group, there's going to be dominant ones, and there's going to be outcasts. If you're not strong enough to be dominant and don't fit with the followers, you'll be an outcast.