There have been plenty of beloved female characters in the past. What you mean by "strong" is "the actress is actively pushing my ideology". And you wonder why people shy away.
Exactly... Scarlett in a Black Widow movie wouldn't get this amount of bad press, and she would just as strong a character if not stronger.
There have been black super hero leads in the past. There have been female super hero leads in the past. It's just when people say "oh... the white boys are afraid of a strong XXX lead" they mean an actress who is pushing their agenda. It has nothing to do with the character being played.
The backlash to the backlash tends to result in a big net positive.
It's working for Gilette! Battlefield V certain is flying off the shelves! The crappy movies that were controversial certainly blew box office expectations!
There is a difference between a Democrat, a Republican, and a liberal.
Hell, the both the Left and Right have been horseshoeing into totalitarianism. See all the anti-speech shit going on. See Hillary blaming the "deplorables" and telling people to be uncivil.
Between the left freaking out over Trump and the right just pointing and laughing... we really need a stop centrist group to get them to work together. That's tough in the two party system.
When you have celebrities going after white males students for simply being white and male, it certainly makes me want to walk on eggshells. The fact that it gets clicks / likes / retweets to keep those addicted to the attention is sad.
Covington was a test, and showed the worse of the so-called progressives. Most are out of touch... but it makes sense the the more extreme left are just a bunch of signalling middle class white folk
There are good people on both sides, and there are bad on both sides. It seems like the left is more willing to defend their bad actors... or at least the media is.
I know most big companies keep track of you, but it was kinda eye opening in one of my visits.
I was asked to make a GameStop account, and refused (I don't go there enough to justify selling more of my private information). The person who rang up my credit told me "Hey, because you bought z, y, and z the last time you were in you could have have saved 10 bucks, I might just do that and take the money for you." It was kind of... refreshingly honest in a way? Seeing how the sausage is made is a phrase that comes to mind too.
Oddly I've had the opposite experience. As I get older I hate all the bitter or hoppiness that tends to be the trademark of craft beers. The "weaker" beers are better (granted something like Spotted Cow and German beers like Hacker Pschorr are better than Bud).
Granted I've fallen in love with sour beers, but they tend to be high on the pricey list, so are only an occasional treat.
How about not being stupid about it? You went from "not based on negotation ability" to "reward failure". How about paying based on performance. That's 100% legal.
Stupid about it? Lets see, there are two cases here. Either Oracle are being sexist; great put them against the wall. Maybe Oracle isn't sexist and the pay difference is based on initial salary negotiations and performance. Yes it does reward failure, as women who train in salary negotiation tend to have higher starting salaries than men. Men in turn tend to work more hours, meaning more performance. It evens out.
Basically just say what you mean: that the initial salary should be set and non-negotiated no matter what. I disagree with you, initial salaries should have some room for negotiation to reward those who use it and provide incentive for people with experience to get those positions. Sometimes it sucks, but there it is.
Poverty and criminals have a strong correlation with single parent households in the US: blacks, hispanic, whites, and asians (it should be noted that Native Americans are an exception to this). The trend seems to be in the UK as well.
The fact that gender and race play such a strong part in sentencing is a problem.
Thing is the law says you can't discriminate based on gender, and just saying "one gender doesn't negotiate pay as well as the other" doesn't actually mean you didn't discriminate by taking advantage of that fact.
In other words employers are required to not rely on the individual's ability to negotiate pay, they are required to pay a fair amount even if they don't push hard for it. Same with increases, bonuses and promotions.
A woman can't help her gender anymore than a man can. A woman can take negotiation classes. Women who take negotiation training tend to have better starting salaries than men with poor negotiation skills.
There was a study done with university professors and papers published that showed basically the same thing: men and women without family produced the same amount of output (I can't remember if women or men were slightly higher). Women who were married and had children produces a lower amount of papers, while men who were married and had children produced a higher amount.
Over time, women (as a statistic) make different choices and prefer life over work. They tend to work less hours, take less overtime, are happier, live longer lives and don't die from work-related accidents or diseases (as in >1 percent of work-related deaths are female), they also make only 1-3% less over their lifetime than males (a statistic that reverses when you account for education and single motherhood) but that 3% makes all the difference as this wealth disparity is pretty much concentrated in the top 1%.
Sort of ironically, over the last couple decades women's happiness has been on the decline.
The law doesn't consider nature to be a factor. All it says is that people should be paid the same regardless of their gender, for equal work. That can include factors like experience level and time seniority.
The idea that men are on average better engineers is not considered and not a possible defence. It's really hard to see how they could have any plausible excuse.
It seems like you contradict yourself. If Oracle can show that most men work more / take less time off / etc, etc. than they are clear: the work is NOT equal. Not saying they will show this, not saying there isn't discrimination, but I am saying that this is clearly to argue it.
Women in some middle eastern countries outnumber men in STEM jobs as well as education. They have been making great efforts to get more women into the workforce as a way to grow their economies, and you could call this a side effect.
Yes, but would those same women choose STEM if it wasn't such an economic advantage for themselves? I have no interest in nursing, but if nursing jobs tripled in salary while other tech fields crashed I would follow the money
In most Western countries you can still have a higher standard of living with a job and degree that pays less, so personal choice has more of an impact. Given the different chemicals in the bodies of men and women this could lead to different outcomes.
Ability to negotiate a salary has no bearing on a programmer's performance, therefore if there's a systematic bias it is absolutely the company's fault. The law is crystal clear in this regard.
So they should... what? Pay all employees equally to the highest earner? Pay all employees equal to the lowest? Continually reward failure, or ignore success?
If raises are percentage based, how can there NOT be discrimination. If group X is worse at negotiating initial salary, how do you propose to remedy it with a flat structure? How do you prevent men and women who are good at negotiation from jumping ship?
Basically, scientists who know VERY WELL that they only UNDERSTAND PART OF FUNCTIONING THE UNIVERSE and HAVE NO IDEA WHATSOEVER WHERE OUR UNIVERSE CAME FROM are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there can be no such thing as God. WTF?
Most atheists and scientists don't say "we know 100% sure that there is no god" and instead say "there is no evidence for god" before going on to invent the Polio vaccine.
You are using the god in the gaps argument. It handwaves anything we don't know as god did it without examining even the basics of "how did god do it", "where did god come from", or even "which god". This doesn't progress us as a people.
Isn't this the case of... most politicians? Or hell, most people who want to be famous? They hire PR firms to up their posts and put them first on search engines.
Unless I'm missing something, this is even less than what Hillary did to promote herself.
If you apple people where smart, a few of you would take some shovels out there and dig up that piano crate Jobs was buried in. Thus release Zombie Jobs to go forth and clean some shit up.
Stick a magnet up him bum, wrap him in copper, and you might have enough energy from the spinning to power that 6 hour battery life!
Eventually these things become history and are lost to current though until somebody digs through the archives to rediscover the truth. Except now we can make it go away with a keypress and, poof, we've always been at war with Eurasia.
Hmm, true. However, there is also the need to forget some things. If you used twitter to post a stupid edgy joke back when you were a teen, do you really want that to sabotage your career? Who makes the distinction between what is personal and what is public history? Who decides the limits?
Not an easy thing to answer, especially when people are currently weaponizing it.
Slashdot Mirror
There have been plenty of beloved female characters in the past. What you mean by "strong" is "the actress is actively pushing my ideology". And you wonder why people shy away.
Exactly... Scarlett in a Black Widow movie wouldn't get this amount of bad press, and she would just as strong a character if not stronger.
There have been black super hero leads in the past. There have been female super hero leads in the past. It's just when people say "oh... the white boys are afraid of a strong XXX lead" they mean an actress who is pushing their agenda. It has nothing to do with the character being played.
Question: if the movie was about the Black Widow, do you think people would complain? Why or why not?
The backlash to the backlash tends to result in a big net positive.
It's working for Gilette! Battlefield V certain is flying off the shelves! The crappy movies that were controversial certainly blew box office expectations!
But keep cherry picking
Oh yea, Fascists.
Horseshoe theory at work, as they bash you over the head with a bike lock for voting wrong screaming "we are the good guys".
I'm sorry, are you saying that the dangers of lead and smoking are overstated by some sinister conspiracy?
Well, they did say nobody was immune.... It depends on if you can keep your craziness to yourself I guess.
There is a difference between a Democrat, a Republican, and a liberal.
Hell, the both the Left and Right have been horseshoeing into totalitarianism. See all the anti-speech shit going on. See Hillary blaming the "deplorables" and telling people to be uncivil.
Between the left freaking out over Trump and the right just pointing and laughing... we really need a stop centrist group to get them to work together. That's tough in the two party system.
When you have celebrities going after white males students for simply being white and male, it certainly makes me want to walk on eggshells. The fact that it gets clicks / likes / retweets to keep those addicted to the attention is sad.
Covington was a test, and showed the worse of the so-called progressives. Most are out of touch... but it makes sense the the more extreme left are just a bunch of signalling middle class white folk
There are good people on both sides, and there are bad on both sides. It seems like the left is more willing to defend their bad actors... or at least the media is.
I know most big companies keep track of you, but it was kinda eye opening in one of my visits.
I was asked to make a GameStop account, and refused (I don't go there enough to justify selling more of my private information). The person who rang up my credit told me "Hey, because you bought z, y, and z the last time you were in you could have have saved 10 bucks, I might just do that and take the money for you." It was kind of... refreshingly honest in a way? Seeing how the sausage is made is a phrase that comes to mind too.
That was the day I swore off GameStop forever.
Seems like you're actually a wine drinker.
I do like the occasional box-o-wine, but I wouldn't put sour beers and wine in the same category. Sour beers take the bitterness out of beer.
Oddly I've had the opposite experience. As I get older I hate all the bitter or hoppiness that tends to be the trademark of craft beers. The "weaker" beers are better (granted something like Spotted Cow and German beers like Hacker Pschorr are better than Bud).
Granted I've fallen in love with sour beers, but they tend to be high on the pricey list, so are only an occasional treat.
Instead of a boot stamping your face forever, it is a person drumming in your face forever. Not much of an improvement.
How about not being stupid about it? You went from "not based on negotation ability" to "reward failure". How about paying based on performance. That's 100% legal.
Stupid about it? Lets see, there are two cases here. Either Oracle are being sexist; great put them against the wall. Maybe Oracle isn't sexist and the pay difference is based on initial salary negotiations and performance. Yes it does reward failure, as women who train in salary negotiation tend to have higher starting salaries than men. Men in turn tend to work more hours, meaning more performance. It evens out.
Basically just say what you mean: that the initial salary should be set and non-negotiated no matter what. I disagree with you, initial salaries should have some room for negotiation to reward those who use it and provide incentive for people with experience to get those positions. Sometimes it sucks, but there it is.
Poverty and criminals have a strong correlation with single parent households in the US: blacks, hispanic, whites, and asians (it should be noted that Native Americans are an exception to this). The trend seems to be in the UK as well. The fact that gender and race play such a strong part in sentencing is a problem.
Same in the modelling industry in general. The top female models make WAAAAAAY more than the top male models.
Thing is the law says you can't discriminate based on gender, and just saying "one gender doesn't negotiate pay as well as the other" doesn't actually mean you didn't discriminate by taking advantage of that fact.
In other words employers are required to not rely on the individual's ability to negotiate pay, they are required to pay a fair amount even if they don't push hard for it. Same with increases, bonuses and promotions.
A woman can't help her gender anymore than a man can. A woman can take negotiation classes. Women who take negotiation training tend to have better starting salaries than men with poor negotiation skills.
There was a study done with university professors and papers published that showed basically the same thing: men and women without family produced the same amount of output (I can't remember if women or men were slightly higher). Women who were married and had children produces a lower amount of papers, while men who were married and had children produced a higher amount.
Over time, women (as a statistic) make different choices and prefer life over work. They tend to work less hours, take less overtime, are happier, live longer lives and don't die from work-related accidents or diseases (as in >1 percent of work-related deaths are female), they also make only 1-3% less over their lifetime than males (a statistic that reverses when you account for education and single motherhood) but that 3% makes all the difference as this wealth disparity is pretty much concentrated in the top 1%.
Sort of ironically, over the last couple decades women's happiness has been on the decline.
The law doesn't consider nature to be a factor. All it says is that people should be paid the same regardless of their gender, for equal work. That can include factors like experience level and time seniority.
The idea that men are on average better engineers is not considered and not a possible defence. It's really hard to see how they could have any plausible excuse.
It seems like you contradict yourself. If Oracle can show that most men work more / take less time off / etc, etc. than they are clear: the work is NOT equal. Not saying they will show this, not saying there isn't discrimination, but I am saying that this is clearly to argue it.
Women in some middle eastern countries outnumber men in STEM jobs as well as education. They have been making great efforts to get more women into the workforce as a way to grow their economies, and you could call this a side effect.
Yes, but would those same women choose STEM if it wasn't such an economic advantage for themselves? I have no interest in nursing, but if nursing jobs tripled in salary while other tech fields crashed I would follow the money
In most Western countries you can still have a higher standard of living with a job and degree that pays less, so personal choice has more of an impact. Given the different chemicals in the bodies of men and women this could lead to different outcomes.
Unless you have any studies to the contrary?
That's not the companies' fault....
Yes it is, according to the law.
Ability to negotiate a salary has no bearing on a programmer's performance, therefore if there's a systematic bias it is absolutely the company's fault. The law is crystal clear in this regard.
So they should... what? Pay all employees equally to the highest earner? Pay all employees equal to the lowest? Continually reward failure, or ignore success?
If raises are percentage based, how can there NOT be discrimination. If group X is worse at negotiating initial salary, how do you propose to remedy it with a flat structure? How do you prevent men and women who are good at negotiation from jumping ship?
Basically, scientists who know VERY WELL that they only UNDERSTAND PART OF FUNCTIONING THE UNIVERSE and HAVE NO IDEA WHATSOEVER WHERE OUR UNIVERSE CAME FROM are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there can be no such thing as God. WTF?
Most atheists and scientists don't say "we know 100% sure that there is no god" and instead say "there is no evidence for god" before going on to invent the Polio vaccine.
You are using the god in the gaps argument. It handwaves anything we don't know as god did it without examining even the basics of "how did god do it", "where did god come from", or even "which god". This doesn't progress us as a people.
Isn't this the case of... most politicians? Or hell, most people who want to be famous? They hire PR firms to up their posts and put them first on search engines. Unless I'm missing something, this is even less than what Hillary did to promote herself.
and Steve Jobs is probably spinning in his grave
If you apple people where smart, a few of you would take some shovels out there and dig up that piano crate Jobs was buried in. Thus release Zombie Jobs to go forth and clean some shit up.
Stick a magnet up him bum, wrap him in copper, and you might have enough energy from the spinning to power that 6 hour battery life!
Eventually these things become history and are lost to current though until somebody digs through the archives to rediscover the truth. Except now we can make it go away with a keypress and, poof, we've always been at war with Eurasia.
Hmm, true. However, there is also the need to forget some things. If you used twitter to post a stupid edgy joke back when you were a teen, do you really want that to sabotage your career? Who makes the distinction between what is personal and what is public history? Who decides the limits?
Not an easy thing to answer, especially when people are currently weaponizing it.