I'm a male gamer and I agree with the assertion that video games with women typically find methods of objectifying the female form... but it's not as though video games or gamer culture is unique in this way. The gaming industry objectifies women. As does Hollywood. And print media.
One of the best selling products in history is the female form and it sells well. Sex sells well. What do you do in a capitalist society when there is a seemingly unlimited demand for a product of which you have a nearly unlimited supply? Well, you sell it.
We can even take it a step further an confidently assert that there will always be a sufficient supply of the female form to meet or exceed demand due to psychological imperative with which most Western girls grow up that suggests that if they cannot receive validation of self through other actions or deeds, then there's always the option to resort to sexuality. One could even assert that this persistent and potentially indoctrinated psychological rationale may be one of the roots of reproduction for humanity.
And it's even easier to supply the female form in games because you don't even need a female. You just need artistic skills and an imagination!
So we've defined the multifaceted problem (biologically-enforced demand and an unlimited supply). We've also based the discussion on the issues that such objectification is becoming more and more of a nuisance to the comfort of more and more people (social evolution).
So what is to be done?
Stop all games that singularly sexualize the female form? What if both the male and female forms are equally sexualized? All good? Do the same for video and print media? Do we affect demand? Are we to shame males and lesbians for appreciating the female form in game, video, and print media?
And this is where I always get stuck. If we want to change the frequency or the visibility of the objectification of the female form, we have to affect supply, demand, or both-- but doing so by shaming or legislation seems to infringe not only upon the social contract but upon biological imperatives thus making such an effort pointless.
Is there any evidence that it's a such concentrated effort to imply a genuine, heartfelt hatred of women (misogyny)? You would really have to stretch your rationale and ignore massive amounts of evidence to the contrary to assert that there's a pervasive vein of misogyny growing throughout nerd/gamer culture.
Yes, some male gamers will use derogatory words to intentionally offend women. And men. And transgendered people. And dogs. And the dead. And the not-yet-living. And mythical characters.
If there's any cultural bias against any one group, it's the group that "pissing us off right now". And "women-as-a-whole" have never been that group.
It has nothing to do with women as a whole, but a targeted hatred at people who happen to be women.
It doesn't matter who you are. Male, female, man, woman, gay, straight, asexual, black, white, brown, Asian, American, French, German, Argentinian-- if you piss off nerds and they come after you, you can be fairly certain it has nothing to do with your immutable characteristics and everything to do with your actions. You can try to hide behind immutable characteristics as a means of suggesting some sort of irrational bias, but nerds, by their very nature, are too damn smart to fall for that.
This is really cool. I'll probably watch a race... if at all possible. But I'm really watching Formula E as an industry because I can't wait for the day when they announce "Next year, no more car-swapping! You must develop battery-swapping methods!" Let Formula E be the test bed for 30 different battery swapping methods and let the world be better for it.
You are 100% correct about the historical issues within masculinities. In fact, masculinities is a field in which I could have studied and then actively researched in college because it is such an important point of discussion right now. Alas, every single Gender Studies class I went into focused on the "plight of woman". While obviously important, you can't have "gender studies" while studying the issues of just one gender.
Concepts in Masculinities to actively study in a research environment: Dominance, Self-Reliance, Dependent Support, Virility, Expression, Rebellion, "Competence, Excellence, and Failure", and lastly The Visible Masculine. While my vocation and avocation are both in the setting of a research university, I don't have the time to take on this research.
But I digress.
I think it is unfair to the younger men of this country who grew up under parents who followed the literal women's liberation movement. I'm going on 32 years old and grew up an egalitarian feminist. I may have been just a tad ahead of the curve on this, but there is a massive proportion of men in the western world that have significantly divergent opinions on gender, the sexes, and sexuality than their fathers did.
Today's young men grew up spousal abuse being a crime against the state. Their fathers grew up with spousal abuse being a "private matter".
Today's young men grew up knowing that men and women are equal in all things not physical. Their fathers grew up with a patriarchal interpretation of chivalry and thus chauvinism.
Today's young men will likely vote for this nation's first president/vice-president. Their fathers grew up thinking that women were just too emotional for that kind of extreme responsibility.
Today's young men are, socially, leaps and bounds beyond their fathers and to hold them accountable by requiring that they play the whipping boys for their fathers' sins is an injustice to them. It is also an injustice to the young women growing up with these young men (who would otherwise continue to grow unimpeded) by continually putting in their heads that the massive male patriarchy is still in place.
The patriarchy is crumbled and will die off with those that are 45+. There will always be jerk males and they will always abuse anyone they perceive to be weaker. Unless we raise our young women to be strong and confident, they will continue to be easy targets. That can't happen if we continue to push the bogeyman of patriarchy.
Let's celebrate the coming death of the patriarchy and the normalization of egalitarianism.
Meh... I don't mind the A Non-Cow posting in such discussions. If it makes people feel safer, cool. Let them get it out. Bad posts will float to the bottom and good posts will float to the top.
But most people's immediate reaction is to going to be to doubt the pure innocence not of "the" victim", but "THIS" victim. The cynicism is based within the very specific context of a specific situation, not in the general context of "sexuality".
Note: I did not write any of the comments about which you speak, but I've noticed the phenomenon and have paid specific attention to the discussions that evolve out of similar situations. That said...
It has nothing to do with women in particular. It has to do with unbridled cynicism.
People of certain privilege levels who fight against a particular issue and are then victimized by that specific issue are *cynically* thought to have manufactured the harm. Try these other headlines on for size and see if you don't have an inkling of cynicism:
(1) Fundamentalist Christian Claims Homosexual Couple Denied Him Service Due to Religion (2) American Military Base in Afghanistan Attacked by Terrorists (3) British National Party Activist Attacked in Immigrant Neighborhood
In each one of those hypothetical headlined situations, a genuinely innocent-acting person could have been harmed. The Fundie Christian could have been wearing a cross and the homosexual couple could have been vehemently atheist. The American Military Base could have already ended operations with the terrorist group attacking the base as a cheap shot. And the BNP member could have been walking through the neighborhood with no BNP or otherwise offensive indicia.
But most people's immediate reaction is to going to be to doubt the pure innocence of "the" victim", but "THIS" victim. The cynicism is based within the very specific context of a specific situation, not in the general context of "sexuality".
This is correct. It's only carpooling or "sharing the ride" if it's non-profit. That's why taxi-riding is not a valid form of "rideshare". The only REAL carpool/rideshare app I've seen is called Carma (https://carmacarpool.com/). Reimbursements are automatic per GPS and specific to the IRS mileage reimbursement. More people in the car? Cool -- it splits the cost automagically.
I want a human to be able to take control of whatever automated device acting as my conveyance. Train, plane, automobile-- it doesn't matter.
If I'm liable for the machinery and the lives carried by the machinery, I want to be able to determine the maximum speed, the maximum rate of acceleration (when not in an emergency), the route, and be able to take full control as necessary. It's not that I distrust computers... it's the squishy meat bags affecting and affected by the computers I don't trust. Humans program the computers and engineer the roads. Sh*t happens and not all sh*t is planned for. There's road kill, potential road kill, flat things on the road that can fly up into the under-carriage when run over-- there are plenty of reasons to be able to control an otherwise-autonomous automobile.
This is just PR for Elon Musk and Tesla. This is not the future. The plug-in EV is not the future of transportation.
I work for a major university system in California. Our job is to get scope 3 commuter emissions to zero by 2050. We finally had the real-life conversation about the viability of plug-in EVs being the savior to our conundrum and, boy, was everyone happy to say what they had researched and observed...
The first thing you have to realize as a workplace who wants to support plug-in EVs is that, in doing so, you are becoming a refueler-- a gas station. You're entering another business with costs, time demands, enforcement requirements, and drama.
Each of the campuses has 5-50+ EV chargers throughout their 5,000-40,000 parking stalls. They cost $5,000 -$9,000 on a good deal plus the cost of installation, power trenching, etc. Consider the cost of converting an entire parking system to being plug-in EV-compatible. Or even half the parking system and allowing only 4-hour charging ("top off"). And then there's the new electric substation. Oh, and plug in EVs aren't zero emissions. We're still on the hook for the power generation emissions that result from the electricity demand.
Finally, there's a major equity issues. The vast majority of EV buyers are rich and/or college-educated. Why? Well they have the disposable income with which to take advantage of temporary federal subsidies, but more importantly, they have garages in which to charge their EVs overnight. The low-income population by and large lives in apartments whose landlords are not even considering installing EV chargers.
And these Type 3 superchargers can only be worse. The faster you charge an EV, the more waste electricity. The more waste electricity, the more cost and the more emissions. It's great PR. It's really neat for a niche, nascent, and temporary market, but the future is in either hydrogen fuel cells or battery-swapping EVs.
You are required to drive safely. Too fast or too slow is unsafe. The trick is in the "too". The cop may cite you over for driving 1mph over the limit. You can try to fight it in court (as countless thousands do every day) with the excuse that you were "going with the flow of traffic", but if you're traveling in the rightmost lane, you are not required to travel as quickly as those driving in the leftmost lane, but you should probably be driving no slower than 5 under the limit on a freeway.
The unfortunate issue is that drivers have a really bad habit of justifying their speeding habits with bad or misinterpreted science. Some will say "speed doesn't kill, the speed differential kills" -- but that can be used to justify everyone driving at the speed limit just as easily as driving 10mph over the limit.
Or can it?
Actual research shows that the faster you go, the more likely you are to crash. This is due to infrastructural imperfections, hardware failure, or just driver failure. It's safer to drive slower. From the AAA report on the American Culture of Speed: "When travel speed increases by 1%, the injury crash rate increases by about 2%, the serious injury crash rate increases by about 3%, and the fatal crash rate increases by about 4%."
When some say that "slow drivers cause accidents", they use the "cause" term incorrectly. In almost all instances, the slower driver didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere. Instead, the slower driver was ahead of an impatient driver and the impatient driver did something stupid.
So please, don't feel like you have justification to drive faster than the speed limit because some interpret the law beneficially to their own habits. Please remember that in 2012, there were 33,561 traffic deaths and in a full 30% of those deaths, speeding was a factor. (http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts#Speeding)
The problem is the in the pendulum swing. The harder it swings, the less rational the reactionary force has to be. As it pertains to sexism, the historical weapon of chauvinists and the established patriarchy, those riding that pendulum to its furthest extent don't like to (no do they need to) have any introspective dialog regarding any double-standards or hypocrisy in their missions.
For the social reaction to sexism, the pendulum is swinging hard. Consider some of the issues wherein men are currently ridiculed for their interest and/or sensitivity:
Post-divorce child custody -- Still heavily biased toward the mother. Post-divorce alimony -- A patriarchal concept still being fought by males, but rarely a peep in protest comes from the sex that benefits the most. Male Circumcision -- Sometimes called "male genital mutilation" in an attempt to garner the same disgust as female genital mutilation, the fight against automatic male circumcision at birth is derided. Rape -- While all of the western world vehemently fights to reduce the occurrence of female rape, man-on-man rape is thoroughly facilitated mass incarceration centers. Gender Studies -- Most research universities have a Gender Studies department, but the research and education provided are typically "women's studies". There is little in the way of researching the history and evolution of masculinity (especially in the light of the equalization of rights).
Those riding the pendulum will say, "Oh, too bad! Sucks to be on the other side, doesn't it?" without consideration of who actually ran the patriarchy.
For males that grew up as part of the institutionalized patriarchy, these don't seem like a big deal. However, for the massive number of young males that grew up being taught that males and females are genuinely equal in most ways and should be treated equitably in all things, these double standards are unacceptable. These, amongst other issues, are the problems that young males face, despite not being part of the gender-biased systems of the past.
You are correct about the Driver's Handbook and and the state law in regards to unsafe speed, but I think you missed the point. Why is everyone allowed to uniformly break the speed limit in the first place? Why not do some proper enforcement to bring the speeds back down?
If you're programming a module to complete a task and find that it needs to be written in such a way as to break existing rules to facilitate the rules being broken by other modules, don't you try to fix the problem from the ground up?
Additional question: I know most people are thinking about doing 75 in a 65 and thinking "whoopty doo, big deal". But what about 35mph in a 25mph school zone?
You are "driving" a Google automated car. You get pulled over for doing 10 over the speed limit. You didn't tell the car to do it, the programmers did. Who gets the ticket?
If you do, then that suggests that you have liability for the control of the vehicle. If that's the case, you probably shouldn't allow the car to make the choice whether or not to exceed the speed limit without your input.
If the programmer has liability, then say good by to automated automobiles! No one wants this liability.
Thus, Google cars will not automatically speed... but they may allow you to tell the car to exceed the speed limit... thus reducing the safety of the product overall.
If the speed limit is unsafe, that means that too many people around the car are traveling above the speed limit. This, in turn, means that there is insufficient traffic enforcement. I see two solutions...
Solution A: Allow automated vehicles to routinely exceed the speed limit thus contributing to the unsafe environment. Solution B: Implement appropriate traffic enforcement and raise city revenue on the reckless habits of traffic offenders.
If the speed limit is unsafe, that means that too many people around the car attempting to travel at "only" the speed limit. This, in turn, means that there is insufficient traffic enforcement. I see two solutions...
Solution A: Allow automated vehicles to routinely exceed the speed limit thus contributing to the unsafe environment. Solution B: Implement appropriate traffic enforcement and raise city revenue on the reckless habits of traffic offenders.
My partner and I have been together for almost 13 years. We have one of those very good relationships where we talk about problems instead of getting to the point of yelling, etc. She has a very audacious sense of humor and feels comfortable joking about spousal abuse (amongst other things) because she knows that spousal abuse is such a foreign concept in our relationship. ("I know I said I would cook tonight, but I'm ordering pizza. Please don't beat me...") I say the same back.
If someone didn't understand the context and overheard us joking in this way, they might think there was an actual issue with violence in our household. And I think this is the impetus with the new censorship rule on Fark. If you're not a frequenter of Fark discussions and stumble across one of many memes without the historical context, you'll think everyone there is a rape-shrugging, gay-bashing, general hater. And you would be wrong.
---------------------- Let's talk about a couple of the memes:
40 lbs. Box of Rape (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2Z7SafOiCXM/hqdefault.jpg) - If you simply read someone threaten to "send a 40 lbs. box of rape" to another person, you'd think that was a horrible concept. Boxed rape!? The idea alone is atrocious. That is until you figure out that someone took a photo of a box of rapeseed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed), considered the homonym audaciously humorous, and put it online. The internet went wild with the hilariously outlandish concept of "boxed rape" (the action, not the seed) and it has since been part of tongue-in-cheek, context-driven discussion.
Blazing Saddles references - The Mel Brooks movie 'Blazing Saddles' is synonymous with audacious humor and if any one work of artistic endeavor was to embody the spirit of Fark, it would be this movie. It addresses rape, penis size, stereotypes (beneficial and detrimental), racism, homophobia-- nothing is so sacred that it cannot be laughed at. But consider the actual context-- Mel Brooks projects absurdity upon each of these ideas by making their offenders look absolutely ridiculous. And for the most part, Fark feels and acts within the same vein.
Glenn Beck's mythical crime in 1990 - Fark is one of the grand purveyors of the myth that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. They publicized the hoax not as a means of directly implicating Glenn Beck in a crime that never happened, but to demonstrate the effectiveness of the political messaging system that was/is constantly making extreme accusations in the form of inquiry. So Fark (amongst others) shot back. "Why hasn't Glenn Beck denied...?"
'Legitimate' Rape - A couple years back, a conservative politician stated that abortions do not need to be available to women because in the case of 'legitimate rape', the female body has a means of preventing any impregnation at all. This, of course, is absolutely absurd... which is why Fark latched onto it. It's demonstrative of really, really stupid politician commenting on thing about which he knows little and Fark thrives on such snafus. So when a story comes up regarding rape, you're likely to see the idea of "legitimate rape" be brought up-- not because they're suggesting a distinction, but because they're restating the absurdity of this concept. -------------------
If you are under the impression that Fark users tell jokes that promote rape, sexism, racism, or discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, then you don't know Fark. Farkers celebrate every gain in the realm of gay rights and attack heinous acts with derision.
If you don't understand that Fark's use of rape, sexism, and homosexuality in their humor comes from a Mel Brooks-style commentary on the absurdity various ideals and actions, then you don't understand Fark. It's disappointing that this kind of humor will no longer be tolerated as it pertains to these specific topics because it's a cathartic outlet for audacious humor in a good direction.
The big pain in the ass here is that AB32 trickles down to California businesses and state-run entities. Everyone has to do their part to reduce California emissions back to 1990s levels (NOT per capita... raw GHG tonnage per year). That's easy for some, but not so easy for others.
If your organization was a big time polluter with little employee growth since the 1990s, you can switch to plug-in hybrids for your fleet, swap out incandescent bulbs for fluorescent/LED, put in new thermostats, disallow hot water in the bathrooms, adopt roof-top solar, and, if necessary, buy bio-methane energy credits. Reaching your AB32 goals would be easy.
But what if you were one of the model organizations in the 1990s that was at the forefront green tech but have since doubled in size? Ya, you may still have a fantastic per capita GHG emissions rating, but you've doubled in size! That means you have to cut your per capita in HALF to get back to your 1990 emissions level. Organizations with this problem are actually going back through their numbers and hoping to INCREASE their back-casting GHG emissions. They want to be seen as having been bigger polluters than they were because, with AB32, if you weren't a big polluter, you're going to have to invest beyond the diminishing returns curve to get anywhere near your state-mandated goals.
If AB32 could be amended to require going back to 1990 PER CAPITA emissions, my organization would be sitting pretty. Hell, we'd be able to sell off the credits from our being BELOW our 1990 per capita emissions. But that's not the case... so we, as one of the lowest per capita polluters in the nation for our industry, will end up paying more in cap-and-trade fees and offsets than actual big polluters.
And that's the way it's supposed to be. The big funding, risk, and genuine exploration is done by the bloated, but driven, government. Once all the basics have been proven, once all the risks have been measured, and once a potential business model evolves from that exploration, then private business comes in to profitize it.
When the government loses the drive to continue exploration, private industry moves in to profitize and expand until they can no longer profitize. Then government comes in, uses what private business learned, and then does big exploration all over again. Etc.
All big exploration starts with governments. The private sector comes in only after the risky, heavy lifting is done. It's a symbiotic relationship.
This would be great to use in sweatshops! You'd need fewer armed guards and you'd be able to see who is too relaxed (AKA slacking off)! Oh, panoptic society, I thought you were just a fantasy!
Wait, 1984 wasn't a guidebook? Well, then why have been working towards all the same tech? Oh... we're idiots. Got it.
You may have missed the first line I wrote, so I'll post it again: "... it's not just increased education spending that creates better educated students."
The raw number of dollars spent within the general concept of education is irrelevant because it includes really stupid expenses like competitive athletics expenses, hair-brained over-investment in classroom tech, and luxury buildings for brand new schools who are seeking to attract the best and brightest teachers (to the detriment of other schools).
Moreover, I provided links to research and case studies that show the benefits of my suggestions. One doesn't need to prove that a combination of treatments work before trying a combination of treatments.
I'll brake it down easy for you:
Given: Schools in poor neighborhoods provide poor education to their students. Those students grow up with a higher rate of criminality and a lower chance to enter the (fiscal) middle class.
Suggestion: Decrease class room size (proven benefits by research) Suggestion: Ensure sufficient climate control (proven benefits by research) Suggestion: Engage the parents (proven benefits by research) Suggestion: Recruit passionate and competent educators and make the necessary efforts required to convince them to stay long-term (proven benefits by experience) Suggestion: Implement all of the above for a single school in a very bad part of town.
Would you assert that these actions, widely implemented over a low-income, low-performing area are not likely to beneficially affect the futures of the students, families, and neighborhoods treated?
No, because it's not just increased education spending that creates better educated students. Buying iPads for everyone in the school will accomplish nothing. Spending money on a giant football field is worthless.
That money has to be spent on:
(1) Small class sizes --- Case Studies: http://www.classsizematters.or... -- Decreasing class sizes while keeping the same student population requires more classrooms and more teachers.
(2) Climate Control --- Research: http://healthyschools.cefpi.or... -- Ensuring sufficient climate control in classrooms requires permission to expend resources on the use of A/C and heaters and, in many cases, the actual installation of HVAC systems.
(3) Sufficient school supplies --- Research: Not handy, but it's fairly common sense that if your school can't afford to make copies of worksheets, those worksheets cannot be completed. Then, of course, there's paper, pencils, etc.
(4) Passionate teachers and their retention -- This does not necessarily mean "pay teachers more". It means choosing teachers better and ignoring those who are in Teach for America for 3 years so they can pad their law school applications. -- Good, committed teachers are worth tenure, pension, and reserve fund to pay for substitutes. If you don't give them the financial security required to work hard in bad neighborhoods, they will take their resumes and go to other districts.
(5) After school programs for parents of students -- 99.99% of the valuable education these students will receive comes from the school, but if the parent's do buy into it, that student will have to *fight* all the ailments of home just to graduate high school. Involve the parents by bringing them to school or visiting home and you'll see the investment stick.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a male gamer and I agree with the assertion that video games with women typically find methods of objectifying the female form... but it's not as though video games or gamer culture is unique in this way. The gaming industry objectifies women. As does Hollywood. And print media.
One of the best selling products in history is the female form and it sells well. Sex sells well. What do you do in a capitalist society when there is a seemingly unlimited demand for a product of which you have a nearly unlimited supply? Well, you sell it.
We can even take it a step further an confidently assert that there will always be a sufficient supply of the female form to meet or exceed demand due to psychological imperative with which most Western girls grow up that suggests that if they cannot receive validation of self through other actions or deeds, then there's always the option to resort to sexuality. One could even assert that this persistent and potentially indoctrinated psychological rationale may be one of the roots of reproduction for humanity.
And it's even easier to supply the female form in games because you don't even need a female. You just need artistic skills and an imagination!
So we've defined the multifaceted problem (biologically-enforced demand and an unlimited supply). We've also based the discussion on the issues that such objectification is becoming more and more of a nuisance to the comfort of more and more people (social evolution).
So what is to be done?
Stop all games that singularly sexualize the female form? What if both the male and female forms are equally sexualized? All good?
Do the same for video and print media?
Do we affect demand?
Are we to shame males and lesbians for appreciating the female form in game, video, and print media?
And this is where I always get stuck. If we want to change the frequency or the visibility of the objectification of the female form, we have to affect supply, demand, or both-- but doing so by shaming or legislation seems to infringe not only upon the social contract but upon biological imperatives thus making such an effort pointless.
So what is to be done?
Is there any evidence that it's a such concentrated effort to imply a genuine, heartfelt hatred of women (misogyny)? You would really have to stretch your rationale and ignore massive amounts of evidence to the contrary to assert that there's a pervasive vein of misogyny growing throughout nerd/gamer culture.
Yes, some male gamers will use derogatory words to intentionally offend women. And men. And transgendered people. And dogs. And the dead. And the not-yet-living. And mythical characters.
If there's any cultural bias against any one group, it's the group that "pissing us off right now". And "women-as-a-whole" have never been that group.
It has nothing to do with women as a whole, but a targeted hatred at people who happen to be women.
It doesn't matter who you are. Male, female, man, woman, gay, straight, asexual, black, white, brown, Asian, American, French, German, Argentinian-- if you piss off nerds and they come after you, you can be fairly certain it has nothing to do with your immutable characteristics and everything to do with your actions. You can try to hide behind immutable characteristics as a means of suggesting some sort of irrational bias, but nerds, by their very nature, are too damn smart to fall for that.
This is really cool. I'll probably watch a race... if at all possible. But I'm really watching Formula E as an industry because I can't wait for the day when they announce "Next year, no more car-swapping! You must develop battery-swapping methods!" Let Formula E be the test bed for 30 different battery swapping methods and let the world be better for it.
You are 100% correct about the historical issues within masculinities. In fact, masculinities is a field in which I could have studied and then actively researched in college because it is such an important point of discussion right now. Alas, every single Gender Studies class I went into focused on the "plight of woman". While obviously important, you can't have "gender studies" while studying the issues of just one gender.
Concepts in Masculinities to actively study in a research environment: Dominance, Self-Reliance, Dependent Support, Virility, Expression, Rebellion, "Competence, Excellence, and Failure", and lastly The Visible Masculine. While my vocation and avocation are both in the setting of a research university, I don't have the time to take on this research.
But I digress.
I think it is unfair to the younger men of this country who grew up under parents who followed the literal women's liberation movement. I'm going on 32 years old and grew up an egalitarian feminist. I may have been just a tad ahead of the curve on this, but there is a massive proportion of men in the western world that have significantly divergent opinions on gender, the sexes, and sexuality than their fathers did.
Today's young men grew up spousal abuse being a crime against the state.
Their fathers grew up with spousal abuse being a "private matter".
Today's young men grew up knowing that men and women are equal in all things not physical.
Their fathers grew up with a patriarchal interpretation of chivalry and thus chauvinism.
Today's young men will likely vote for this nation's first president/vice-president.
Their fathers grew up thinking that women were just too emotional for that kind of extreme responsibility.
Today's young men are, socially, leaps and bounds beyond their fathers and to hold them accountable by requiring that they play the whipping boys for their fathers' sins is an injustice to them. It is also an injustice to the young women growing up with these young men (who would otherwise continue to grow unimpeded) by continually putting in their heads that the massive male patriarchy is still in place.
The patriarchy is crumbled and will die off with those that are 45+. There will always be jerk males and they will always abuse anyone they perceive to be weaker. Unless we raise our young women to be strong and confident, they will continue to be easy targets. That can't happen if we continue to push the bogeyman of patriarchy.
Let's celebrate the coming death of the patriarchy and the normalization of egalitarianism.
In no order as order changes per mood:
Knights of the Old Republic (1 & 2)
Dragon Age: Origins
Everquest
Counterstrike (all versions)
Half-Life (1 & 2)
Portal (1)
Syberia (1 & 2)
Meh... I don't mind the A Non-Cow posting in such discussions. If it makes people feel safer, cool. Let them get it out. Bad posts will float to the bottom and good posts will float to the top.
But most people's immediate reaction is to going to be to doubt the pure innocence not of "the" victim", but "THIS" victim. The cynicism is based within the very specific context of a specific situation, not in the general context of "sexuality".
Note: I did not write any of the comments about which you speak, but I've noticed the phenomenon and have paid specific attention to the discussions that evolve out of similar situations. That said...
It has nothing to do with women in particular. It has to do with unbridled cynicism.
People of certain privilege levels who fight against a particular issue and are then victimized by that specific issue are *cynically* thought to have manufactured the harm. Try these other headlines on for size and see if you don't have an inkling of cynicism:
(1) Fundamentalist Christian Claims Homosexual Couple Denied Him Service Due to Religion
(2) American Military Base in Afghanistan Attacked by Terrorists
(3) British National Party Activist Attacked in Immigrant Neighborhood
In each one of those hypothetical headlined situations, a genuinely innocent-acting person could have been harmed. The Fundie Christian could have been wearing a cross and the homosexual couple could have been vehemently atheist. The American Military Base could have already ended operations with the terrorist group attacking the base as a cheap shot. And the BNP member could have been walking through the neighborhood with no BNP or otherwise offensive indicia.
But most people's immediate reaction is to going to be to doubt the pure innocence of "the" victim", but "THIS" victim. The cynicism is based within the very specific context of a specific situation, not in the general context of "sexuality".
This is correct. It's only carpooling or "sharing the ride" if it's non-profit. That's why taxi-riding is not a valid form of "rideshare". The only REAL carpool/rideshare app I've seen is called Carma (https://carmacarpool.com/). Reimbursements are automatic per GPS and specific to the IRS mileage reimbursement. More people in the car? Cool -- it splits the cost automagically.
I want a human to be able to take control of whatever automated device acting as my conveyance. Train, plane, automobile-- it doesn't matter.
If I'm liable for the machinery and the lives carried by the machinery, I want to be able to determine the maximum speed, the maximum rate of acceleration (when not in an emergency), the route, and be able to take full control as necessary. It's not that I distrust computers... it's the squishy meat bags affecting and affected by the computers I don't trust. Humans program the computers and engineer the roads. Sh*t happens and not all sh*t is planned for. There's road kill, potential road kill, flat things on the road that can fly up into the under-carriage when run over-- there are plenty of reasons to be able to control an otherwise-autonomous automobile.
This is just PR for Elon Musk and Tesla. This is not the future. The plug-in EV is not the future of transportation.
I work for a major university system in California. Our job is to get scope 3 commuter emissions to zero by 2050. We finally had the real-life conversation about the viability of plug-in EVs being the savior to our conundrum and, boy, was everyone happy to say what they had researched and observed...
The first thing you have to realize as a workplace who wants to support plug-in EVs is that, in doing so, you are becoming a refueler-- a gas station. You're entering another business with costs, time demands, enforcement requirements, and drama.
Each of the campuses has 5-50+ EV chargers throughout their 5,000-40,000 parking stalls. They cost $5,000 -$9,000 on a good deal plus the cost of installation, power trenching, etc. Consider the cost of converting an entire parking system to being plug-in EV-compatible. Or even half the parking system and allowing only 4-hour charging ("top off"). And then there's the new electric substation. Oh, and plug in EVs aren't zero emissions. We're still on the hook for the power generation emissions that result from the electricity demand.
Finally, there's a major equity issues. The vast majority of EV buyers are rich and/or college-educated. Why? Well they have the disposable income with which to take advantage of temporary federal subsidies, but more importantly, they have garages in which to charge their EVs overnight. The low-income population by and large lives in apartments whose landlords are not even considering installing EV chargers.
And these Type 3 superchargers can only be worse. The faster you charge an EV, the more waste electricity. The more waste electricity, the more cost and the more emissions. It's great PR. It's really neat for a niche, nascent, and temporary market, but the future is in either hydrogen fuel cells or battery-swapping EVs.
You are required to drive safely. Too fast or too slow is unsafe. The trick is in the "too". The cop may cite you over for driving 1mph over the limit. You can try to fight it in court (as countless thousands do every day) with the excuse that you were "going with the flow of traffic", but if you're traveling in the rightmost lane, you are not required to travel as quickly as those driving in the leftmost lane, but you should probably be driving no slower than 5 under the limit on a freeway.
The unfortunate issue is that drivers have a really bad habit of justifying their speeding habits with bad or misinterpreted science. Some will say "speed doesn't kill, the speed differential kills" -- but that can be used to justify everyone driving at the speed limit just as easily as driving 10mph over the limit.
Or can it?
Actual research shows that the faster you go, the more likely you are to crash. This is due to infrastructural imperfections, hardware failure, or just driver failure. It's safer to drive slower. From the AAA report on the American Culture of Speed: "When travel speed increases by 1%, the injury crash rate increases by about 2%, the
serious injury crash rate increases by about 3%, and the fatal crash rate increases by about 4%."
When some say that "slow drivers cause accidents", they use the "cause" term incorrectly. In almost all instances, the slower driver didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere. Instead, the slower driver was ahead of an impatient driver and the impatient driver did something stupid.
So please, don't feel like you have justification to drive faster than the speed limit because some interpret the law beneficially to their own habits. Please remember that in 2012, there were 33,561 traffic deaths and in a full 30% of those deaths, speeding was a factor. (http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts#Speeding)
The problem is the in the pendulum swing. The harder it swings, the less rational the reactionary force has to be. As it pertains to sexism, the historical weapon of chauvinists and the established patriarchy, those riding that pendulum to its furthest extent don't like to (no do they need to) have any introspective dialog regarding any double-standards or hypocrisy in their missions.
For the social reaction to sexism, the pendulum is swinging hard. Consider some of the issues wherein men are currently ridiculed for their interest and/or sensitivity:
Post-divorce child custody -- Still heavily biased toward the mother.
Post-divorce alimony -- A patriarchal concept still being fought by males, but rarely a peep in protest comes from the sex that benefits the most.
Male Circumcision -- Sometimes called "male genital mutilation" in an attempt to garner the same disgust as female genital mutilation, the fight against automatic male circumcision at birth is derided.
Rape -- While all of the western world vehemently fights to reduce the occurrence of female rape, man-on-man rape is thoroughly facilitated mass incarceration centers.
Gender Studies -- Most research universities have a Gender Studies department, but the research and education provided are typically "women's studies". There is little in the way of researching the history and evolution of masculinity (especially in the light of the equalization of rights).
Those riding the pendulum will say, "Oh, too bad! Sucks to be on the other side, doesn't it?" without consideration of who actually ran the patriarchy.
For males that grew up as part of the institutionalized patriarchy, these don't seem like a big deal. However, for the massive number of young males that grew up being taught that males and females are genuinely equal in most ways and should be treated equitably in all things, these double standards are unacceptable. These, amongst other issues, are the problems that young males face, despite not being part of the gender-biased systems of the past.
I'm OK with this. How can I get you on the Google Car sales team? ;)
You are correct about the Driver's Handbook and and the state law in regards to unsafe speed, but I think you missed the point. Why is everyone allowed to uniformly break the speed limit in the first place? Why not do some proper enforcement to bring the speeds back down?
If you're programming a module to complete a task and find that it needs to be written in such a way as to break existing rules to facilitate the rules being broken by other modules, don't you try to fix the problem from the ground up?
Additional question: I know most people are thinking about doing 75 in a 65 and thinking "whoopty doo, big deal". But what about 35mph in a 25mph school zone?
You are "driving" a Google automated car. You get pulled over for doing 10 over the speed limit. You didn't tell the car to do it, the programmers did. Who gets the ticket?
If you do, then that suggests that you have liability for the control of the vehicle. If that's the case, you probably shouldn't allow the car to make the choice whether or not to exceed the speed limit without your input.
If the programmer has liability, then say good by to automated automobiles! No one wants this liability.
Thus, Google cars will not automatically speed... but they may allow you to tell the car to exceed the speed limit... thus reducing the safety of the product overall.
If the speed limit is unsafe, that means that too many people around the car are traveling above the speed limit. This, in turn, means that there is insufficient traffic enforcement. I see two solutions...
Solution A: Allow automated vehicles to routinely exceed the speed limit thus contributing to the unsafe environment.
Solution B: Implement appropriate traffic enforcement and raise city revenue on the reckless habits of traffic offenders.
Why the hell is Solution A even being considered?
If the speed limit is unsafe, that means that too many people around the car attempting to travel at "only" the speed limit. This, in turn, means that there is insufficient traffic enforcement. I see two solutions...
Solution A: Allow automated vehicles to routinely exceed the speed limit thus contributing to the unsafe environment.
Solution B: Implement appropriate traffic enforcement and raise city revenue on the reckless habits of traffic offenders.
Why the hell is Solution A even being considered?
Yes, just like this. Browse at "0" and you see stuff like this. Thank you for being a great example to pla's post!
My partner and I have been together for almost 13 years. We have one of those very good relationships where we talk about problems instead of getting to the point of yelling, etc. She has a very audacious sense of humor and feels comfortable joking about spousal abuse (amongst other things) because she knows that spousal abuse is such a foreign concept in our relationship. ("I know I said I would cook tonight, but I'm ordering pizza. Please don't beat me...") I say the same back.
If someone didn't understand the context and overheard us joking in this way, they might think there was an actual issue with violence in our household. And I think this is the impetus with the new censorship rule on Fark. If you're not a frequenter of Fark discussions and stumble across one of many memes without the historical context, you'll think everyone there is a rape-shrugging, gay-bashing, general hater. And you would be wrong.
----------------------
Let's talk about a couple of the memes:
40 lbs. Box of Rape (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2Z7SafOiCXM/hqdefault.jpg) - If you simply read someone threaten to "send a 40 lbs. box of rape" to another person, you'd think that was a horrible concept. Boxed rape!? The idea alone is atrocious. That is until you figure out that someone took a photo of a box of rapeseed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed), considered the homonym audaciously humorous, and put it online. The internet went wild with the hilariously outlandish concept of "boxed rape" (the action, not the seed) and it has since been part of tongue-in-cheek, context-driven discussion.
Blazing Saddles references - The Mel Brooks movie 'Blazing Saddles' is synonymous with audacious humor and if any one work of artistic endeavor was to embody the spirit of Fark, it would be this movie. It addresses rape, penis size, stereotypes (beneficial and detrimental), racism, homophobia-- nothing is so sacred that it cannot be laughed at. But consider the actual context-- Mel Brooks projects absurdity upon each of these ideas by making their offenders look absolutely ridiculous. And for the most part, Fark feels and acts within the same vein.
Glenn Beck's mythical crime in 1990 - Fark is one of the grand purveyors of the myth that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. They publicized the hoax not as a means of directly implicating Glenn Beck in a crime that never happened, but to demonstrate the effectiveness of the political messaging system that was/is constantly making extreme accusations in the form of inquiry. So Fark (amongst others) shot back. "Why hasn't Glenn Beck denied...?"
'Legitimate' Rape - A couple years back, a conservative politician stated that abortions do not need to be available to women because in the case of 'legitimate rape', the female body has a means of preventing any impregnation at all. This, of course, is absolutely absurd... which is why Fark latched onto it. It's demonstrative of really, really stupid politician commenting on thing about which he knows little and Fark thrives on such snafus. So when a story comes up regarding rape, you're likely to see the idea of "legitimate rape" be brought up-- not because they're suggesting a distinction, but because they're restating the absurdity of this concept.
-------------------
If you are under the impression that Fark users tell jokes that promote rape, sexism, racism, or discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, then you don't know Fark. Farkers celebrate every gain in the realm of gay rights and attack heinous acts with derision.
If you don't understand that Fark's use of rape, sexism, and homosexuality in their humor comes from a Mel Brooks-style commentary on the absurdity various ideals and actions, then you don't understand Fark. It's disappointing that this kind of humor will no longer be tolerated as it pertains to these specific topics because it's a cathartic outlet for audacious humor in a good direction.
The big pain in the ass here is that AB32 trickles down to California businesses and state-run entities. Everyone has to do their part to reduce California emissions back to 1990s levels (NOT per capita... raw GHG tonnage per year). That's easy for some, but not so easy for others.
If your organization was a big time polluter with little employee growth since the 1990s, you can switch to plug-in hybrids for your fleet, swap out incandescent bulbs for fluorescent/LED, put in new thermostats, disallow hot water in the bathrooms, adopt roof-top solar, and, if necessary, buy bio-methane energy credits. Reaching your AB32 goals would be easy.
But what if you were one of the model organizations in the 1990s that was at the forefront green tech but have since doubled in size? Ya, you may still have a fantastic per capita GHG emissions rating, but you've doubled in size! That means you have to cut your per capita in HALF to get back to your 1990 emissions level. Organizations with this problem are actually going back through their numbers and hoping to INCREASE their back-casting GHG emissions. They want to be seen as having been bigger polluters than they were because, with AB32, if you weren't a big polluter, you're going to have to invest beyond the diminishing returns curve to get anywhere near your state-mandated goals.
If AB32 could be amended to require going back to 1990 PER CAPITA emissions, my organization would be sitting pretty. Hell, we'd be able to sell off the credits from our being BELOW our 1990 per capita emissions. But that's not the case... so we, as one of the lowest per capita polluters in the nation for our industry, will end up paying more in cap-and-trade fees and offsets than actual big polluters.
And that's the way it's supposed to be. The big funding, risk, and genuine exploration is done by the bloated, but driven, government. Once all the basics have been proven, once all the risks have been measured, and once a potential business model evolves from that exploration, then private business comes in to profitize it.
When the government loses the drive to continue exploration, private industry moves in to profitize and expand until they can no longer profitize. Then government comes in, uses what private business learned, and then does big exploration all over again. Etc.
All big exploration starts with governments. The private sector comes in only after the risky, heavy lifting is done. It's a symbiotic relationship.
This would be great to use in sweatshops! You'd need fewer armed guards and you'd be able to see who is too relaxed (AKA slacking off)! Oh, panoptic society, I thought you were just a fantasy!
Wait, 1984 wasn't a guidebook? Well, then why have been working towards all the same tech? Oh... we're idiots. Got it.
You may have missed the first line I wrote, so I'll post it again: "... it's not just increased education spending that creates better educated students."
The raw number of dollars spent within the general concept of education is irrelevant because it includes really stupid expenses like competitive athletics expenses, hair-brained over-investment in classroom tech, and luxury buildings for brand new schools who are seeking to attract the best and brightest teachers (to the detriment of other schools).
Moreover, I provided links to research and case studies that show the benefits of my suggestions. One doesn't need to prove that a combination of treatments work before trying a combination of treatments.
I'll brake it down easy for you:
Given: Schools in poor neighborhoods provide poor education to their students. Those students grow up with a higher rate of criminality and a lower chance to enter the (fiscal) middle class.
Suggestion: Decrease class room size (proven benefits by research)
Suggestion: Ensure sufficient climate control (proven benefits by research)
Suggestion: Engage the parents (proven benefits by research)
Suggestion: Recruit passionate and competent educators and make the necessary efforts required to convince them to stay long-term (proven benefits by experience)
Suggestion: Implement all of the above for a single school in a very bad part of town.
Would you assert that these actions, widely implemented over a low-income, low-performing area are not likely to beneficially affect the futures of the students, families, and neighborhoods treated?
No, because it's not just increased education spending that creates better educated students. Buying iPads for everyone in the school will accomplish nothing. Spending money on a giant football field is worthless.
That money has to be spent on:
(1) Small class sizes
--- Case Studies: http://www.classsizematters.or...
-- Decreasing class sizes while keeping the same student population requires more classrooms and more teachers.
(2) Climate Control
--- Research: http://healthyschools.cefpi.or...
-- Ensuring sufficient climate control in classrooms requires permission to expend resources on the use of A/C and heaters and, in many cases, the actual installation of HVAC systems.
(3) Sufficient school supplies
--- Research: Not handy, but it's fairly common sense that if your school can't afford to make copies of worksheets, those worksheets cannot be completed. Then, of course, there's paper, pencils, etc.
(4) Passionate teachers and their retention
-- This does not necessarily mean "pay teachers more". It means choosing teachers better and ignoring those who are in Teach for America for 3 years so they can pad their law school applications.
-- Good, committed teachers are worth tenure, pension, and reserve fund to pay for substitutes. If you don't give them the financial security required to work hard in bad neighborhoods, they will take their resumes and go to other districts.
(5) After school programs for parents of students
-- 99.99% of the valuable education these students will receive comes from the school, but if the parent's do buy into it, that student will have to *fight* all the ailments of home just to graduate high school. Involve the parents by bringing them to school or visiting home and you'll see the investment stick.