Men who work in the primarily female field of nursing experience cattiness, back-stabbing, and undermining cliquishness. Are women in nursing inherently sexist? No, of course not.
And if I were a woman in nursing, I'd consider it my responsibility to consider that a problem and try to put a stop to it so that men who are good at nursing will be more likely to go into the field. Also, for what it's worth, the "penalty" for being a man in nursing is faster promotion to management, and assignment to higher-paying and easier specialties like orthopedics. And the "penalty" for being a man interested in medicine is mentors and teachers pushing you instead towards the related but higher-paying qualifications like MD or PA rather than RN or NP. So I don't have a lot of sympathy for men in nursing.
"Professionalism" that attempts to pretend that's not true is doomed to failure.
Have you ever really honestly tried it? I have, and it works - women I work with treat me professionally in return, we both get done what we need to get done, we share ideas about our work so we're both working better, and we just relate in roughly the same way we'd relate if we were both guys focused on our job. It's not like women are some alien species, they would simply like in a professional context to be judged on their capabilities and accomplishments rather than sexual attractiveness to male colleagues or bosses. Just like you would probably be upset if the key characteristic you brought to your job was an obviously large package or a particular way you did your hair, and you could tell that that was what was getting you (or your colleagues) raises and promotions.
If you still don't understand the situation, and you have a sister you're reasonably close to, ask her about it sometime. Basically, there are times when some women may want to be hit on, but at work (where she's probably just trying to make the money she needs to support herself and any family she might have) is not one of those times or places. If you are hitting on a female colleague who has not shown any interest in you, you aren't being romantic, you're being an annoyance at best. I remember watching one guy who was into an accountant who worked in the cube across from me: Every day, he would make up a reason to come talk to her, and try to get personal - she simply saw him as a pathetic loser distracting her from her work, and was quite happy to switch to a different company.
After all, it's clear that they don't have interest in certain fields
It's also pretty clear, based on the experiences of women who have an interest in technology, that they experience hostility, sexism, and nastiness, many enough for them to quit. If it were just a couple, then I'd think it was maybe a fluke, but when every woman I've talked to in tech about it has said they experienced it, and all but 2 of my female college classmates dropped out of the CS program, I'd say it's safe to say there's a sexism problem in the culture of tech that should be addressed.
Try this, if you are a guy in tech who doesn't get it: When you encounter a reasonably good-looking (by your standards) woman with a similar professional background, is your thought process about her professional work (e.g. language or OS choices, server configurations, algorithm ideas), or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed? If it's about her work, congratulations, you aren't part of the problem. If it's about the hope of bedding her, then you need to pay attention and make sure you're thinking with your brain rather than your dick. If you don't know for sure, err on the side of professionalism and focusing on work, and let her make the conversation personal if she wants to. If you can't stick to those rules, you are part of the problem.
For what it's worth, I interviewed with them at a point in my life when I had been unemployed for months and was nearing the end of my financial rope. I turned the job down!
People who should like inflation: - People with fixed-rate home mortgages - People currently holding gold (not because gold is a great investment - it loses to stocks and real estate - but because fear of inflation drives demand for gold)
People who shouldn't care much: - People who are holding stocks or real estate - People living on government programs with automatic cost-of-living adjustments, like Social Security. - White collar and unionized workers who get annual raises to offset the effects of inflation.
People who should oppose inflation: - People who have cash stuffed in their mattress - People living on fixed nominal incomes (this is fairly rare, but exists) - People making minimum wage, but only because Congress hasn't tied increases in the minimum wage to inflation like they should have decades ago.
But you're right that typically moderate inflation isn't a problem, and in fact the Federal Reserve targets inflation at somewhere around 2% for a whole slew of good reasons.
Also, you could just as easily read this the opposite way: "Nice cryptocurrency you have there. It would be a real shame if we got to the point where we could completely control its value in other currencies and reap huge profits while doing so. Not that we'd ever dream of doing that - we promise that we're not even really considering the possibility."
the plane that they grounded that time was headed to somewhere in Latin America (Cuba or Ecuador I think).
That would be Bolivia. Which, since it was Bolivian President Evo Morales's plane, is about as serious a diplomatic violation as you can get (imagine Russia or China grounding Air Force One and searching it).
I suspect that if your self-driving car did something along the lines of blinking lights and making loud noises at you when it needed your attention, you'd pay attention. Or more to the point, if that didn't grab your attention, you have no business driving.
Or, if they're going to have him testify, they have diplomats collect him and bring him in on a plain covered by immunity, move him around in diplomatic cars, and house him in diplomatic residences.
The last time they thought that he was on a plane protected by diplomatic immunity, they grounded it and searched it at the request of the United States. That's also why Julian Assange is still stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy in London: The UK authorities have made it clear that they will pull him out of a diplomatic vehicle if they try to transport him to Ecuador.
What does the corruption of the US Congress have to do with the marketing decisions of Canada's Prime Minister? One thing Canada is quite clear on: They aren't the US, and never will be.
Perhaps they can explain why Fifty Shades did well despite being badly written.
Because people like reading about sex. That's also why romance novels routinely feature good-looking half-naked people on the cover.
Think of it this way: If the movie is about sex, we'll put up with inane dialog, completely predictable plots, and wooden acting, just to watch a couple of people we'll never meet get it on. Why would you expect books to be much different?
Obama didn't start that one, and I'm not sure why you thought he did. The people who started the Libya war were Libyans who thought that they were going to be in the same position as the Tunisians or Egyptians. They were wrong, because Qaddafi didn't give up power, he turned his military on his own people and his military followed his orders to do so. As far as the NATO involvement, that was basically France's doing, and the Europeans took the lead in both the diplomatic wrangling and flying bombing campaigns.
If you're building up a dossier on absolutely everybody, then you can usethe information in that dossier whenever you want to.
For example, let's say WanderCat decided to run for political office, and part of his/her platform was "Stop the NSA from spying on everyone." Now, up until now, WanderCat hasn't been interesting enough to monitor, but now, in order to protect "America" (i.e. the national security state), the NSA will want to go through everything that WanderCat has ever said or done that they know about and make sure that anything potentially embarrassing is released via a friendly journalist willing to quote the source anonymously.
That means that the only people that can actually stop the NSA from doing what they're doing are those so squeaky-clean that they won't want to.
You've got to wonder why the folks on the right who care so deeply about individual freedom of choice and despise government intrusion in personal affairs are such big fans of the war on drugs.
First off, there are conservatives who are consistent about this. They're a minority, but they do exist.
For many in the US, though, it's about using drug laws as a means of preventing a segment of the population from having equal rights or achieving too much. The idea is pretty simple: If you enforce drug laws only against the portion of the population you are trying to oppress, then you can combine that with laws preventing anyone with a drug conviction from voting and private companies using drug convictions to screen out potential employees, and you have cut the political and financial power of that portion of the population in half.
And when a lot of right-wing rhetoric and policy is about keeping the almost-bottom rung people focused on fearing and hating the bottom-rung people, this kind of thing is both logical and expected. This is the same crowd that argues that men ought to be the boss of their wives, and again it's about creating a hierarchy where their target constituents are not quite at the bottom.
The Federalists didn't exist until after the constitution was already in place.
Yes they did, not as a political party, but as a group of people trying to create the U.S. Constitution the way they (mostly James Madison) wanted it. They weren't officially a political party, per se, but they were certainly an organized group of people trying to put their stamp on how the US government would work. They were the majority in the Constitutional Convention, and that gave them the power to dictate a lot of the overall structure. The Anti-Federalists, led by Jefferson, left a stamp on the Constitution too, in the form of the Bill of Rights, but only because many states refused to ratify the Constitution without it. There wasn't a consensus really: Many of the ratification votes were extremely contentious, and there was a lot of nasty mudslinging going on in the press and public meetings.
That said, what the Federalists came up with was pretty decently good, but far from perfect (3/5 compromise, anyone?). But these guys were politicians and businessmen, and while they were often smart they were also pretty practical people, and as partisan as some politicians today. The image of a happy band of founders calmly debating everything as an intellectual exercise is pure fantasy.
30 days and 50 eyeballs would have caught MANY irregularities that slipped through during the subprime heyday
I worked for one of the companies that was handling the title policies and such for a well-known subprime lender for about 6 months back in 2005 (hey, my alternative was not paying the rent). Those kind of mortgages weren't "irregularities", they were the majority of the mortgages I saw in our database. I was not surprised when the company that was issuing those mortgages went under.
slipping in a constitution favorable to him and his party though a bit of parliamentary trickery
George Washington, John Adams, and their buddies in the Federalists did exactly the same thing. The only difference was that he was also in charge of the army.
I would have been fine with an ouster of Morsi had he refused to give up power after his constitutional term was up, and he lost the election or was term-limited out. Neither of those things happened.
Or before that, Belgium and the Netherlands. Or more recently, Syria and Lebanon and Turkey. It's not like wars stay neatly on one side of a border. And it's not always the US expanding them.
Kim Jong Un has invaded exactly 0 countries. Kim Jong Il made pathetic invasion attempts of exactly 1 country (South Korea).
George W Bush, by contrast, started a war with Iraq, a country that had not attacked the US, was not planning on attacking the US, and had no means of attacking the US. In international law, that's the war crime of "aggression". And he started launching drone strikes into two allied countries (Pakistan and Yemen), which I'm sure feels like a war to the people who's apartment buildings get hit with guided missiles. And of course the whole Afghanistan venture. The US is by a lot of standards the world's largest warmonger. And no, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are no saints on this score, but Bush was particularly bad.
Actually, that is sort of the point of these invasions... to make sure that the governments are in some form representative of the people.
That is pure unadulterated nonsense.
For example, Hamid Karzai is no more representative of his people than Mohammed Omar: The difference is that Karzai is doing the bidding of the US and US-based oil companies instead of doing the bidding of Al Qaida and Iran. Karzai was not elected, he was selected by a meeting of the regional leaders of Afghanistan where the US Army was standing right outside the door (arguably in case the decision went differently).
When the people of the Middle East have overthrown dictators and replaced them with democratically elected leaders, the US does their best to put a stop to it. Egypt is the prime example of this: The elected president Mohammed Morsi, though certainly far from a perfect bastion of freedom and democracy, was ousted in a military coup, and the military of Egypt has close ties to the US.
Yes, there most certainly is such a thing as language superiority. It can even be somewhat measured.
For example, if, to solve a problem, language A takes about 30 lines of extremely clear code that takes the programmer about an hour to do, that's obviously superior to language B that takes 1000 lines of gobbledygook that takes the better part of a week. Especially if, when both programmers get a change request to their little application, language A is modified and the update ready in 10 minutes while language B requires another week-long 1000-line marathon.
And that can be a function of the language rather than the programmer skill, because language A has constructs that language B doesn't have that allows the programmer to express his intent clearly and easily. And yes, the community around language B can create libraries that reduce the 1000-line pile of code down to a 100-line pile of code, which will certainly help, but now the programmers specializing in language B now have to learn the library as well as the language itself. And meanwhile, the community around language A might have either created a library to make that 30-line program a 1-line program, or simply moved on to another problem.
So maybe you're going to argue that it's a problem that was particularly well-suited for language A. But if language A is continuously performing this much better than language B, sticking with language B isn't an aesthetic choice or a matter of opinion, it's simply stubborness.
Slashdot Mirror
Men who work in the primarily female field of nursing experience cattiness, back-stabbing, and undermining cliquishness. Are women in nursing inherently sexist? No, of course not.
And if I were a woman in nursing, I'd consider it my responsibility to consider that a problem and try to put a stop to it so that men who are good at nursing will be more likely to go into the field. Also, for what it's worth, the "penalty" for being a man in nursing is faster promotion to management, and assignment to higher-paying and easier specialties like orthopedics. And the "penalty" for being a man interested in medicine is mentors and teachers pushing you instead towards the related but higher-paying qualifications like MD or PA rather than RN or NP. So I don't have a lot of sympathy for men in nursing.
"Professionalism" that attempts to pretend that's not true is doomed to failure.
Have you ever really honestly tried it? I have, and it works - women I work with treat me professionally in return, we both get done what we need to get done, we share ideas about our work so we're both working better, and we just relate in roughly the same way we'd relate if we were both guys focused on our job. It's not like women are some alien species, they would simply like in a professional context to be judged on their capabilities and accomplishments rather than sexual attractiveness to male colleagues or bosses. Just like you would probably be upset if the key characteristic you brought to your job was an obviously large package or a particular way you did your hair, and you could tell that that was what was getting you (or your colleagues) raises and promotions.
If you still don't understand the situation, and you have a sister you're reasonably close to, ask her about it sometime. Basically, there are times when some women may want to be hit on, but at work (where she's probably just trying to make the money she needs to support herself and any family she might have) is not one of those times or places. If you are hitting on a female colleague who has not shown any interest in you, you aren't being romantic, you're being an annoyance at best. I remember watching one guy who was into an accountant who worked in the cube across from me: Every day, he would make up a reason to come talk to her, and try to get personal - she simply saw him as a pathetic loser distracting her from her work, and was quite happy to switch to a different company.
After all, it's clear that they don't have interest in certain fields
It's also pretty clear, based on the experiences of women who have an interest in technology, that they experience hostility, sexism, and nastiness, many enough for them to quit. If it were just a couple, then I'd think it was maybe a fluke, but when every woman I've talked to in tech about it has said they experienced it, and all but 2 of my female college classmates dropped out of the CS program, I'd say it's safe to say there's a sexism problem in the culture of tech that should be addressed.
Try this, if you are a guy in tech who doesn't get it: When you encounter a reasonably good-looking (by your standards) woman with a similar professional background, is your thought process about her professional work (e.g. language or OS choices, server configurations, algorithm ideas), or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed? If it's about her work, congratulations, you aren't part of the problem. If it's about the hope of bedding her, then you need to pay attention and make sure you're thinking with your brain rather than your dick. If you don't know for sure, err on the side of professionalism and focusing on work, and let her make the conversation personal if she wants to. If you can't stick to those rules, you are part of the problem.
Yes, that's exactly who we're talking about here.
For what it's worth, I interviewed with them at a point in my life when I had been unemployed for months and was nearing the end of my financial rope. I turned the job down!
It depends which "us" we're talking about.
People who should like inflation:
- People with fixed-rate home mortgages
- People currently holding gold (not because gold is a great investment - it loses to stocks and real estate - but because fear of inflation drives demand for gold)
People who shouldn't care much:
- People who are holding stocks or real estate
- People living on government programs with automatic cost-of-living adjustments, like Social Security.
- White collar and unionized workers who get annual raises to offset the effects of inflation.
People who should oppose inflation:
- People who have cash stuffed in their mattress
- People living on fixed nominal incomes (this is fairly rare, but exists)
- People making minimum wage, but only because Congress hasn't tied increases in the minimum wage to inflation like they should have decades ago.
But you're right that typically moderate inflation isn't a problem, and in fact the Federal Reserve targets inflation at somewhere around 2% for a whole slew of good reasons.
Weird Al was right.
Also, you could just as easily read this the opposite way: "Nice cryptocurrency you have there. It would be a real shame if we got to the point where we could completely control its value in other currencies and reap huge profits while doing so. Not that we'd ever dream of doing that - we promise that we're not even really considering the possibility."
the plane that they grounded that time was headed to somewhere in Latin America (Cuba or Ecuador I think).
That would be Bolivia. Which, since it was Bolivian President Evo Morales's plane, is about as serious a diplomatic violation as you can get (imagine Russia or China grounding Air Force One and searching it).
I suspect that if your self-driving car did something along the lines of blinking lights and making loud noises at you when it needed your attention, you'd pay attention. Or more to the point, if that didn't grab your attention, you have no business driving.
Or, if they're going to have him testify, they have diplomats collect him and bring him in on a plain covered by immunity, move him around in diplomatic cars, and house him in diplomatic residences.
The last time they thought that he was on a plane protected by diplomatic immunity, they grounded it and searched it at the request of the United States. That's also why Julian Assange is still stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy in London: The UK authorities have made it clear that they will pull him out of a diplomatic vehicle if they try to transport him to Ecuador.
What does the corruption of the US Congress have to do with the marketing decisions of Canada's Prime Minister? One thing Canada is quite clear on: They aren't the US, and never will be.
But if Waldo goes to the ISS, it will just become easier to find him!
Perhaps they can explain why Fifty Shades did well despite being badly written.
Because people like reading about sex. That's also why romance novels routinely feature good-looking half-naked people on the cover.
Think of it this way: If the movie is about sex, we'll put up with inane dialog, completely predictable plots, and wooden acting, just to watch a couple of people we'll never meet get it on. Why would you expect books to be much different?
Bad idea: Alcohol prohibition didn't work, and it both can kill you and is addictive.
even starting new wars (e.g., Libya)
Obama didn't start that one, and I'm not sure why you thought he did. The people who started the Libya war were Libyans who thought that they were going to be in the same position as the Tunisians or Egyptians. They were wrong, because Qaddafi didn't give up power, he turned his military on his own people and his military followed his orders to do so. As far as the NATO involvement, that was basically France's doing, and the Europeans took the lead in both the diplomatic wrangling and flying bombing campaigns.
That's not the only reason they monitor everyone.
If you're building up a dossier on absolutely everybody, then you can usethe information in that dossier whenever you want to.
For example, let's say WanderCat decided to run for political office, and part of his/her platform was "Stop the NSA from spying on everyone." Now, up until now, WanderCat hasn't been interesting enough to monitor, but now, in order to protect "America" (i.e. the national security state), the NSA will want to go through everything that WanderCat has ever said or done that they know about and make sure that anything potentially embarrassing is released via a friendly journalist willing to quote the source anonymously.
That means that the only people that can actually stop the NSA from doing what they're doing are those so squeaky-clean that they won't want to.
You've got to wonder why the folks on the right who care so deeply about individual freedom of choice and despise government intrusion in personal affairs are such big fans of the war on drugs.
First off, there are conservatives who are consistent about this. They're a minority, but they do exist.
For many in the US, though, it's about using drug laws as a means of preventing a segment of the population from having equal rights or achieving too much. The idea is pretty simple: If you enforce drug laws only against the portion of the population you are trying to oppress, then you can combine that with laws preventing anyone with a drug conviction from voting and private companies using drug convictions to screen out potential employees, and you have cut the political and financial power of that portion of the population in half.
And when a lot of right-wing rhetoric and policy is about keeping the almost-bottom rung people focused on fearing and hating the bottom-rung people, this kind of thing is both logical and expected. This is the same crowd that argues that men ought to be the boss of their wives, and again it's about creating a hierarchy where their target constituents are not quite at the bottom.
That's what we're doing in Washington and Colorado. And I should note that in the latest polls 58% of Americans favor that exact policy.
The Federalists didn't exist until after the constitution was already in place.
Yes they did, not as a political party, but as a group of people trying to create the U.S. Constitution the way they (mostly James Madison) wanted it. They weren't officially a political party, per se, but they were certainly an organized group of people trying to put their stamp on how the US government would work. They were the majority in the Constitutional Convention, and that gave them the power to dictate a lot of the overall structure. The Anti-Federalists, led by Jefferson, left a stamp on the Constitution too, in the form of the Bill of Rights, but only because many states refused to ratify the Constitution without it. There wasn't a consensus really: Many of the ratification votes were extremely contentious, and there was a lot of nasty mudslinging going on in the press and public meetings.
That said, what the Federalists came up with was pretty decently good, but far from perfect (3/5 compromise, anyone?). But these guys were politicians and businessmen, and while they were often smart they were also pretty practical people, and as partisan as some politicians today. The image of a happy band of founders calmly debating everything as an intellectual exercise is pure fantasy.
Yes, I'm referring to the pipeline, which was former Unocal executive Hamid Karzai's first act as president of Afghanistan.
30 days and 50 eyeballs would have caught MANY irregularities that slipped through during the subprime heyday
I worked for one of the companies that was handling the title policies and such for a well-known subprime lender for about 6 months back in 2005 (hey, my alternative was not paying the rent). Those kind of mortgages weren't "irregularities", they were the majority of the mortgages I saw in our database. I was not surprised when the company that was issuing those mortgages went under.
slipping in a constitution favorable to him and his party though a bit of parliamentary trickery
George Washington, John Adams, and their buddies in the Federalists did exactly the same thing. The only difference was that he was also in charge of the army.
I would have been fine with an ouster of Morsi had he refused to give up power after his constitutional term was up, and he lost the election or was term-limited out. Neither of those things happened.
Or before that, Belgium and the Netherlands. Or more recently, Syria and Lebanon and Turkey. It's not like wars stay neatly on one side of a border. And it's not always the US expanding them.
Kim Jong Un has invaded exactly 0 countries. Kim Jong Il made pathetic invasion attempts of exactly 1 country (South Korea).
George W Bush, by contrast, started a war with Iraq, a country that had not attacked the US, was not planning on attacking the US, and had no means of attacking the US. In international law, that's the war crime of "aggression". And he started launching drone strikes into two allied countries (Pakistan and Yemen), which I'm sure feels like a war to the people who's apartment buildings get hit with guided missiles. And of course the whole Afghanistan venture. The US is by a lot of standards the world's largest warmonger. And no, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are no saints on this score, but Bush was particularly bad.
Actually, that is sort of the point of these invasions... to make sure that the governments are in some form representative of the people.
That is pure unadulterated nonsense.
For example, Hamid Karzai is no more representative of his people than Mohammed Omar: The difference is that Karzai is doing the bidding of the US and US-based oil companies instead of doing the bidding of Al Qaida and Iran. Karzai was not elected, he was selected by a meeting of the regional leaders of Afghanistan where the US Army was standing right outside the door (arguably in case the decision went differently).
When the people of the Middle East have overthrown dictators and replaced them with democratically elected leaders, the US does their best to put a stop to it. Egypt is the prime example of this: The elected president Mohammed Morsi, though certainly far from a perfect bastion of freedom and democracy, was ousted in a military coup, and the military of Egypt has close ties to the US.
Yes, there most certainly is such a thing as language superiority. It can even be somewhat measured.
For example, if, to solve a problem, language A takes about 30 lines of extremely clear code that takes the programmer about an hour to do, that's obviously superior to language B that takes 1000 lines of gobbledygook that takes the better part of a week. Especially if, when both programmers get a change request to their little application, language A is modified and the update ready in 10 minutes while language B requires another week-long 1000-line marathon.
And that can be a function of the language rather than the programmer skill, because language A has constructs that language B doesn't have that allows the programmer to express his intent clearly and easily. And yes, the community around language B can create libraries that reduce the 1000-line pile of code down to a 100-line pile of code, which will certainly help, but now the programmers specializing in language B now have to learn the library as well as the language itself. And meanwhile, the community around language A might have either created a library to make that 30-line program a 1-line program, or simply moved on to another problem.
So maybe you're going to argue that it's a problem that was particularly well-suited for language A. But if language A is continuously performing this much better than language B, sticking with language B isn't an aesthetic choice or a matter of opinion, it's simply stubborness.