Ah I get your rules now.. Only you're allowed to say your anecdotes are correct. I'm not. I forgot. Sorry. That's about the kind of logic I'd expect from a feminist or any social 'justice' warrior, really. Maybe your area wasn't the norm? Oh, oops, sorry, another failure to conform. When will I ever learn never to question?
You're engaging in the same sort of systemic shaming towards me that you would not tolerate towards women. The only arguments you've made are an ad hominem and a generalization that men are more selfish than women. Knock it off with the shaming language if you expect people to take your morality seriously.
As far as toxic environments go, school has always been a place where you are told to sit down, shut up and do as you're told, which can be good or bad depending on the circumstances. Today, though, mainly because of feminism's push in government and education to focus on women and girls at the expense of men and boys, students are encouraged to express and focus on their feelings and feminine traits (as long as they are 'positive', definition to be set by the faculty) like conformity and group awareness, instead of on objective measurements of achievement and competition. Naturally, girls respond well to this, but the boys? not so much. This cultural toxicity to individual expression and achievement (which tend to be masculine traits) has long since spread into the faculty dynamics as well. There are fewer men involved today because education isn't very rewarding to them anymore. Like the boys in class, the men are expected to behave/express themselves like dominant female space expects them to or face career-ending fallacious accusations. It has nothing to do with selfishness, not on the part of men anyway.
These sound about right to me. I don't know where you're justifying your 'more male teachers today than in the past' prideful patriarchy shit, but it's not in alignment with at least this cursory reality check.
When my parents were in school, many of their teachers were male, especially for math and science. When I was in elementary school in the 80s, the ratio was maybe 1/4. In hs? less than 1/6. Today? With all the 'men are sexist pedophile rapists' shit thrown around, it's gotta be less.
You're just pretending like your definition is the standard one. It's not. When someone says 'gamer' it conjures up a particular set of attributes and lifestyle. A gamer is someone for whom gaming is a large part of his life, whether it's chess, traditional DnD/roleplay, or video games too. Playing candy crush on a cellphone every so often does not make that person a gamer for the same reason someone driving his toyota to work every day does not make him a car enthusiast. The term 'gamer' means 'gaming enthusiast.'
This article tries to redefine the term as a meaningless definition where just about everyone is a gamer which makes no sense at all. That's a distinction without a difference. I guess that's what identity politickers want, though. If they can't make everyone into drones, they alter the language to make it harder to define what makes us diverse...all in the name of diversity of course..
The men will follow? Did you mean 'should follow'? What are you saying, that they'll follow along like mindless idiots and just consume what they're given, even if game devs focused primarily on what women want?
Women deal with 'true, real life concerning' issues and what? Men don't? I think there's a ton of anthropological, biological, psychological, and socio-economic history that proves you have it backwards.
Would you call someone a car enthusiast because he drives his toyota corolla to work every day? Not necessarily. Car enthusiasts can and do drive to work, but driving to work alone does not make them car enthusiasts. The term gamer is associated with gaming enthusiasts, as it should be. This means gaming is a large part of the person's life.
The problem with this argument is that it waters the definition down to the distinction without a difference level in order to justify (very poorly) feminist incursions into the gaming sphere.
I wouldn't call those games. The plot and gameplay is linear, with only one or two outcomes, and the 'difficult' parts QTE'd to the point of brainless button mashing. I can see why women would like those interactive soap operas, but I wouldn't call them games. A game requires practice and mastery.
Perhaps the problem with 'real life' for many of these guys is that it's now too wrapped up in gynocentric imperatives and preferences for their liking. Gaming (and athletics too) is one of the last few areas where guys can go and be themselves, though recent events suggest the social 'justice' war front has moved in, staking its claims, and "making history her story." Too bad.
Does it really matter if he is? The question is whether he's telling the truth. The fact is, school systems have become quite toxic to men. There used to be a lot more of them, and now they're leaving for a reason.
..or maybe nursing offers a social and psychological environment more suited to them. It's not that women are corralled into it, it's that they want it.
Men who try on nursing often find that long term exposure to 'female space' politics is toxic to their sanity and productivity. While both men and women have their own set of group work dynamics, the problem is that feminism demonizes the existence of men's while praising the existence of women's. In fact, it goes out of its way to justify "make history, her story", turning male spaces into female ones.....and feminists wonder why they're labeled hypocrites?
The social justice warrior push into tech is getting brazen. The article goes to the edge of suggesting that women are smarter than men, but then says when the applied knowledge gets specific enough, they fall behind? The problem is that the best way to measure mastery of knowledge is to measure how well it is applied to open ended problems. If most women are dropping out at that point, it means they can't hack it. If the majority of high performing employees at places like google are male, that suggests a problem with how the schools measure performance more than anything else. It's not like google isn't rolling out the red carpet for them, and if they were truly better, google would snap them up in an instant and have a female majority by now. Do women earn more credits and get better grades? Probably, but these days, high schools and colleges are bending over backwards to give women the fast track, so I wouldn't trust any of the statistics they present. In fact, the whole article reeks of political think tank style 'research.'
Lucy Sanders, CEO and co-founder of the National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT), noted that compared to universities, "corporations are all different, and they're all very private."
I think this unintentionally presents the real motivations behind this whole piece: The justification of more regulation from the feminist lobby.
There are many theories. One asserts that prejudice against women's abilities throws barriers in their way; a related perspective suggests women are less likely to enter technical fields because they expect such barriers.
If this is even true, I wonder why they expect to find such barriers? Maybe because the media, school system, and society have beaten it into their heads they they're victims of the evil 'patriarchy' keeping them out of everything?
"Boys fall in love with computers as machines; girls see them as tools to do something else,"
Exactly true. I would say this is so with all technology, not just computers. However, it takes passion to stay afloat in these fields. You can't just get a degree and then expect to operate as a drone for the rest of your career if you want to move beyond the internship. Perhaps this is the reason why women drop out of the highly competitive applied fields. Hell, most men can't hack those positions either. It's one thing to be motivated by general ideas as the article suggests, but tech people have to have the ability to break those down into individual steps and then build something that executes them.
If anything, the ubiquity of an open, relatively cheap platform like the PC grants the majority of the population the opportunity to learn computing skills at nearly all levels in a meritocratic environment. Other than the cost of the hardware and an internet connection, there is no boundary, except motivation and interest. Sex has nothing to do with it. It doesn't surprise me that SJWs have a problem with such open meritocracy: it provides objective measurement of individual achievement, which is a big emotional hiccup for those who want to believe we're all intrinsically equally capable, yet 'oppressed' by class warfare.
I didn't change the subject. Allowing the government to force me to live your lifestyle destroys my quality of life. You're still welcome to pack a dozen people into a single family home if you like, but I don't want to live that way.
wow.. the taxpayers will have a lot of f35s in their back yards....oh wait. the taxpayer just gets the bill in the form of higher taxes and higher inflation.. oh well.
or random things that happen on the roads. Ice slicks, debris, that truck with the steel bar that's about to bounce off and land in front of you, etc..
On slashdot, there was an article that linked to a video of google engineers describing how their system works. IIRC, they preprogrammed responses to a bunch of situations (like avoiding a bicycle on the side of the road), using heuristics to detect when/where/which situation was occuring. In contrast, humans are in a constant state of intuitive heuristics. While they take longer to react, they're aware of possible consequences long before a computer can be, which puts them way ahead of electronic idiot savants with lightning reflexes.
Because.. it's not a website. It's an 'experience'! which is just newspeak for the assumption that users need/want it fed to them through a needle because they don't know what's best for themselves. This mentality has infected local software and UIs too.
So do so-called 'progressive's. The real delineation is one of ideological conflict with reality. The more the defended ideology conflicts, the more often its defenders justify censorship to keep it afloat. The last 100 years of politics should've taught us all this.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah I get your rules now.. Only you're allowed to say your anecdotes are correct. I'm not. I forgot. Sorry. That's about the kind of logic I'd expect from a feminist or any social 'justice' warrior, really. Maybe your area wasn't the norm? Oh, oops, sorry, another failure to conform. When will I ever learn never to question?
You're engaging in the same sort of systemic shaming towards me that you would not tolerate towards women. The only arguments you've made are an ad hominem and a generalization that men are more selfish than women. Knock it off with the shaming language if you expect people to take your morality seriously.
As far as toxic environments go, school has always been a place where you are told to sit down, shut up and do as you're told, which can be good or bad depending on the circumstances. Today, though, mainly because of feminism's push in government and education to focus on women and girls at the expense of men and boys, students are encouraged to express and focus on their feelings and feminine traits (as long as they are 'positive', definition to be set by the faculty) like conformity and group awareness, instead of on objective measurements of achievement and competition. Naturally, girls respond well to this, but the boys? not so much. This cultural toxicity to individual expression and achievement (which tend to be masculine traits) has long since spread into the faculty dynamics as well. There are fewer men involved today because education isn't very rewarding to them anymore. Like the boys in class, the men are expected to behave/express themselves like dominant female space expects them to or face career-ending fallacious accusations. It has nothing to do with selfishness, not on the part of men anyway.
A quick search gave me this
http://www.edweek.org/media/po...
go to page 12, there's a graph that shows the trend from 86.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/d...
read under demographics.. 76% of teachers are female in 2008.
These sound about right to me. I don't know where you're justifying your 'more male teachers today than in the past' prideful patriarchy shit, but it's not in alignment with at least this cursory reality check.
Well, as long as we're comparing anecdotes.
When my parents were in school, many of their teachers were male, especially for math and science. When I was in elementary school in the 80s, the ratio was maybe 1/4. In hs? less than 1/6. Today? With all the 'men are sexist pedophile rapists' shit thrown around, it's gotta be less.
You're just pretending like your definition is the standard one. It's not. When someone says 'gamer' it conjures up a particular set of attributes and lifestyle. A gamer is someone for whom gaming is a large part of his life, whether it's chess, traditional DnD/roleplay, or video games too. Playing candy crush on a cellphone every so often does not make that person a gamer for the same reason someone driving his toyota to work every day does not make him a car enthusiast. The term 'gamer' means 'gaming enthusiast.'
This article tries to redefine the term as a meaningless definition where just about everyone is a gamer which makes no sense at all. That's a distinction without a difference. I guess that's what identity politickers want, though. If they can't make everyone into drones, they alter the language to make it harder to define what makes us diverse...all in the name of diversity of course..
The men will follow? Did you mean 'should follow'? What are you saying, that they'll follow along like mindless idiots and just consume what they're given, even if game devs focused primarily on what women want?
Women deal with 'true, real life concerning' issues and what? Men don't? I think there's a ton of anthropological, biological, psychological, and socio-economic history that proves you have it backwards.
Would you call someone a car enthusiast because he drives his toyota corolla to work every day? Not necessarily. Car enthusiasts can and do drive to work, but driving to work alone does not make them car enthusiasts. The term gamer is associated with gaming enthusiasts, as it should be. This means gaming is a large part of the person's life.
The problem with this argument is that it waters the definition down to the distinction without a difference level in order to justify (very poorly) feminist incursions into the gaming sphere.
I suppose, if you count the social engineering as a true part of culture.
I wouldn't call those games. The plot and gameplay is linear, with only one or two outcomes, and the 'difficult' parts QTE'd to the point of brainless button mashing. I can see why women would like those interactive soap operas, but I wouldn't call them games. A game requires practice and mastery.
Perhaps the problem with 'real life' for many of these guys is that it's now too wrapped up in gynocentric imperatives and preferences for their liking. Gaming (and athletics too) is one of the last few areas where guys can go and be themselves, though recent events suggest the social 'justice' war front has moved in, staking its claims, and "making history her story." Too bad.
Does it really matter if he is? The question is whether he's telling the truth. The fact is, school systems have become quite toxic to men. There used to be a lot more of them, and now they're leaving for a reason.
..or maybe nursing offers a social and psychological environment more suited to them. It's not that women are corralled into it, it's that they want it.
Men who try on nursing often find that long term exposure to 'female space' politics is toxic to their sanity and productivity. While both men and women have their own set of group work dynamics, the problem is that feminism demonizes the existence of men's while praising the existence of women's. In fact, it goes out of its way to justify "make history, her story", turning male spaces into female ones. ....and feminists wonder why they're labeled hypocrites?
The social justice warrior push into tech is getting brazen. The article goes to the edge of suggesting that women are smarter than men, but then says when the applied knowledge gets specific enough, they fall behind? The problem is that the best way to measure mastery of knowledge is to measure how well it is applied to open ended problems. If most women are dropping out at that point, it means they can't hack it. If the majority of high performing employees at places like google are male, that suggests a problem with how the schools measure performance more than anything else. It's not like google isn't rolling out the red carpet for them, and if they were truly better, google would snap them up in an instant and have a female majority by now. Do women earn more credits and get better grades? Probably, but these days, high schools and colleges are bending over backwards to give women the fast track, so I wouldn't trust any of the statistics they present. In fact, the whole article reeks of political think tank style 'research.'
Lucy Sanders, CEO and co-founder of the National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT), noted that compared to universities, "corporations are all different, and they're all very private."
I think this unintentionally presents the real motivations behind this whole piece: The justification of more regulation from the feminist lobby.
There are many theories. One asserts that prejudice against women's abilities throws barriers in their way; a related perspective suggests women are less likely to enter technical fields because they expect such barriers.
If this is even true, I wonder why they expect to find such barriers? Maybe because the media, school system, and society have beaten it into their heads they they're victims of the evil 'patriarchy' keeping them out of everything?
"Boys fall in love with computers as machines; girls see them as tools to do something else,"
Exactly true. I would say this is so with all technology, not just computers. However, it takes passion to stay afloat in these fields. You can't just get a degree and then expect to operate as a drone for the rest of your career if you want to move beyond the internship. Perhaps this is the reason why women drop out of the highly competitive applied fields. Hell, most men can't hack those positions either. It's one thing to be motivated by general ideas as the article suggests, but tech people have to have the ability to break those down into individual steps and then build something that executes them.
If anything, the ubiquity of an open, relatively cheap platform like the PC grants the majority of the population the opportunity to learn computing skills at nearly all levels in a meritocratic environment. Other than the cost of the hardware and an internet connection, there is no boundary, except motivation and interest. Sex has nothing to do with it. It doesn't surprise me that SJWs have a problem with such open meritocracy: it provides objective measurement of individual achievement, which is a big emotional hiccup for those who want to believe we're all intrinsically equally capable, yet 'oppressed' by class warfare.
I didn't change the subject. Allowing the government to force me to live your lifestyle destroys my quality of life. You're still welcome to pack a dozen people into a single family home if you like, but I don't want to live that way.
Yeah, but only because the net will then be so expensive and legally risky to use that people just won't use it very much.
Internally Metered Pulse drives of course.
wow.. the taxpayers will have a lot of f35s in their back yards....oh wait. the taxpayer just gets the bill in the form of higher taxes and higher inflation.. oh well.
I suppose the 9/11 bombers were just "defending their country from an invading force" too?
why should "difficult during questioning" result in expulsion? You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Nah, socialists use taxes on your income and property, the communists use guns as they already own all of your property.
skin color and sex, both, yes.
What should be the case is that your personal information belong to YOU and not google or facebook. Then you get to call the shots.
or random things that happen on the roads. Ice slicks, debris, that truck with the steel bar that's about to bounce off and land in front of you, etc..
On slashdot, there was an article that linked to a video of google engineers describing how their system works. IIRC, they preprogrammed responses to a bunch of situations (like avoiding a bicycle on the side of the road), using heuristics to detect when/where/which situation was occuring. In contrast, humans are in a constant state of intuitive heuristics. While they take longer to react, they're aware of possible consequences long before a computer can be, which puts them way ahead of electronic idiot savants with lightning reflexes.
Because.. it's not a website. It's an 'experience'! which is just newspeak for the assumption that users need/want it fed to them through a needle because they don't know what's best for themselves. This mentality has infected local software and UIs too.
It gets in the way of getting shit done because it adds too much bureaucratic overhead, which is its own form of tyranny.
So do so-called 'progressive's. The real delineation is one of ideological conflict with reality. The more the defended ideology conflicts, the more often its defenders justify censorship to keep it afloat. The last 100 years of politics should've taught us all this.
Web apps will always be second class to local applications and data. In terms of access control they can't be beat.