I think your description is fair (if a bit over-venomous/graphic if applied to the Baroque cycle, but I found Cryptonomicon readable and fairly well-structured. It is very complex; I'd argue that it's complex in the way that Henry Fielding is complex; that half the joy is in following the linguistic obfuscation. It's a very different kind of value than that given by terse, clear writing, but I think it's a real value, and I think Cryptonomicon certainly has enough of it to be better than "verbal ejaculate."
That's not oppression. And, frankly, women are behind that trend. It's not men dressing up their daughters like that. (That assumes it even is a trend; I'd like to see some hard data before I consider it anything but anecdotal.)
Because men have no control or stake in parenting. No men are involved anywhere in the fashion industry, or the marketing apparatus attached to it. And because women can't be the instruments of societal pressures and contribute to their own oppression. Oh, wait.
That's not oppression. They have the exact same ability to negotiate for their salary as their male co-workers. Now it might be an interesting study to determine why women don't do this as often, or if they do why they are less successful at it, but that has nothing to do with oppression.
This is like saying that, in the Victorian era, the fact that more children were chained to desks than adults is because the children tended to negotiate less. Your "Women are categorically less likely to negotiate" thing is unsupported, but even taking it for granted, would show a societal pressure to settle for less. And given that in our current society, management does much more to set wages than the employee does, even in situations where negotiation is part of the deal, your argument just doesn't hold water.
How about the massive gap in numbers in government, as well as the huge gap between males and females in CEO positions?
What about it? It doesn't indicate oppression.
What does it indicate, that jobs with any power attached to them are overwhelmingly male-dominated?
We haven't conquered sexism. But people who have a vested interest in inequality have worked hard to spread the idea that we have.
It's not that it's not potentially a science... it's that it's not responsibly done, almost never peer reviewed, and traditionally appears in popular science magazines instead of journals.
The lack of factual basis for current research in the field makes it not science. The agendas of the people doing it make it immoral. The two are separate issues.
Any definitions other than, you know, the usual one of protestant Christianity.
Unitarian Universalists are arguably not Christian... Unitarianism started as a belief in the singular nature of the Christian God.
There are quite a few Christian brands of Deism; in fact, every Deist I've known (a surprising number, weirdly enough) has been Christian in either the traditional or gnostic traditions.
The things they believe or think that may stem from their religion certainly matter; the religions themselves, no. This is important because we elected a president (Bush) partially based on his identification with Christianity, while he holds views that most Christians do not.
I would oppose anyone who said that he wanted to pass a law requiring non-Muslims to pay tribute. It doesn't matter that he's Muslim.
Germans being primarily pink is a phenotype, not a stereotype.
Also, how is the stereotype of nurturing women, mathy men "useful." If we give everyone equal opportunity, people will sort out based on individual ability/inclination. The stereotyping at best does nothing, and in reality, ends up culling worthwhile people out of fields that would suit them.
Individuals buck trends, but our overall culture tends to push people into roles. And did you never run into anyone who teased you for being into maths/computers? I know I caught a lot of flack for being into reading, not caring about sports, and for various other stereotypically "feminine" interests.
There's a widening gap in the ballet field because of cultural expectations. If a girl takes ballet, that's normal and praiseworthy. If a guy takes it, why, he's weird.
Your second point makes no sense in the context of gender, as far as I can tell.
People tend to be interested in sports they themselves can be involved in, or which at least fail to cater to negative views of them.
It is a fundamental problem that half the Superbowl ads are "Wouldn't you love to fuck these women? Drink Brand X Beer in Brand Y Cars. Fuck women." It is a fundamental problem that there was an immediate and hate-filled response from male sports fans toward the WNBA.
Also, people ask why skilled trades are male-dominated all the time.
Read the book The Beauty Myth. Our cultural indoctrination is part and parcel of being a sexist society, and overcoming it is the hardest and most necessary part of overcoming sexism.
There's a difference between demanding a 50-50 mix, and saying "Huh, there's a huge disparity there."
Also, for a long-ass time, most teachers were men. This points to cultural difference. Earlier this decade, there was a much more even split in CS. Thus, unless the human brain has changed demonstrably over ten years, maybe it's not biology.
We have a hard time accepting it because it's not true in the sense that you mean it, and because it's consistently used as a tool to try and argue women out of important/meaningful/well-paying work.
Happily, this justifies forcible extraction of wealth from the oppressors.
Wow, way to throw a buzzword at the discussion and think you've contributed.
Where is this forcible extraction of wealth? Is making CS a place where women can participate somehow stealing from you?
Oh, wait. You're just being misogynist.
As a side note:
Since we know a priori that men and women have vastly differing interests and skills, it must logically be the case that a difference in employment statistics reflects the natural separation of duties between the genders. Happily, this means we can discriminate against women all we want, without doing any harm.
Work flax into cloth on a spinning jenny, right now. No googling.
Just because they are handicrafts doesn't mean they don't need specialist knowledge or skill.
And as other people have said, it's not a coincidence that traditional "women's work" is in the low-paying, low-prestige fields. It's because they have been treated as second class citizens.
No, because I don't reduce things down to cute sound bites, ignoring the actual causes of things. No, because there's evidence all around (especially having been in the teaching field) of cultural bias pushing kids around based on gender.
No, I've never thought that. Because it's not a thought; it's an attempt to close down thought and just accept an unjust status quo.
Slashdot is one of the more respectable and established tech sites, and the misogyny and sexism here even in posts that have nothing to do with gender are staggering.
I'd imagine that women show up, see the fifteen rape jokes in the opening comments on a post about a new kind of laser or something, and decide not to post on the forums, or not to reveal their gender at the least.
Also, no one is even talking about forcing anyone anywhere.
What people do want to do is make CS a friendlier, less misogynist environment. Which would be a good goal if only two women total were in the field.
Also, please, please, please never say the "emotions/non-emotional" argument again. It's stupid, and has only ever been used as an argument to bar women from productive work.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that a cloned individual is only genetically identical.
That'll be a Catch 22 if we can clone people and their memories, which isn't reasonably a thing to be expected.
I think your description is fair (if a bit over-venomous/graphic if applied to the Baroque cycle, but I found Cryptonomicon readable and fairly well-structured. It is very complex; I'd argue that it's complex in the way that Henry Fielding is complex; that half the joy is in following the linguistic obfuscation. It's a very different kind of value than that given by terse, clear writing, but I think it's a real value, and I think Cryptonomicon certainly has enough of it to be better than "verbal ejaculate."
I dunno, man. You called a man's novel ejaculate, and the man himself a schizoid idiot savant. I can see how that might rankle.
Not that the response was really valid either, but I do think you're a little harsh on Cryptonomicon.
Their "junior members?" Is this a case of "What I love about high school girls: I keep getting older, they stay the same age?"
Because men have no control or stake in parenting. No men are involved anywhere in the fashion industry, or the marketing apparatus attached to it. And because women can't be the instruments of societal pressures and contribute to their own oppression. Oh, wait.
This is like saying that, in the Victorian era, the fact that more children were chained to desks than adults is because the children tended to negotiate less. Your "Women are categorically less likely to negotiate" thing is unsupported, but even taking it for granted, would show a societal pressure to settle for less. And given that in our current society, management does much more to set wages than the employee does, even in situations where negotiation is part of the deal, your argument just doesn't hold water.
What does it indicate, that jobs with any power attached to them are overwhelmingly male-dominated?
We haven't conquered sexism. But people who have a vested interest in inequality have worked hard to spread the idea that we have.
It's not that it's not potentially a science... it's that it's not responsibly done, almost never peer reviewed, and traditionally appears in popular science magazines instead of journals.
The lack of factual basis for current research in the field makes it not science. The agendas of the people doing it make it immoral. The two are separate issues.
These statistics?
72.2% men, 28.8% women? In 2006?
Any definitions other than, you know, the usual one of protestant Christianity.
Unitarian Universalists are arguably not Christian... Unitarianism started as a belief in the singular nature of the Christian God.
There are quite a few Christian brands of Deism; in fact, every Deist I've known (a surprising number, weirdly enough) has been Christian in either the traditional or gnostic traditions.
The things they believe or think that may stem from their religion certainly matter; the religions themselves, no. This is important because we elected a president (Bush) partially based on his identification with Christianity, while he holds views that most Christians do not.
I would oppose anyone who said that he wanted to pass a law requiring non-Muslims to pay tribute. It doesn't matter that he's Muslim.
Germans being primarily pink is a phenotype, not a stereotype.
Also, how is the stereotype of nurturing women, mathy men "useful." If we give everyone equal opportunity, people will sort out based on individual ability/inclination. The stereotyping at best does nothing, and in reality, ends up culling worthwhile people out of fields that would suit them.
Individuals buck trends, but our overall culture tends to push people into roles. And did you never run into anyone who teased you for being into maths/computers? I know I caught a lot of flack for being into reading, not caring about sports, and for various other stereotypically "feminine" interests.
Well, it could be in the increasing sexualization of female children and their clothes.
Or the way that females make less money in the same positions across the board.
How about the massive gap in numbers in government, as well as the huge gap between males and females in CEO positions?
Just because we're not as bad as horrible countries doesn't mean we've fixed all the problems.
There's a widening gap in the ballet field because of cultural expectations. If a girl takes ballet, that's normal and praiseworthy. If a guy takes it, why, he's weird.
Your second point makes no sense in the context of gender, as far as I can tell.
Actually, everything you say is wrong.
People tend to be interested in sports they themselves can be involved in, or which at least fail to cater to negative views of them.
It is a fundamental problem that half the Superbowl ads are "Wouldn't you love to fuck these women? Drink Brand X Beer in Brand Y Cars. Fuck women." It is a fundamental problem that there was an immediate and hate-filled response from male sports fans toward the WNBA.
Also, people ask why skilled trades are male-dominated all the time.
It has everything to do with sexism.
Read the book The Beauty Myth. Our cultural indoctrination is part and parcel of being a sexist society, and overcoming it is the hardest and most necessary part of overcoming sexism.
There's a difference between demanding a 50-50 mix, and saying "Huh, there's a huge disparity there."
Also, for a long-ass time, most teachers were men. This points to cultural difference. Earlier this decade, there was a much more even split in CS. Thus, unless the human brain has changed demonstrably over ten years, maybe it's not biology.
We have a hard time accepting it because it's not true in the sense that you mean it, and because it's consistently used as a tool to try and argue women out of important/meaningful/well-paying work.
Wow, way to throw a buzzword at the discussion and think you've contributed.
Where is this forcible extraction of wealth? Is making CS a place where women can participate somehow stealing from you?
Oh, wait. You're just being misogynist.
As a side note:
The same struggles, plus a culture that thinks the rape jokes in Family Guy are the height of wit.
No one's looking for quotas or an easier path. We're looking for a work environment that's not hostile to women.
Work flax into cloth on a spinning jenny, right now. No googling.
Just because they are handicrafts doesn't mean they don't need specialist knowledge or skill.
And as other people have said, it's not a coincidence that traditional "women's work" is in the low-paying, low-prestige fields. It's because they have been treated as second class citizens.
No, because I don't reduce things down to cute sound bites, ignoring the actual causes of things. No, because there's evidence all around (especially having been in the teaching field) of cultural bias pushing kids around based on gender.
No, I've never thought that. Because it's not a thought; it's an attempt to close down thought and just accept an unjust status quo.
Seriously?
Slashdot is one of the more respectable and established tech sites, and the misogyny and sexism here even in posts that have nothing to do with gender are staggering.
I'd imagine that women show up, see the fifteen rape jokes in the opening comments on a post about a new kind of laser or something, and decide not to post on the forums, or not to reveal their gender at the least.
Actually, it kind of has.
Especially (to bite a post a couple above) since traditional gender roles and jobs have changed over time.
It's not biology, it's culture.
Well said and correct. My hat is off to you.
Mod parent awesome, please.
Also, no one is even talking about forcing anyone anywhere.
What people do want to do is make CS a friendlier, less misogynist environment. Which would be a good goal if only two women total were in the field.
Also, please, please, please never say the "emotions/non-emotional" argument again. It's stupid, and has only ever been used as an argument to bar women from productive work.