If you have ADHD, an Autistic Spectrum Disorder, or other health issue that impacts working memory or executive function it's a lifesaver. I can't rely on my phone for notifications because I can't rely on myself to set the sound loud enough or to remember to bring it from one room to another. My watch sends me all the notifications I need even when my phone is on silent in another room. This means my clothes and dishes are washed, the litterboxes are clean, I eat lunch regularly, all my medication gets taken, I'm not late to appointments or meetings, and my husband is no longer constantly angry that I'm not answering the phone. What someone who doesn't have these sorts of issues does with the watch to justify the spending I have no idea.
As for the expense, it's much cheeper than even one of the following: having to treat cats for UTIs (last time required hospitalization for ~$1500), the medical issues not eating will cause (migraine trigger which requires daily medication when not managed), or the divorce my inability to even remember my share of household chores was inevitably going to lead to in a few years (I was the primary income for many years).
Except it's not just "recent culture" -- hand knitting has been women's work since knitting moved into the factory. In addition, there's no inidcation in historical literature that only men knit in the past, just that knitting as a profession was something only available to men. At the same time, only men could be in sewing guilds, baking guilds, etc, but these were tasks frequently performed inside the home by wives, mothers, and daughters. The statement in wikipedia does not state that knitting was historically a male skill, just that it was a male-only profession.
Her statement is not wrong. Regardless of the climate of the 14th century, in this century (and the last) hand knitting has been typically considered part of "woman's work"
You are right; my explaination was very oversimplified and narrowed down to only one particular type of AA policy that is generally considered acceptable. Thank you for giving me more information. I actually have more knowledge of what is not okay as far as AA programs go than I have of what is actually okay.
(Yes, I know, some of that is socialized behavior; but some isn't).
But how do you determine what is and isn't socialized behavior? How do you figure out that women just arn't interested if the "girls don't like math and science, girls like social issues" socialization starts so early? Untill we get to the point where we (we being both adults and other children) ARN'T telling little girls that all the time, we're going to run into the "is it socialization, or are girls not interested?" issue.
The kind of policy you are describing was declared unconstitutional about 25 years ago. Companies are NOT supposed to use any kind of quota system. They also are not allowed to use a literal point system for race. The idea of affermitive action is that all other things being equal (ie if given qualifications, people skills, etc, you'd probibly have to resort to coin tossing), you give the job to the person who is in the minority group. The is to offset the fact that often the white male would be given the job in a "they're both equally qualified".
Ok. lets get rid of all bias and discrimination thing, and lets imagine 50 men and 50 women and clear all the discouraging comments they might have received in their life. Ask them to choose between "Interior Design" and "Computer Science". The pay and conditions would be exactly the same.
The problem with this experiment starts right here. You can not just wave a wand a *poof* no more baises, no more discrimination. Maybe you can picture the enviroment, but the people in your experiment have STILL BE EFFECTED BY IT. Why do I say that? Because getting rid of a mindset you've been socialized towards since birth is HARD. The women you're picturing in your experiment probibly had the "math is hard" barbie as a kid or knew someone who had it (regardless, they live in a society where that feeling is wide spread enough to have the doll made), watched teachers give more computer time to the boys in school, may have been actively discouraged in math and science. Even if they weren't actively discouraged, society sends messages that its "un-feminine" to be a geek, and that its not "cool" to be "un-feminine." The guys you're picturing were probibly all pushed into computers or model cars or sports as a kid. They may have been a boy scout and learned to build fires and hike. They were told that guys should be smart and strong, that if anyone stays home to take care of kids, it should be mom. Thier mom probibly did the decorating in the house, just like her mom before her (because that's what women did back then, and even with women in the job market now, we still expect women to take care of the majority of the "home making"). Try that argument again when your adults haven't been shaped by the society we live in now, and then it will have some merit.
It's important to monitor when there are reasons other than women "just choosing other feilds." Women are often discouraged by society from entering computer science, and then once they are in it they are discouraged by the people already in the feild! I've had people belittle my ideas, but then accept them completely when presented by a guy in the exact same way five minutes later. I've asked for help checking my kernel configurations only to have some guy GRAB MY KEYBOARD and do it for me instead of showing me how, and then get offended when I say "I'd really like to learn how to do it myself" because after all, they were just trying to help. I get hit on by classmates even though I am wearing an engagement ring and have previously expressed disintrest. I get picked on for wearing something other than jeans and a t-shirt. I've had people tell sexist, blatently sexual jokes and them escelate them just because it made me uncomfortable.
In short? I am regularly treated by guys in computer science like I have to make a choice -- either I'm a girl or I'm a geek. If I'm geeky, I not have anything "girl-y" about me (forget about just not talking about shoes, I better not even wear cute shoes around geeks). Outside of computer science, nobody has problem with my being both. My sorority sisters have no problem with my geekiness. They don't care if I bring my laptop to retreats to recompile my kernel, they don't care if I have 16 pages of code spread out around me durring chapter meetings trying to figure out what is going on with it. They encourage me to be geeky AND girl-y.
And yes, we DO need to pay attention to the numbers of male nurses and to the number of male child minders, because gender inequalities due to stupid society rules, preasures, and assumptions are damaging to both men and women who want careers in traditionally gendered feilds. It is a problem on both sides of the fence. The only reason that low numbers of women get more notice is that women have spent the last 100 or so years making nessesary hard pushes to get the right to get into those roles and because of that, there are organizations to push for awareness of the problem. Men, because most jobs have been open to them, have not made the pushes that need to be made, and they don't have organizations working to raise awareness of the problems male nurses, caregivers, elementry school teachers, midwives, childgivers, and homemakers face. But the fact that one problem does not get the attention it deserves does NOT lessen the other problem, or give us a reason to dismiss it. All it does is show that attention needs to be given somewhere else as well!
Slashdot Mirror
If you have ADHD, an Autistic Spectrum Disorder, or other health issue that impacts working memory or executive function it's a lifesaver. I can't rely on my phone for notifications because I can't rely on myself to set the sound loud enough or to remember to bring it from one room to another. My watch sends me all the notifications I need even when my phone is on silent in another room. This means my clothes and dishes are washed, the litterboxes are clean, I eat lunch regularly, all my medication gets taken, I'm not late to appointments or meetings, and my husband is no longer constantly angry that I'm not answering the phone. What someone who doesn't have these sorts of issues does with the watch to justify the spending I have no idea. As for the expense, it's much cheeper than even one of the following: having to treat cats for UTIs (last time required hospitalization for ~$1500), the medical issues not eating will cause (migraine trigger which requires daily medication when not managed), or the divorce my inability to even remember my share of household chores was inevitably going to lead to in a few years (I was the primary income for many years).
Except it's not just "recent culture" -- hand knitting has been women's work since knitting moved into the factory. In addition, there's no inidcation in historical literature that only men knit in the past, just that knitting as a profession was something only available to men. At the same time, only men could be in sewing guilds, baking guilds, etc, but these were tasks frequently performed inside the home by wives, mothers, and daughters. The statement in wikipedia does not state that knitting was historically a male skill, just that it was a male-only profession.
Her statement is not wrong. Regardless of the climate of the 14th century, in this century (and the last) hand knitting has been typically considered part of "woman's work"
You are right; my explaination was very oversimplified and narrowed down to only one particular type of AA policy that is generally considered acceptable. Thank you for giving me more information. I actually have more knowledge of what is not okay as far as AA programs go than I have of what is actually okay.
(Yes, I know, some of that is socialized behavior; but some isn't). But how do you determine what is and isn't socialized behavior? How do you figure out that women just arn't interested if the "girls don't like math and science, girls like social issues" socialization starts so early? Untill we get to the point where we (we being both adults and other children) ARN'T telling little girls that all the time, we're going to run into the "is it socialization, or are girls not interested?" issue.
The kind of policy you are describing was declared unconstitutional about 25 years ago. Companies are NOT supposed to use any kind of quota system. They also are not allowed to use a literal point system for race. The idea of affermitive action is that all other things being equal (ie if given qualifications, people skills, etc, you'd probibly have to resort to coin tossing), you give the job to the person who is in the minority group. The is to offset the fact that often the white male would be given the job in a "they're both equally qualified".
The problem with this experiment starts right here. You can not just wave a wand a *poof* no more baises, no more discrimination. Maybe you can picture the enviroment, but the people in your experiment have STILL BE EFFECTED BY IT. Why do I say that? Because getting rid of a mindset you've been socialized towards since birth is HARD. The women you're picturing in your experiment probibly had the "math is hard" barbie as a kid or knew someone who had it (regardless, they live in a society where that feeling is wide spread enough to have the doll made), watched teachers give more computer time to the boys in school, may have been actively discouraged in math and science. Even if they weren't actively discouraged, society sends messages that its "un-feminine" to be a geek, and that its not "cool" to be "un-feminine." The guys you're picturing were probibly all pushed into computers or model cars or sports as a kid. They may have been a boy scout and learned to build fires and hike. They were told that guys should be smart and strong, that if anyone stays home to take care of kids, it should be mom. Thier mom probibly did the decorating in the house, just like her mom before her (because that's what women did back then, and even with women in the job market now, we still expect women to take care of the majority of the "home making"). Try that argument again when your adults haven't been shaped by the society we live in now, and then it will have some merit.
It's important to monitor when there are reasons other than women "just choosing other feilds." Women are often discouraged by society from entering computer science, and then once they are in it they are discouraged by the people already in the feild! I've had people belittle my ideas, but then accept them completely when presented by a guy in the exact same way five minutes later. I've asked for help checking my kernel configurations only to have some guy GRAB MY KEYBOARD and do it for me instead of showing me how, and then get offended when I say "I'd really like to learn how to do it myself" because after all, they were just trying to help. I get hit on by classmates even though I am wearing an engagement ring and have previously expressed disintrest. I get picked on for wearing something other than jeans and a t-shirt. I've had people tell sexist, blatently sexual jokes and them escelate them just because it made me uncomfortable.
In short? I am regularly treated by guys in computer science like I have to make a choice -- either I'm a girl or I'm a geek. If I'm geeky, I not have anything "girl-y" about me (forget about just not talking about shoes, I better not even wear cute shoes around geeks). Outside of computer science, nobody has problem with my being both. My sorority sisters have no problem with my geekiness. They don't care if I bring my laptop to retreats to recompile my kernel, they don't care if I have 16 pages of code spread out around me durring chapter meetings trying to figure out what is going on with it. They encourage me to be geeky AND girl-y.
And yes, we DO need to pay attention to the numbers of male nurses and to the number of male child minders, because gender inequalities due to stupid society rules, preasures, and assumptions are damaging to both men and women who want careers in traditionally gendered feilds. It is a problem on both sides of the fence. The only reason that low numbers of women get more notice is that women have spent the last 100 or so years making nessesary hard pushes to get the right to get into those roles and because of that, there are organizations to push for awareness of the problem. Men, because most jobs have been open to them, have not made the pushes that need to be made, and they don't have organizations working to raise awareness of the problems male nurses, caregivers, elementry school teachers, midwives, childgivers, and homemakers face. But the fact that one problem does not get the attention it deserves does NOT lessen the other problem, or give us a reason to dismiss it. All it does is show that attention needs to be given somewhere else as well!