Not everyone needs cars. Just pointing that out. Where I live many people don't have or need cars, because public transportation is so well developed. The public transportation uses electricity, which reduces the amount of pollution in the city center, and the electricity itself is created through environmentally-friendly means.
I think if you said "everyone needs transportation" that would be more accurate, but we could point out people that don't need transportation, and get nowhere:) No pun intended, of course.
The more massive generalisations you make the less people should listen to you. You are merely projecting your own ideas of what an environmentalist is to you, and the battering it to death with a bizarre take on logic.
Environmentalists like power sources which don't adversely affect the environment. The clue is in the name. Rants like yours are simply embarrassing.
You do realise that flight attending was initially a women-only job by corporate regulation (due to prevailing social attitudes at the time of its inception, many of which have since been demonstrated to be damaging to society as a whole), which caused it to be associated as a "feminine" career? There is nothing intrinsically "feminine" about it. As for such a niche career such as fashion design, I don't know much about it to comment.
More massive generalisations which do nothing but illustrate your tenuous ability to discern "fact" from "opinion", rendering your every post less and less valuable with each inane utterance.
That "study" (book) doesn't prove what you think it does. Apart from its dubious beginnings, it simply says that the discrimination doesn't all come from the workplace. That's it. It still says that there are reasons why women earn less than guys, but that they're not all what one might instantly assume.
You hit the nail on the head - there are a lack of women in the hiring pool to begin with. It would make sense to see what is making less women feel they can thrive in the IT sector, and either correct any failures or highlight incorrect assumptions the general public might have.
Guys can get paternity leave Guys get sick days every month Guys get "daddy days" when kids are sick, too... or, at least in civilized countries they do.
As for the discrimination lawsuits, seeing as you just did a fair bit of discrimination against women, so I'm not sure what sort of a point you are trying to make.
Deal with the "REAL discrimination" by levelling the playing field. It's clearly unfair to expect newborns to live at home on their own, so give both parents equal benefits when it comes to raising their children.
Maybe the correct response is to give equal paternity leave to men, too, instead of perpetually condemning women to not be hired as much as men? That would be actual equality, and if you are true to your word, you'd be all for that. It has nothing to do with being "politically correct", just fair and sensible. If you have a problem with equality and being fair and sensible, maybe the problem isn't with women in the workplace but with how you view women in, and out of, the workplace.
See, we can tell you are lying. You are saying there is no hate, but unless you've read every post and questioned everyone who wrote them, and everyone answered accurately in the negative towards hatred, you simply can't know that. Claiming there is no hate shows you are arguing from an irrational position. And no, the sexism doesn't "repeatedly" get debunked - again, your claim is just an opinion, and not based on fact.
And social justice activists include those who campaigned against slavery, against racial discrimination, against sexual discrimination, and against sexual orientation discrimination.
The ideology in question simply states that women are equal to men. That's it. If that ideology is being disagreed with then yes, the person doing the disagreeing is by definition a misogynist. You can't play the "disagreement is no reason to call names" argument if the disagreement is by definition something the name applies to. That is clearly illogical.
You are saying there is no hatred, which is something you literally can't know for sure, so you are clearly guessing. That means people shouldn't really listen to you, as you are arguing your opinion as fact, which is demonstrably false.
The longer you keep making these generalisations, and especially generalisations which excuse actual instances of hate, the more you debase your position. That goes for anyone making any argument.
OK, we should replace "SJW" with "People who call me out on biases and prejudices I have and have no intention of losing".
Would you call civil rights campaigners SJWs? Getting all angry because some black people were being discriminated against? Were they being "indignation whores"? Your loose definition encompasses people actually fighting a good fight against prejudice and inequality.
You'd most likely call Rosa Parks a SJW if she was still around. Calling for equality, and studying why it doesn't happen, is never a foolish endeavour, even if your insecurities make it feel like one to you...
You are assuming that women want to join STEM professions, which if they see they are not represented in, might think twice about doing so. So no, the idea that "corporate managers" are the only way to solve this is clearly incorrect, overly simplistic, and ensures any problems (if they exist, which the data suggests they do) will continue. It's nothing to do with man-hating or feminazism, just trying to restore the balance a fair and equal society strives to attain.
People are already doing that. Society can work on more than one thing at a time. The best way to get female CEOs is to remove as many barriers to women in the workplace in every department. IT is rather important, so it makes sense that any short-comings in this aspect should be tackled.
You are assuming that discrimination is happening during hiring. That's quite a powerful assumption, but not the only one.
Put yourself in the position of these women when they were children. Nearly every "computer person" they saw was a guy - from the computer TV shows, to the most famous writers in Computer magazines, the CEOs, the developers, and so on. They saw they were not represented in that industry. Why should they want to study in this masculine field, when it appears like no place for women, and that if they did enter, they would have to deal with blazing a trail for women as well as trying to do their work?
Problems with gender disparity in the workplace don't happen just in hiring, but start a long time before that. Children are impressionable, and they see things we might not assume they do.
So no, there might be problems with the industry's perception, and indeed with the industry itself, which do not show up as hiring discrimination.
The silence is not deafening - you just have your fingers in your ears.
Read her comments and then you'd know what she has to tell you. It's really not difficult. If her ideas are wrong, challenge them on their merits, not because of her age. Dismissing her out of hand simply because of her age isn't a rational thing to do.
You seem to be confusing people criticizing actual flaws of the US with people simply criticizing everything about the US. As someone else posted, you do indeed sound butthurt. If people don't highlight these flaws, nothing will be fixed. I understand you've gone through your entire life being told that the US is the most awesomest thing in the world, but you (and those like you) are actively hurting the US by attempting to stifle just criticism.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everyone needs cars. Just pointing that out. Where I live many people don't have or need cars, because public transportation is so well developed. The public transportation uses electricity, which reduces the amount of pollution in the city center, and the electricity itself is created through environmentally-friendly means.
I think if you said "everyone needs transportation" that would be more accurate, but we could point out people that don't need transportation, and get nowhere :) No pun intended, of course.
The more massive generalisations you make the less people should listen to you. You are merely projecting your own ideas of what an environmentalist is to you, and the battering it to death with a bizarre take on logic.
Environmentalists like power sources which don't adversely affect the environment. The clue is in the name. Rants like yours are simply embarrassing.
SOME greenies. Making massive generalisations like that demonstrates you're not making rational assumptions.
Its components only have a limited operating time before they succumb to the hostile environment and become untrustworthy.
s/Russia/US/ and it still checks out.
Are you saying women spend 7% of their working life on maternity leave?
You do realise that flight attending was initially a women-only job by corporate regulation (due to prevailing social attitudes at the time of its inception, many of which have since been demonstrated to be damaging to society as a whole), which caused it to be associated as a "feminine" career? There is nothing intrinsically "feminine" about it. As for such a niche career such as fashion design, I don't know much about it to comment.
More massive generalisations which do nothing but illustrate your tenuous ability to discern "fact" from "opinion", rendering your every post less and less valuable with each inane utterance.
That "study" (book) doesn't prove what you think it does. Apart from its dubious beginnings, it simply says that the discrimination doesn't all come from the workplace. That's it. It still says that there are reasons why women earn less than guys, but that they're not all what one might instantly assume.
You hit the nail on the head - there are a lack of women in the hiring pool to begin with. It would make sense to see what is making less women feel they can thrive in the IT sector, and either correct any failures or highlight incorrect assumptions the general public might have.
Guys can get paternity leave ... or, at least in civilized countries they do.
Guys get sick days every month
Guys get "daddy days" when kids are sick, too
As for the discrimination lawsuits, seeing as you just did a fair bit of discrimination against women, so I'm not sure what sort of a point you are trying to make.
Deal with the "REAL discrimination" by levelling the playing field. It's clearly unfair to expect newborns to live at home on their own, so give both parents equal benefits when it comes to raising their children.
Maybe the correct response is to give equal paternity leave to men, too, instead of perpetually condemning women to not be hired as much as men? That would be actual equality, and if you are true to your word, you'd be all for that. It has nothing to do with being "politically correct", just fair and sensible. If you have a problem with equality and being fair and sensible, maybe the problem isn't with women in the workplace but with how you view women in, and out of, the workplace.
See, we can tell you are lying. You are saying there is no hate, but unless you've read every post and questioned everyone who wrote them, and everyone answered accurately in the negative towards hatred, you simply can't know that. Claiming there is no hate shows you are arguing from an irrational position. And no, the sexism doesn't "repeatedly" get debunked - again, your claim is just an opinion, and not based on fact.
And social justice activists include those who campaigned against slavery, against racial discrimination, against sexual discrimination, and against sexual orientation discrimination.
The ideology in question simply states that women are equal to men. That's it. If that ideology is being disagreed with then yes, the person doing the disagreeing is by definition a misogynist. You can't play the "disagreement is no reason to call names" argument if the disagreement is by definition something the name applies to. That is clearly illogical.
You are saying there is no hatred, which is something you literally can't know for sure, so you are clearly guessing. That means people shouldn't really listen to you, as you are arguing your opinion as fact, which is demonstrably false.
The longer you keep making these generalisations, and especially generalisations which excuse actual instances of hate, the more you debase your position. That goes for anyone making any argument.
OK, we should replace "SJW" with "People who call me out on biases and prejudices I have and have no intention of losing". Would you call civil rights campaigners SJWs? Getting all angry because some black people were being discriminated against? Were they being "indignation whores"? Your loose definition encompasses people actually fighting a good fight against prejudice and inequality.
You'd most likely call Rosa Parks a SJW if she was still around. Calling for equality, and studying why it doesn't happen, is never a foolish endeavour, even if your insecurities make it feel like one to you...
You are assuming that women want to join STEM professions, which if they see they are not represented in, might think twice about doing so. So no, the idea that "corporate managers" are the only way to solve this is clearly incorrect, overly simplistic, and ensures any problems (if they exist, which the data suggests they do) will continue. It's nothing to do with man-hating or feminazism, just trying to restore the balance a fair and equal society strives to attain.
Of course. All cases of lacking equality should be investigated. IT is a special case, as it drives our economies, so is rather important to fix.
People are already doing that. Society can work on more than one thing at a time. The best way to get female CEOs is to remove as many barriers to women in the workplace in every department. IT is rather important, so it makes sense that any short-comings in this aspect should be tackled.
You are assuming that discrimination is happening during hiring. That's quite a powerful assumption, but not the only one.
Put yourself in the position of these women when they were children. Nearly every "computer person" they saw was a guy - from the computer TV shows, to the most famous writers in Computer magazines, the CEOs, the developers, and so on. They saw they were not represented in that industry. Why should they want to study in this masculine field, when it appears like no place for women, and that if they did enter, they would have to deal with blazing a trail for women as well as trying to do their work?
Problems with gender disparity in the workplace don't happen just in hiring, but start a long time before that. Children are impressionable, and they see things we might not assume they do.
So no, there might be problems with the industry's perception, and indeed with the industry itself, which do not show up as hiring discrimination.
The silence is not deafening - you just have your fingers in your ears.
Read her comments and then you'd know what she has to tell you. It's really not difficult. If her ideas are wrong, challenge them on their merits, not because of her age. Dismissing her out of hand simply because of her age isn't a rational thing to do.
507,416,607 is closer to 500,000,000 not 600,000,000 ;)
You seem to be confusing people criticizing actual flaws of the US with people simply criticizing everything about the US. As someone else posted, you do indeed sound butthurt. If people don't highlight these flaws, nothing will be fixed. I understand you've gone through your entire life being told that the US is the most awesomest thing in the world, but you (and those like you) are actively hurting the US by attempting to stifle just criticism.