Right, so, a person doesn't have to be a "victim" to get ticked off about discrimination that focuses on their group. They just have to be a person. Because just about anybody who is a target of discrimination is going to get pissed off about it. My experience is that the people who are making noise about this don't consider themselves to be victims. They consider themselves to be pissed off customers, demanding better from the people who are making the product they are using. It's like complaining because the airline doesn't get you to your destination on time. That doesn't make you a victim.
And here you make the classic, incorrect assumption that there are no soap gamers, and so if a soap gets offended at what you say (or what is said) in a game it's because they came looking for trouble. In reality, gamers are about 50% soap. Er, women. So they get a little bit ticked off, understandably so, when the games are set up to please and encourage misogynistic assholes who are, despite your protestations, a small minority of gamers.
Huh. Maybe you should join a knitting circle and find out what they really talk about, because it's not at all what you think. I followed my wife into a knitting store the other day and some of the things she and the woman who was helping her said to each other were just about the opposite of tame. Just because women act a certain way around you doesn't mean they are showing you their true face.
Yeah, there's a lot in Mad Men about the women of that era heroically dealing with the crap that's shoveled at them day after day. It's kind of the major theme of the series, actually. So yeah, women loved it, but not because it was misogynistic.
Well, you certainly seem to have strong opinions. However, I don't see any data backing up your prejudice here—just assertions that "only women ever engage in this behavior," which certainly isn't something anybody who's studied human history would be so bold as to say. What it is is a tactic whereby someone with no formal power can control events through the application of informal power. How many male advisors to kings and queens do you think have done this? If your answer is "none," you are ignorant of history, and might want to read up on it.
You missed the part where he keeps hitting on her. Refusing to hear no when it is said to you doesn't mean you are a rapist, but it's a good reason for the person you are hitting on to treat you as a potential rapist, which is what I mean by "rape-y behavior."
Rape is when you engage in sexual behavior of any kind with someone without their consent. When you hit on a woman and she says no, and then you persist, you are indicating that you do not respect her "no." This very strongly suggests that in the right circumstances, you would rape her, because to you "no" means "keep trying." That's why this is rape-y behavior: not because it's rape, but because it's disrespectful and scary, and could turn into rape.
You're completely missing the point. The stereotype is that it's just a woman being bitchy to another woman. So that means she doesn't do it to men, right? If so, then it is in fact sexist behavior, and Ms. Horvath is right to complain about it, even though the perpetrator of the sexist behavior happens to be female. So dismissing it as not an issue because it's one woman behaving badly toward another is sexist. Alternately, you are saying that if she also does it to men, it would be a different type of behavior in that case than in the case where she does it to women. That makes it a sexist statement, because you are saying that it is different when a woman behaves this way toward a man than toward another woman.
You're still not getting it. Consider the original statement: Her problem wasn't sexism, it was with the founder's wife (so she says). 75% of the article talks about her problems with the founder's wife. So it's just a tale of one woman being bitchy to another. First of all, if 75% of the article is about her problems with the founder's wife, 25% is about the other problem. So turning the narrative to a stereotype about how some women behave toward other women would be bogus even if the 75% part was truly just "one woman being bitchy."
But the bottom line is that the behavior of the founder's wife, if it was as described, is behavior that we've seen both men and women can exhibit. Labeling the founder's wife's behavior as "one woman being bitchy to another" takes a very specific dynamic between two individuals and generalizes it into a stereotype that isn't actually true, and then dismisses it on that basis. If a man had done the exact same thing, it would neither have been generalized in this way, nor dismissed because of the stereotype. We would think of it differently because the bad actor was a man. That's sexist.
Read it again. She was okay with the women hula-hooping. She was not okay with the men sitting around staring at them while they did it. Even if the women who were hula-hooping were okay with being spectated, that sort of thing really is inappropriate in an office environment, because there are too many power dynamics and opportunities for misunderstanding. Being uncomfortable with this doesn't make you a "neo-puritan."
This is in fact sexist, both toward women and toward men. Let me focus it down a little for you. Suppose a guy on a bus hits on a woman, and she says "not interested." And he keeps hitting on her. And she keeps saying "not interested." Eventually she tells him loudly to piss off. He yells "you're a stupid cunt who's probably on the rag" and walks away.
If I were to say "oh, this isn't surprising—most men engage in this kind of rape-y behavior, so it's not surprise," then that would be sexist. Because I'm explaining away one man's bad behavior by saying it's typical of all men, and hence unremarkable and not in need of correction. If it makes you feel uncomfortable to be grouped together with this proto-rapist who happens to be male, then you now understand why sexist remarks are offensive. If it doesn't make you uncomfortable, you might want to check in with that a bit...
It's in the bloody commit logs! Or if it didn't happen, it's not in the commit logs. Harsh criticism and hostility are the same thing. And it's easy enough to read the code and see if the comments are about something that was in fact bad code. It's actually pretty difficult to believe that she isn't telling the truth—this sounds like a classic case of "poorly socialized male geek gets disgruntled when pretty geek woman doesn't return his interest, and does something butt-stupid in response."
(Seriously, if this has been happening your whole career, the constant is probably _not_ that you are always the smartest person on the team. And if it _is_ that, maybe you should try to find a position where you _aren't_ the smartest person on the team. Either way, if you said this to me in a job interview it would be a huge red flag.)
About 46k people came down from Canada to the U.S. to get health care in 2011. Quite a bit of that was paid for by the Canadian health care system, not out of pocket. That's pretty much in the noise. Statistics on how many people come down from the U.S. to get health care in Mexico because they can't afford to get it in the U.S. are harder to come by because people who do that generally pay out of pocket, but the number is comparable, and the reason is different: U.S. citizens going to Mexico are doing so because they can't afford health care in the U.S.; Canadians are taking advantage of excess capacity in the U.S. system to shorten waits, with the financial support of the Canadian national health insurance system. Despite sending a small number of Canadians south each year, Canadian health care is still hugely cheaper than American health care. Many U.S. citizens also go to Canada to purchase prescription drugs because they can't afford them in the U.S.
Point being, while what you said is true, it doesn't lead to the conclusion you are suggesting.
It's true that eventually the money will reach a seller who doesn't buy stock with it, but it is not true that by definition that happens in time to do anything to grow the economy. The whole point of buying securities is to put your money somewhere where, hopefully, it grows, but even if not, at least it doesn't lose too much value. Indeed, one of the things that leads to bubbles is that if the money is all flowing into the pockets of people who don't need to spend it, they _have_ to find someplace to put it. First it's stocks and bonds, then junk bonds, then securitized mortgages. It's all very exciting, but it's death to economic prosperity.
Modulo is geek slang, as well as a mathematical term. I was using it as slang. And indeed I suspect the reason it became slang, and likely the reason I use it, is, as you say, to sound smart. But at this point it's a habit—just part of my vernacular. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
When was the last time you ate a stock certificate? Sure, as another person above said, if you sell the stock and then spend the money, it does go into circulation, and that's good. But if you have no unmet needs, you sell the stock to buy a different stock, and a small commission goes to your broker, who buys stock with it, and everybody gets a little bit richer, but no economic activity occurs. This matters because the bulk of stock owners in our economy today have no real unmet needs, so in fact they do spend the proceeds of stock sales on other investments, rather than on goods and services. So anything that breaks that money out of the market and puts it into the economy is a win.
You just made my point for me. What makes the economy go is selling the stock and _spending the money on something other than stock_. As long as the money is just bouncing between stocks (or bonds, or other investment instruments), all it's doing is, as you say, serving to confirm the bet that the original investor in that stock made. So yes, when the economy is expanding, stock is important, because it's a way to borrow money so that you can increase production. But when the economy is not expanding, the money is just sitting there.
BTW, the 30% figure was sarcasm. I'm aware that trades don't cost that much.
Congrats on your new house. I hope you pay close attention to getting the envelope right. You'll be glad you did later (I say this because we did, and we are).
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Investing money in securities is typically about as useful to the economy as stuffing it in a mattress. It is only when money is spent on goods and services that it adds to the economy. When I buy $100 in Google stock, that money just vanishes as far as the economy is concerned (well, modulo the 30% broker fee, of course). It might come back later, but until it does it's gone.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, so, a person doesn't have to be a "victim" to get ticked off about discrimination that focuses on their group. They just have to be a person. Because just about anybody who is a target of discrimination is going to get pissed off about it. My experience is that the people who are making noise about this don't consider themselves to be victims. They consider themselves to be pissed off customers, demanding better from the people who are making the product they are using. It's like complaining because the airline doesn't get you to your destination on time. That doesn't make you a victim.
Environmental pseudo-estrogens?
And here you make the classic, incorrect assumption that there are no soap gamers, and so if a soap gets offended at what you say (or what is said) in a game it's because they came looking for trouble. In reality, gamers are about 50% soap. Er, women. So they get a little bit ticked off, understandably so, when the games are set up to please and encourage misogynistic assholes who are, despite your protestations, a small minority of gamers.
Huh. Maybe you should join a knitting circle and find out what they really talk about, because it's not at all what you think. I followed my wife into a knitting store the other day and some of the things she and the woman who was helping her said to each other were just about the opposite of tame. Just because women act a certain way around you doesn't mean they are showing you their true face.
Yeah, there's a lot in Mad Men about the women of that era heroically dealing with the crap that's shoveled at them day after day. It's kind of the major theme of the series, actually. So yeah, women loved it, but not because it was misogynistic.
OP said "a good argument," remember? Not just "an argument."
Well, you certainly seem to have strong opinions. However, I don't see any data backing up your prejudice here—just assertions that "only women ever engage in this behavior," which certainly isn't something anybody who's studied human history would be so bold as to say. What it is is a tactic whereby someone with no formal power can control events through the application of informal power. How many male advisors to kings and queens do you think have done this? If your answer is "none," you are ignorant of history, and might want to read up on it.
You missed the part where he keeps hitting on her. Refusing to hear no when it is said to you doesn't mean you are a rapist, but it's a good reason for the person you are hitting on to treat you as a potential rapist, which is what I mean by "rape-y behavior."
Rape is when you engage in sexual behavior of any kind with someone without their consent. When you hit on a woman and she says no, and then you persist, you are indicating that you do not respect her "no." This very strongly suggests that in the right circumstances, you would rape her, because to you "no" means "keep trying." That's why this is rape-y behavior: not because it's rape, but because it's disrespectful and scary, and could turn into rape.
You're completely missing the point. The stereotype is that it's just a woman being bitchy to another woman. So that means she doesn't do it to men, right? If so, then it is in fact sexist behavior, and Ms. Horvath is right to complain about it, even though the perpetrator of the sexist behavior happens to be female. So dismissing it as not an issue because it's one woman behaving badly toward another is sexist. Alternately, you are saying that if she also does it to men, it would be a different type of behavior in that case than in the case where she does it to women. That makes it a sexist statement, because you are saying that it is different when a woman behaves this way toward a man than toward another woman.
You're still not getting it. Consider the original statement: Her problem wasn't sexism, it was with the founder's wife (so she says). 75% of the article talks about her problems with the founder's wife. So it's just a tale of one woman being bitchy to another. First of all, if 75% of the article is about her problems with the founder's wife, 25% is about the other problem. So turning the narrative to a stereotype about how some women behave toward other women would be bogus even if the 75% part was truly just "one woman being bitchy."
But the bottom line is that the behavior of the founder's wife, if it was as described, is behavior that we've seen both men and women can exhibit. Labeling the founder's wife's behavior as "one woman being bitchy to another" takes a very specific dynamic between two individuals and generalizes it into a stereotype that isn't actually true, and then dismisses it on that basis. If a man had done the exact same thing, it would neither have been generalized in this way, nor dismissed because of the stereotype. We would think of it differently because the bad actor was a man. That's sexist.
Read it again. She was okay with the women hula-hooping. She was not okay with the men sitting around staring at them while they did it. Even if the women who were hula-hooping were okay with being spectated, that sort of thing really is inappropriate in an office environment, because there are too many power dynamics and opportunities for misunderstanding. Being uncomfortable with this doesn't make you a "neo-puritan."
This is in fact sexist, both toward women and toward men. Let me focus it down a little for you. Suppose a guy on a bus hits on a woman, and she says "not interested." And he keeps hitting on her. And she keeps saying "not interested." Eventually she tells him loudly to piss off. He yells "you're a stupid cunt who's probably on the rag" and walks away.
If I were to say "oh, this isn't surprising—most men engage in this kind of rape-y behavior, so it's not surprise," then that would be sexist. Because I'm explaining away one man's bad behavior by saying it's typical of all men, and hence unremarkable and not in need of correction. If it makes you feel uncomfortable to be grouped together with this proto-rapist who happens to be male, then you now understand why sexist remarks are offensive. If it doesn't make you uncomfortable, you might want to check in with that a bit...
It's in the bloody commit logs! Or if it didn't happen, it's not in the commit logs. Harsh criticism and hostility are the same thing. And it's easy enough to read the code and see if the comments are about something that was in fact bad code. It's actually pretty difficult to believe that she isn't telling the truth—this sounds like a classic case of "poorly socialized male geek gets disgruntled when pretty geek woman doesn't return his interest, and does something butt-stupid in response."
A lot of what she says is verifiable, and github seems to be acknowledging that it happened.
This is why harassment continues. You're damned if you speak out, and damned if you don't.
Maybe you should stop doing that...
(Seriously, if this has been happening your whole career, the constant is probably _not_ that you are always the smartest person on the team. And if it _is_ that, maybe you should try to find a position where you _aren't_ the smartest person on the team. Either way, if you said this to me in a job interview it would be a huge red flag.)
About 46k people came down from Canada to the U.S. to get health care in 2011. Quite a bit of that was paid for by the Canadian health care system, not out of pocket. That's pretty much in the noise. Statistics on how many people come down from the U.S. to get health care in Mexico because they can't afford to get it in the U.S. are harder to come by because people who do that generally pay out of pocket, but the number is comparable, and the reason is different: U.S. citizens going to Mexico are doing so because they can't afford health care in the U.S.; Canadians are taking advantage of excess capacity in the U.S. system to shorten waits, with the financial support of the Canadian national health insurance system. Despite sending a small number of Canadians south each year, Canadian health care is still hugely cheaper than American health care. Many U.S. citizens also go to Canada to purchase prescription drugs because they can't afford them in the U.S.
Point being, while what you said is true, it doesn't lead to the conclusion you are suggesting.
It's true that eventually the money will reach a seller who doesn't buy stock with it, but it is not true that by definition that happens in time to do anything to grow the economy. The whole point of buying securities is to put your money somewhere where, hopefully, it grows, but even if not, at least it doesn't lose too much value. Indeed, one of the things that leads to bubbles is that if the money is all flowing into the pockets of people who don't need to spend it, they _have_ to find someplace to put it. First it's stocks and bonds, then junk bonds, then securitized mortgages. It's all very exciting, but it's death to economic prosperity.
I was being sarcastic, but if I were not, your advice would be well taken. :)
Modulo is geek slang, as well as a mathematical term. I was using it as slang. And indeed I suspect the reason it became slang, and likely the reason I use it, is, as you say, to sound smart. But at this point it's a habit—just part of my vernacular. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
When was the last time you ate a stock certificate? Sure, as another person above said, if you sell the stock and then spend the money, it does go into circulation, and that's good. But if you have no unmet needs, you sell the stock to buy a different stock, and a small commission goes to your broker, who buys stock with it, and everybody gets a little bit richer, but no economic activity occurs. This matters because the bulk of stock owners in our economy today have no real unmet needs, so in fact they do spend the proceeds of stock sales on other investments, rather than on goods and services. So anything that breaks that money out of the market and puts it into the economy is a win.
You just made my point for me. What makes the economy go is selling the stock and _spending the money on something other than stock_. As long as the money is just bouncing between stocks (or bonds, or other investment instruments), all it's doing is, as you say, serving to confirm the bet that the original investor in that stock made. So yes, when the economy is expanding, stock is important, because it's a way to borrow money so that you can increase production. But when the economy is not expanding, the money is just sitting there.
BTW, the 30% figure was sarcasm. I'm aware that trades don't cost that much.
Congrats on your new house. I hope you pay close attention to getting the envelope right. You'll be glad you did later (I say this because we did, and we are).
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Aah. Anybody remember Schoolhouse Rock?
Investing money in securities is typically about as useful to the economy as stuffing it in a mattress. It is only when money is spent on goods and services that it adds to the economy. When I buy $100 in Google stock, that money just vanishes as far as the economy is concerned (well, modulo the 30% broker fee, of course). It might come back later, but until it does it's gone.