No, they spend great care to insult without saying anything. It's very important to not say anything when implying that women are dumb. One says it with insinuation and innuendo. In this case, attacking someone who attacked someone for calling women dumb (indirectly). That way, someone can support the idea that women are dumb, without having to say it, or even imply it directly.
People here have many years in training to imply one thing, while not saying anything that can be taken out of context to clearly support the obvious thesis. But I'm too direct to fall for that, or play those games. I just call 'em as I see 'em.
Identifying trends is GOOD! It enables us to tailor processes, in this case education, to those who want them, rather than pushing people into them that actually don't want to.
The problem is when someone outside the tailored group wishes to participate. They are pushed out. You can be inclusive with the processes, but in practice, it doesn't happen.
So you are *certain* that she didn't tell a friend at school that she wanted to do physics when she grows up, and someone told her "girls can't do physics"? My son tells people he wants to grow up to be Bob the Builder. Nobody tells him "boys can't be builders", but if he were a girl, that would be much more likely.
Until my son went to school, his favorite color was pink. He thought it pretty and bright. He picked out his own school bag (pink) and was teased his first day at school (and came home crying). The problem was the parents train gender differences into their children from birth. There's a pervasive culture that is pushed on children, even when it's not good for them. Why is it so bad for a child to have a favorite color that doesn't match everyone else?
You are assuming and projecting. Many times, the wives literally lived with the slaves. The lives of the wives varied wildly. I'd guarantee that some wives would rather have been slaves, just not for the man in question. Many slaves were treated as members of the family (generally the house workers) while the slaves in the field were treated like cattle. You are assuming the best wife against the worst slave, and saying "look, they are different". But if you apply the same filter, but in reverse, are you really so sure there wasn't a single wife that wouldn't have rather been a slave in some other house?
It is untrue; insulting to the men, the women you are calling slaves, and definitely to anyone that has actually experienced slavery.
When were you a slave? Oh you weren't? But you are feigning offense as if you are? And it's not like you were around in the 1800s. You are so sure they are different things, and talk about people who "experienced" them, but you didn't experience either. So you are attacking me for the impossible.
You are one of the "good ones" right? You recognize your privilege and atone for it by asserting other white men are bad people.
No, I grew up poor. I saw both sides. What have you seen, besides slavery and women's lives in the 1800s?
No, but most I've talked to have a specific event where they "learned their place". Whether it's reporting a shooting they saw, and a cop coming out 6 weeks later (after a similar event happened in a white area, so all the cops are working on it now, or something like that), or a beating by an authority figure, or being "escorted" out of a store in an area "they" don't belong, nearly all can point to a single traumatic event where they learned that DWB wasn't made up by the liberals, but is a fact of life they'll have to live with.
That's why it's rejected. Apple already tracks location, so adding other 3rd-party tracking apps is not allowed, for competing with the built-in functionality. "Emergency services" is a red herring thrown in to incite the dim witted.
Or target it more generically. Rather than an app for doctors at XYZ hospital, write it so they all can use it, even if you really want it for a specific set of doctors.
I've seen a number of Android apps that were written by one person for the use of 5-10 others. Apple would say no to those. As well they should, for the goals of their store.
Slashdot confuses me. I'm modded down, but someone agreeing with my post is modded up.
Society applies 10,000 cuts to the "minority" trying to get ahead. Those aren't applied to the white man. And if you give a Black man (or a woman) a band-aid for one of their cuts, everyone rushes over and screams "favoritism", and complains how affirmative action is bad. Even with the little help some programs give, the whole system is still slanted against those who do not succeed.
I never blamed the nerds for this problem. The problem is set long before the university level (where many here arguing it are pointing). But that the "roles" for people are set by parents and peers from a very young age. Some escape the crab pot, but not for lack of trying by the crabs below trying to pull them back in.
Men never owned their wives you imbecile. Equating marriage to slavery is insulting to everyone involved.
Calling someone imbecile for sharing a truth you don't like is insulting to everyone involved. I don't care if you find the truth inconvenient. That won't change it's status as the truth.
" These marriage and property laws, or "coverture," stipulated that a married woman did not have a separate legal existence from her husband. A married woman or feme covert was a dependent, like an underage child or a slave,[...]" http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/...
I certainly wasn't the first to compare the legal status of women to slavery. And if you don't like it, you have hundreds of years of scholars and legal opinions to argue with, not me.
The way you continuously go on about white males and rich white males being such a huge problem makes it seem like you think you are fighting the protocols of the elders of the white man. Hilariously ignorant.
I am a rich white male. Why would you think that I don't know anything about "my people"?
In my country you have to pay for paper statements. You get line PDFs to use. And you already have to pay for cards. I do, because I don't like dropping past the bank to get cash, and taking large amounts of cash with me in case I want to make an impulse buy (yesterday, $1000 on a new bedroom set for the kids). My "backup cards" (all free ones from seldom used accounts), sit in my nightstand. They are small enough, that they effectively take up no space. And I'll never forget where they are.
The pay isn't bad if you are a network architect or programmer in the language de jour, with 2 years experience for every year it's been out (I love the jobs advertised for 10 years experience in something 5 years old.
Most programming is blue-collar. You show up, work on what you are told to work on, and leave. There's little room for creativity, and ideas aren't rewarded.
But the rest of "IT" has nothing to do with programming. Most of IT is problem solving. There's lots of thinking and such. But programming was "dumbed down" enough to out source it to someone that doesn't speak English. At least that was the goal.
I read, and didn't find anything supporting your conclusion. The best "independent" research I've seen (independent is the kind that's looking for the problem, not trying to explain how it's not the fault of men), is that women are as well suited to STEM as men (and I've seen that they outnumber men in most degrees, including in STEM). So where's the difference? People perceive STEM as anti-social and demanding (long hours on projects), and STEM is more money, but less security.
The result is that women put more emphasis on stability than possible earnings, so STEM is less attractive. It's nothing to do with whether their brains can do it. But the misogynists in the field, like you, help run them off. Then the misogynists complain that there isn't enough eye candy around the office.
And when the few women who persevere through to get a degree are happy and productive, why is it assumed that all the women who didn't do it are happier not doing it?
The implication is that there are some women who would like to have followed the same path, but were dissuaded along the way. Not by the universities, but by the lower schools, the other students, and the women's parents.
And that is exactly the problem. Men are constantly told they're privileged and to stop whining and suck it up. Women are constantly told they're oppressed and everything is an earthshattering act of victimization.
And you say that like it was never true. Men used to "own" their wives, similar to slaves, without the right to kill them. Women didn't have the right to vote, or buy land, or do many other things. But now, we give them the same legal rights as everyone else, but discourage them from using them.
And pointing out that the culture still sometimes follows when women were property gets complaints. Methinks the man doest protest too much. You recognize there's still a difference, but it's "close enough" so the women should shut the hell up and stop whining like whiny bitches.
Or maybe there are still real gaps, and we need to identify any artificial barriers so people can enjoy the "equality" that's available only if you can afford it (and were born a white male).
That's because, unlike the Black man, who usually gets a beating as a child by a police officer or other white authority figure to give them a specific date and event at which their spirit was broken, the woman is kept "down" but millions of tiny pressures. Parents that aren't as supportive, because "girls don't do that" or friends that suggest hairdressing, or teachers who suggest such subjects aren't for them. Usually, there's not a single event so large as to make the divide explicit and obvious. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.
The other problem is when everyone treats everyone in the group as if it's true, then it harms the whole group, and helps make it true, even if it wasn't. Women aren't "naturally" less curious. They were trained that way by society (and parents).
When girls are taught that curiosity is bad, and math is hard, is it that unusual to look more to the nurture than the nature? Teach girls that curiosity is good, and see what happens. Oh no, encouraging a minority might disadvantage a rich white male somewhere! It's in "their" nature to be lazy and dumb, where "their" = any group you don't like.
The trend is for people like you to shit on the lives of women by teaching them that they aren't allowed to be curious, and punishing them when they are. If you weren't a misogynist pig, then maybe women would be more curious. Nah, nobody knows or cares what you think, but enough other people beat wrong "innate" characteristics into others that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Slashdot Mirror
no one said anything of the sort.
No, they spend great care to insult without saying anything. It's very important to not say anything when implying that women are dumb. One says it with insinuation and innuendo. In this case, attacking someone who attacked someone for calling women dumb (indirectly). That way, someone can support the idea that women are dumb, without having to say it, or even imply it directly.
People here have many years in training to imply one thing, while not saying anything that can be taken out of context to clearly support the obvious thesis. But I'm too direct to fall for that, or play those games. I just call 'em as I see 'em.
Identifying trends is GOOD! It enables us to tailor processes, in this case education, to those who want them, rather than pushing people into them that actually don't want to.
The problem is when someone outside the tailored group wishes to participate. They are pushed out. You can be inclusive with the processes, but in practice, it doesn't happen.
So you are *certain* that she didn't tell a friend at school that she wanted to do physics when she grows up, and someone told her "girls can't do physics"? My son tells people he wants to grow up to be Bob the Builder. Nobody tells him "boys can't be builders", but if he were a girl, that would be much more likely.
Until my son went to school, his favorite color was pink. He thought it pretty and bright. He picked out his own school bag (pink) and was teased his first day at school (and came home crying). The problem was the parents train gender differences into their children from birth. There's a pervasive culture that is pushed on children, even when it's not good for them. Why is it so bad for a child to have a favorite color that doesn't match everyone else?
You are assuming and projecting. Many times, the wives literally lived with the slaves. The lives of the wives varied wildly. I'd guarantee that some wives would rather have been slaves, just not for the man in question. Many slaves were treated as members of the family (generally the house workers) while the slaves in the field were treated like cattle. You are assuming the best wife against the worst slave, and saying "look, they are different". But if you apply the same filter, but in reverse, are you really so sure there wasn't a single wife that wouldn't have rather been a slave in some other house?
It is untrue; insulting to the men, the women you are calling slaves, and definitely to anyone that has actually experienced slavery.
When were you a slave? Oh you weren't? But you are feigning offense as if you are? And it's not like you were around in the 1800s. You are so sure they are different things, and talk about people who "experienced" them, but you didn't experience either. So you are attacking me for the impossible.
You are one of the "good ones" right? You recognize your privilege and atone for it by asserting other white men are bad people.
No, I grew up poor. I saw both sides. What have you seen, besides slavery and women's lives in the 1800s?
No, but most I've talked to have a specific event where they "learned their place". Whether it's reporting a shooting they saw, and a cop coming out 6 weeks later (after a similar event happened in a white area, so all the cops are working on it now, or something like that), or a beating by an authority figure, or being "escorted" out of a store in an area "they" don't belong, nearly all can point to a single traumatic event where they learned that DWB wasn't made up by the liberals, but is a fact of life they'll have to live with.
Then they should remain "test flight" forever, if allowed. That's end many of the complaints about the app store I've seen.
That's why it's rejected. Apple already tracks location, so adding other 3rd-party tracking apps is not allowed, for competing with the built-in functionality. "Emergency services" is a red herring thrown in to incite the dim witted.
Or target it more generically. Rather than an app for doctors at XYZ hospital, write it so they all can use it, even if you really want it for a specific set of doctors.
I've seen a number of Android apps that were written by one person for the use of 5-10 others. Apple would say no to those. As well they should, for the goals of their store.
Slashdot confuses me. I'm modded down, but someone agreeing with my post is modded up.
Society applies 10,000 cuts to the "minority" trying to get ahead. Those aren't applied to the white man. And if you give a Black man (or a woman) a band-aid for one of their cuts, everyone rushes over and screams "favoritism", and complains how affirmative action is bad. Even with the little help some programs give, the whole system is still slanted against those who do not succeed.
I never blamed the nerds for this problem. The problem is set long before the university level (where many here arguing it are pointing). But that the "roles" for people are set by parents and peers from a very young age. Some escape the crab pot, but not for lack of trying by the crabs below trying to pull them back in.
Men never owned their wives you imbecile. Equating marriage to slavery is insulting to everyone involved.
Calling someone imbecile for sharing a truth you don't like is insulting to everyone involved. I don't care if you find the truth inconvenient. That won't change it's status as the truth.
" These marriage and property laws, or "coverture," stipulated that a married woman did not have a separate legal existence from her husband. A married woman or feme covert was a dependent, like an underage child or a slave,[...]" http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/...
I certainly wasn't the first to compare the legal status of women to slavery. And if you don't like it, you have hundreds of years of scholars and legal opinions to argue with, not me.
The way you continuously go on about white males and rich white males being such a huge problem makes it seem like you think you are fighting the protocols of the elders of the white man. Hilariously ignorant.
I am a rich white male. Why would you think that I don't know anything about "my people"?
In my country you have to pay for paper statements. You get line PDFs to use. And you already have to pay for cards. I do, because I don't like dropping past the bank to get cash, and taking large amounts of cash with me in case I want to make an impulse buy (yesterday, $1000 on a new bedroom set for the kids). My "backup cards" (all free ones from seldom used accounts), sit in my nightstand. They are small enough, that they effectively take up no space. And I'll never forget where they are.
The pay isn't bad if you are a network architect or programmer in the language de jour, with 2 years experience for every year it's been out (I love the jobs advertised for 10 years experience in something 5 years old.
Most programming is blue-collar. You show up, work on what you are told to work on, and leave. There's little room for creativity, and ideas aren't rewarded.
But the rest of "IT" has nothing to do with programming. Most of IT is problem solving. There's lots of thinking and such. But programming was "dumbed down" enough to out source it to someone that doesn't speak English. At least that was the goal.
I read, and didn't find anything supporting your conclusion. The best "independent" research I've seen (independent is the kind that's looking for the problem, not trying to explain how it's not the fault of men), is that women are as well suited to STEM as men (and I've seen that they outnumber men in most degrees, including in STEM). So where's the difference? People perceive STEM as anti-social and demanding (long hours on projects), and STEM is more money, but less security.
The result is that women put more emphasis on stability than possible earnings, so STEM is less attractive. It's nothing to do with whether their brains can do it. But the misogynists in the field, like you, help run them off. Then the misogynists complain that there isn't enough eye candy around the office.
And when the few women who persevere through to get a degree are happy and productive, why is it assumed that all the women who didn't do it are happier not doing it?
The implication is that there are some women who would like to have followed the same path, but were dissuaded along the way. Not by the universities, but by the lower schools, the other students, and the women's parents.
And that is exactly the problem. Men are constantly told they're privileged and to stop whining and suck it up. Women are constantly told they're oppressed and everything is an earthshattering act of victimization.
And you say that like it was never true. Men used to "own" their wives, similar to slaves, without the right to kill them. Women didn't have the right to vote, or buy land, or do many other things. But now, we give them the same legal rights as everyone else, but discourage them from using them.
And pointing out that the culture still sometimes follows when women were property gets complaints. Methinks the man doest protest too much. You recognize there's still a difference, but it's "close enough" so the women should shut the hell up and stop whining like whiny bitches.
Or maybe there are still real gaps, and we need to identify any artificial barriers so people can enjoy the "equality" that's available only if you can afford it (and were born a white male).
So every post on a public forum is a logical fallacy. The only question is which one.
That's because, unlike the Black man, who usually gets a beating as a child by a police officer or other white authority figure to give them a specific date and event at which their spirit was broken, the woman is kept "down" but millions of tiny pressures. Parents that aren't as supportive, because "girls don't do that" or friends that suggest hairdressing, or teachers who suggest such subjects aren't for them. Usually, there's not a single event so large as to make the divide explicit and obvious. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.
The other problem is when everyone treats everyone in the group as if it's true, then it harms the whole group, and helps make it true, even if it wasn't. Women aren't "naturally" less curious. They were trained that way by society (and parents).
When girls are taught that curiosity is bad, and math is hard, is it that unusual to look more to the nurture than the nature? Teach girls that curiosity is good, and see what happens. Oh no, encouraging a minority might disadvantage a rich white male somewhere! It's in "their" nature to be lazy and dumb, where "their" = any group you don't like.
The trend is for people like you to shit on the lives of women by teaching them that they aren't allowed to be curious, and punishing them when they are. If you weren't a misogynist pig, then maybe women would be more curious. Nah, nobody knows or cares what you think, but enough other people beat wrong "innate" characteristics into others that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Girls are coached by parents and community that curiosity is bad. Boys are encouraged to explore.
I think you are unclear on the definition of "naturally".
Are you asserting that does happen by default, or are you lying to spread FUD?