Other than that, if the government mandates employers pay for such long leaves, it will hugely penalize small companies, and prospective employment of women.
Yeah that's why small businesses don't exist in the scandinavias, or canada, or basically everywhere else in the entire fucking world where they have not only universal healthcare of some form but also meaningful parental leave.
Also giving fathers paternity leave equal to a mother's maternity leave, and making sure they take it, is in fact the only way to not affect women's employment any.
And now you're doubling down on denial, trying to act like what I posted doesn't completely undo the fundamental foundations on which your entire premise is based. The facts speak for themselves.
No, what I'm saying is that if the base assumption of this discussion is treatment of women, then why aren't more women speaking up? And I'm saying this for both sides.
Is it because there are fewer women? Is it because fewer women make the choice to stay in tech, or indeed make the choice to BE in tech? And who cares if they don't?
A combination of an already small population due to these fields being turned into ghettos for non-conforming/unattractive men and any women who do dare to speak up are outright terrorized for it.
Clearly this behavior presents a paradox, one which operates as follows: 'The Victim' is a social role in which a person or group is acted upon but does not have the agency to respond. Victims therefore need others to defend them. In this dynamic all power of the Victim is given to those who defend them and no matter how destructive or paradoxical, the Defender's actions are said to be best for the Victim.
According to Anti-Gamer Activists, women are victims. They require protection because they will always be victims. And should a woman break the confines of the Victim archetype, strange things start to happen.
A woman who speaks for herself, defends herself and takes responsibility for herself is not a victim. However we are dealing with an ideology which defines women exclusively as Victims. Therefore women who fail to fulfill the role of Victim must be broken and returned to their proper place. They must be subject to abuse or de-feminized and told they have been corrupted by patriarchal ideology.
Women are supported and encouraged but they are only supported and encouraged to be broken and helpless. They are kept within a set archetype.
The attacks on women now make sense. It's a paradoxical cycle where people abuse women to justify the claim that women need to be defended. Defenders never question their behavior because it is justified by the existence of the victim which they themselves created.
So... instead of accepting that I've empirically gutted the entire underlying premise of your argument as well as your points you're going to claim I've posted a bunch of non-sequiturs in what amounts to shouting "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
Perhaps it would help to clarify that by "safe spaces" they mean places where there is no open harassment and abuse. Like what has happened to many female developers on social media in the last year or two, for example. I don't think many people would argue that there should be law-free zones where that kind of thing is allowed.
There is no space safe enough in the world for people who consider disagreement to be harassment, and who will pay up to $20 a tweet to fabricate threats against themselves.
There are two very opposite views of women clashing here. One side constantly publicly says that women are weak, less intelligent, and less capable than men and need constant handholding, coddling, and special treatment even in the safest of fields. One says that women are just as strong, intelligent, and capable as men and they should be taught that instead of being taught that they're inferior.
The grand irony is that the latter is called misogyny and the former feminism.
People pissing off ISIL/ISIS or interfering with non-public operations are a problem for states that are doing their own things officially. When you've got private citizens scamming them like this you wind up with lots of little bullseyes antagonizing ISIL which might provoke a reprisal of some kind.
What we really need to do with all these non-state and semi-state actors like ISIL and Al Qaeda is start issuing letters of marque again. "You want to pick a fight with these guys? Go have it at. Follow these rules and understand you're on your own or we'll come after you ourselves."
You're trying to paint cause and effect as a vicious circle when really it's management and shareholders trying to squeeze blood from a stone and then bitching when their hand hurts.
So what you're saying is you're selling a useless overpriced miniature screen that's been outdated for over a decade instead of a genuine augmented reality product?
Exactly what I came here to post. Fiat-Chrysler reported a net income of about six times this fee for three months alone. This isn't a fine, it's a tiny insignificant operating expense.
Daemonik is arguing against somebody who's couching an argument against regulating industries for the safety of consumers in a false air of liberty and freedom. Drinkypoo tried to classify Daemonik's rebuttal of an extremist libertarian/republican "corporations shouldn't have to follow laws" position with claims it was a false dichotomy.
Your logical fallacy is the False Compromise. When someone wants to cut off someone else's arm the second person is not being unreasonable when they refuse to settle on having their arm cut off at the elbow instead, nor are they making a false dichotomy by pointing out the non-evil choice is not cutting off people's arms.
Don't forget lying and misleading answers. Wu was flat out given hundreds of thousands of dollars by her parents to start her "company" and uses her patreon to buy expensive motorcycles.
Slashdot Mirror
Other than that, if the government mandates employers pay for such long leaves, it will hugely penalize small companies, and prospective employment of women.
Yeah that's why small businesses don't exist in the scandinavias, or canada, or basically everywhere else in the entire fucking world where they have not only universal healthcare of some form but also meaningful parental leave.
Also giving fathers paternity leave equal to a mother's maternity leave, and making sure they take it, is in fact the only way to not affect women's employment any.
Oh and if you want to keep bringing up stalking guess what else women are more likely to do than men.
The only thing I've "failed" to do is agree with your patently false femsploitation rhetoric.
And now you're doubling down on denial, trying to act like what I posted doesn't completely undo the fundamental foundations on which your entire premise is based. The facts speak for themselves.
Sounds almost exactly like what Hedgemage said.
No, what I'm saying is that if the base assumption of this discussion is treatment of women, then why aren't more women speaking up? And I'm saying this for both sides.
Is it because there are fewer women? Is it because fewer women make the choice to stay in tech, or indeed make the choice to BE in tech? And who cares if they don't?
A combination of an already small population due to these fields being turned into ghettos for non-conforming/unattractive men and any women who do dare to speak up are outright terrorized for it.
Clearly this behavior presents a paradox, one which operates as follows: 'The Victim' is a social role in which a person or group is acted upon but does not have the agency to respond. Victims therefore need others to defend them. In this dynamic all power of the Victim is given to those who defend them and no matter how destructive or paradoxical, the Defender's actions are said to be best for the Victim.
According to Anti-Gamer Activists, women are victims. They require protection because they will always be victims. And should a woman break the confines of the Victim archetype, strange things start to happen.
A woman who speaks for herself, defends herself and takes responsibility for herself is not a victim. However we are dealing with an ideology which defines women exclusively as Victims. Therefore women who fail to fulfill the role of Victim must be broken and returned to their proper place. They must be subject to abuse or de-feminized and told they have been corrupted by patriarchal ideology.
Women are supported and encouraged but they are only supported and encouraged to be broken and helpless. They are kept within a set archetype.
The attacks on women now make sense. It's a paradoxical cycle where people abuse women to justify the claim that women need to be defended. Defenders never question their behavior because it is justified by the existence of the victim which they themselves created.
So... instead of accepting that I've empirically gutted the entire underlying premise of your argument as well as your points you're going to claim I've posted a bunch of non-sequiturs in what amounts to shouting "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
Women in tech have a 4:1 advantage over men, and men are much more likely to experience harassment and more severe harassment than women.
And of course there's nothing that harasses and abuses women in this world nearly as much as feminism.
Perhaps it would help to clarify that by "safe spaces" they mean places where there is no open harassment and abuse. Like what has happened to many female developers on social media in the last year or two, for example. I don't think many people would argue that there should be law-free zones where that kind of thing is allowed.
There is no space safe enough in the world for people who consider disagreement to be harassment, and who will pay up to $20 a tweet to fabricate threats against themselves.
You realise you just pretty much quoted the KKK's justification for calling blacks inferior and violent, right?
There are two very opposite views of women clashing here. One side constantly publicly says that women are weak, less intelligent, and less capable than men and need constant handholding, coddling, and special treatment even in the safest of fields. One says that women are just as strong, intelligent, and capable as men and they should be taught that instead of being taught that they're inferior.
The grand irony is that the latter is called misogyny and the former feminism.
Soldiers already have first strike rations which can be eaten on the move.
People pissing off ISIL/ISIS or interfering with non-public operations are a problem for states that are doing their own things officially. When you've got private citizens scamming them like this you wind up with lots of little bullseyes antagonizing ISIL which might provoke a reprisal of some kind.
What we really need to do with all these non-state and semi-state actors like ISIL and Al Qaeda is start issuing letters of marque again. "You want to pick a fight with these guys? Go have it at. Follow these rules and understand you're on your own or we'll come after you ourselves."
You're trying to paint cause and effect as a vicious circle when really it's management and shareholders trying to squeeze blood from a stone and then bitching when their hand hurts.
App gasbuddy no longer has permission to do fuck all.
So what you're saying is you're selling a useless overpriced miniature screen that's been outdated for over a decade instead of a genuine augmented reality product?
http://www.media.chrysler.com/...
http://www.autonews.com/articl...
Exactly what I came here to post. Fiat-Chrysler reported a net income of about six times this fee for three months alone. This isn't a fine, it's a tiny insignificant operating expense.
And the overwhelming majority of the people that are working are not in that position.
Daemonik is arguing against somebody who's couching an argument against regulating industries for the safety of consumers in a false air of liberty and freedom. Drinkypoo tried to classify Daemonik's rebuttal of an extremist libertarian/republican "corporations shouldn't have to follow laws" position with claims it was a false dichotomy.
Yes, they can. There's nothing stopping a company from replacing an employee but its a lot more difficult for an employee to replace their employer.
Your logical fallacy is the False Compromise. When someone wants to cut off someone else's arm the second person is not being unreasonable when they refuse to settle on having their arm cut off at the elbow instead, nor are they making a false dichotomy by pointing out the non-evil choice is not cutting off people's arms.
Companies can fire anyone at any time. People can't simply hire themselves into any position at any time.
Don't forget lying and misleading answers. Wu was flat out given hundreds of thousands of dollars by her parents to start her "company" and uses her patreon to buy expensive motorcycles.
That's exactly the problem... nobody goes to jail. Start jailing board members and executives and shit will change REAL fast.
No, they really don't. The whole point is that critic reviews are if anything incredibly shallow, essentially little more than hipsterish circlejerks.