Why not try "Unlocking the Clubhouse" when it comes to the other thankless risky male dominated jobs, like Janitors or Coal Miners -- Oh, those are clubhouses no one wants to be in? Gee. Go fucking figure.
And that, in a nutshell, is all you really need to know about the situation.
If this were equivalent to doing so I might agree. However it's not. It's like looking at a lock made out of paper and pointing out to the people who own the house that paper locks don't keep out bad guys.
Children in public schools should not be experimented on.
Why not? It's happening anyway done for political reasons based on nothing but mere ideology. Why not actually apply some scientific scrutiny to the education system rather than come up with something like "No Child Left Behind," and then kind of hope it does what it's supposed to? Is that the system you prefer? Or do you advocate that things just stay as they are and never change? What do you think is better? Or is it just an irrational response to the concept of "experimentation" as if the process of just randomly muddling along was much more superior? How dare we subject our children to rigorous experimental situations that will help our education system in the long term! Leave them to the chaotic winds of ignorance is what God intended! It's clearly failed to work in the past, it can fail to work again!
Probably because no one believes that more dwarfs would improve the NBA.
Right, because there are certain physical characteristics that just makes that an unsuitable role.
Most people believe that more women in STEM fields will improve those fields.
These gender gap figures are only irrelevant if you believe that women are simply inferior to men in STEM fields. Most people don't believe that.
Which are faith based assertions.
I'm not saying it's incorrect, just that it's clearly not established that it must necessarily be the fault of men or male dominated workplaces that is the fault such that one could say having a short stature is clearly a disadvantage for basketball.
So an arbitrary target such as "50%" because there is approximately an equal gender split is ignoring any actual reasons.
For example it might actually be the case that there should be 75% women in these roles if men were actually conspiring to keep women out!
In short: I hate this sort of simplified gender politics and implication that women can't get up and do the things they want to do on their own. My grandmother seemed perfectly capable of doing so and showing me my first computer so I just don't buy this line unless we're being completely condecending to women.
That's a very recent shift over the last decade or two. A primary school teacher I know is a guy that's six and half foot tall, bearded, strong as anything, loves fishing and hunting wild pigs, and was not out of place as a teacher in the country when he graduated. Now he has to convince a government body every year that he is not a child molester, he's the only male teacher in the school he works at and anyone that doesn't think he's a child molester when he mentions he job thinks he must be the stereotypical gay that stays home to play with dolls.
He's a man. It's just deserving payback for the *years* of him clearly working for the patriarchy to keep women down!
> I've never heard a feminist complain that there aren't enough female refuse collectors.
They only want/care the important and influential and well-paid jobs to be "equal" for some reason. All part of the patriachial conspiracy to keep women down otherwise.
while now male teachers are being seen as potential molesters.
Not to mention the fact that female teachers aren't despite the stories about it happening. The spin is certainly put on those stories quite differently.
When bisexual transgender autistic bi-racial individuals of native american/tongese extraction with dwarfism make up 51% of the population, that can be a goal.
Why?
Why isn't there a goal that these dwarfs also make up 50% of all Basketball players?
I don't think anyone has a problem treating the Bible that was who isn't invested in the idea that they must adhere to certain tennents described in it lest they be smited by a divine being. It's when someone who is invested in that idea starts chiming in that the problems start.
Yes, but those crimes don't angry up the blood as much even if they may actually have far more socially destructive outcomes than the odd purse snatcher.
I knew this goddamn 15 years ago when it first came out. Don't need no stinking reassessments from critics who also thought other Verhoven masterpieces like Total Recall and Robocop were just stupid action flicks.
Why do so many people use out of the box [wikipedia.org] when they actually mean outside the box?
There was a program on UK TV channel "Dave" recently called "Dave Gorman: Modern Life is Goodish" that had an episode that explored some of these. The only one I've seen recently in the wild was a collegue saying he was off because of "mf" or "man-flu" - which is characterised not by being a particular type of influenza that attacks men because no such thing exists but as the exagerration of a minor ailment by a man as life ending when it is not even really bad at all. The implication being that if a woman had this same infection she would just "get on with it". There is no possible way in which using "man-flu" as a reference to an actual disease makes any sense and yet people are clear just hearing the phrase and regurgitating it without any thought having occurred on the passage through the skull. The worst thing was the high level of confusion. How the fuck you turn the phase to mean something not only the opposite of what it means but also negate the entire point of the phrase in the first place without any cognitive recognition of that I do not understand.
If I see bamboo runways and flight uniforms in the office I will not be surprised.
Slashdot Mirror
It sure is to some for some reason despite the facts of the matter.
That's how it works heathen.
And that, in a nutshell, is all you really need to know about the situation.
He was a passenger dipshit.
I'm pretty sure that's what it means unless there's some ordination process to enter the Church of Climatology I don't know about.
*False* authourity. Any old random scientist wouldn't be good enough. Appealing to a relevant expert is not a fallacy.
If this were equivalent to doing so I might agree. However it's not. It's like looking at a lock made out of paper and pointing out to the people who own the house that paper locks don't keep out bad guys.
Why not? It's happening anyway done for political reasons based on nothing but mere ideology. Why not actually apply some scientific scrutiny to the education system rather than come up with something like "No Child Left Behind," and then kind of hope it does what it's supposed to? Is that the system you prefer? Or do you advocate that things just stay as they are and never change? What do you think is better? Or is it just an irrational response to the concept of "experimentation" as if the process of just randomly muddling along was much more superior? How dare we subject our children to rigorous experimental situations that will help our education system in the long term! Leave them to the chaotic winds of ignorance is what God intended! It's clearly failed to work in the past, it can fail to work again!
First thing I thought of with this summary: Black Mirror, Be Right Back
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XapF2mGQs9Q
Where the fuck else you going to try them? A school of mackrel?
Right, because there are certain physical characteristics that just makes that an unsuitable role.
Which are faith based assertions.
I'm not saying it's incorrect, just that it's clearly not established that it must necessarily be the fault of men or male dominated workplaces that is the fault such that one could say having a short stature is clearly a disadvantage for basketball.
So an arbitrary target such as "50%" because there is approximately an equal gender split is ignoring any actual reasons.
For example it might actually be the case that there should be 75% women in these roles if men were actually conspiring to keep women out!
In short: I hate this sort of simplified gender politics and implication that women can't get up and do the things they want to do on their own. My grandmother seemed perfectly capable of doing so and showing me my first computer so I just don't buy this line unless we're being completely condecending to women.
He's a man. It's just deserving payback for the *years* of him clearly working for the patriarchy to keep women down!
In other news only crackers be racist.
> I've never heard a feminist complain that there aren't enough female refuse collectors.
They only want/care the important and influential and well-paid jobs to be "equal" for some reason. All part of the patriachial conspiracy to keep women down otherwise.
Not to mention the fact that female teachers aren't despite the stories about it happening. The spin is certainly put on those stories quite differently.
Why?
Why isn't there a goal that these dwarfs also make up 50% of all Basketball players?
But scary radiation!
Three Mile!
Chernobyl!
Fukishima!
Despite those showing how the worst disasters aren't that bad!
I don't think anyone has a problem treating the Bible that was who isn't invested in the idea that they must adhere to certain tennents described in it lest they be smited by a divine being. It's when someone who is invested in that idea starts chiming in that the problems start.
Yes, but those crimes don't angry up the blood as much even if they may actually have far more socially destructive outcomes than the odd purse snatcher.
I knew this goddamn 15 years ago when it first came out. Don't need no stinking reassessments from critics who also thought other Verhoven masterpieces like Total Recall and Robocop were just stupid action flicks.
Whereas the economic situation in the US is going just swimmingly of course.
Movies are passive entertainment.
Games are active entertainment.
They are different but equal forms of fun.
Film at 11.
Game at 12?
There was a program on UK TV channel "Dave" recently called "Dave Gorman: Modern Life is Goodish" that had an episode that explored some of these. The only one I've seen recently in the wild was a collegue saying he was off because of "mf" or "man-flu" - which is characterised not by being a particular type of influenza that attacks men because no such thing exists but as the exagerration of a minor ailment by a man as life ending when it is not even really bad at all. The implication being that if a woman had this same infection she would just "get on with it". There is no possible way in which using "man-flu" as a reference to an actual disease makes any sense and yet people are clear just hearing the phrase and regurgitating it without any thought having occurred on the passage through the skull. The worst thing was the high level of confusion. How the fuck you turn the phase to mean something not only the opposite of what it means but also negate the entire point of the phrase in the first place without any cognitive recognition of that I do not understand.
If I see bamboo runways and flight uniforms in the office I will not be surprised.
Coming this fall, on FOX.
You obviously don't! Have children: don't ever stop.
No it isn't.
Because all the people here without type-1 diabetes are going to run out and get this?