"You're a tard" would be almost acceptable. The main problem is that they can't even be bothered with proper capitalization or grammar and, thus, write shit like "YOUR A TARD". But, then, I guess it does take one to know one, eh?
My mistake, I didn't look at who was posting and assumed you were the peron I had responded to previously. I take back what I said about your prior arguments, as those weren't your arguments. The complete and utter bullshit remark stays, though.
So you're saying I'd have been robbed at gunpoint 3 times instead of 2 if I was black? It's quite possible that my assailants were targeting white victims and I'd not have been robbed at all; the hardship would have been replaced with something else, though, for sure; I think we can both agree on that. In other words, your argument is so much complete and utter bullshit based on "what might have been", rather than anything concrete, that I can't bring myself to take you seriously. And your arguments before that have boiled down to "laugh when white people complain because they neve complain about anything real", which I was easily ablt to counter by, well, giving you something real.
You got anything real for me, buddy? If not, bugger off and let the adults have their debate.
I'm going to stick with my opinion on parenting, little girls are raised to be little girls, and boys boys.
We're not in disagreement, here, and I was certainly not arguing.
one wonders if women will actually get anything better when (as Pao states) men are better at it
Well, yes, one does wonder. How do you propose we find out? I say try it; if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. My experience shows me, though, that men aren't necessarily better at negotiation, we're just better at starting negotiations.
Lets start with parents, marketing, and babies.
So many times this! Especially the marketing! I can imagine it would be quite difficult to parent one's child in opposition of the marketing of the day. Sure, you can shield them from marketing at home, but they'll get it fro mall angles in public, including from classmates at school.
Too late for the older others to do anything but "pretend".
And that's where we disagree. You see, it's the "older others" who have to change the marketing and parenting. The kids sure as hell can't do it. In the mean time, those of us who are so inclined can certainly do much more than pretend; we can give equal opportunities where we have the authority to do so, and we can urge others to do the same. I'm certainly not pretending I can change the hiring practices of an entire company, but I can damn well be fair in who I personally hire.
Actually... being a sole proprietor and the sole person in charge of hiring for my business, I can change the hiring practices of an entire (albeit very small) company. Since I hire equally, though, I'm not sure why I'd want to.
I agree, she didn't handle it well at all. I say, make it mandatory, rather than banning it or leaving it optional. The issue, as I understand it, is not so much that men are better at it, it's that women don't generally bother with it at all; making it mandatory would solve that. Of course, it would lead to the company either having to pay everyone more or justify not doing so.
As for sexism, it really comes down to intent and understanding. If a man and a woman of equal qualification and experience are offered the same position and the man gets hired at $10k/yr more than the woman, is that sexism? Maybe; there isn't enough information to tell. Were they offered the same starting wage, but the man bargained for more while the woman did not? In that case it was not sexism. Were they offered different starting wages? In that case, it certainly looks like sexism to me, regardless of any bargaining that went on. If both were offered the same starting wage and both bargained for more, the line blurs, as it cold either be sexism or that the man simply asked for more than the woman, or did so more effectively.
It's also exceedingly difficult to prove that sexism was a factor in most cases. Because of this, there has been a huge push to make sexism the default assumption, which does greatly amplify the perception of sexism for those who are looking for it. The corollary to that is that it is also difficult, if not impossible, to prove that one's motives were not sexist, which is why that predilection for the assumption of sexism is a dangerous thing.
I meant for the company. It's a good thing to have loyal employees. Of course, the corollary is that it's also good to be loyal to your employees, which most employers seem to have forgotten.
You can do everything possible to instil a sense of civility in your children and still have little monsters.
And that doesn't negate your parental responsibility to instill a sense of civility. Sure you might not be successful, that child may experience something that destroys what you've taught them, but if you don't do your job as a parent, its guaranteed that they'll grow into little monsters.
The problem here is you think parenting is an easy job.
I never said it was easy. It's the hardest job on the planet, there's a reason I'm not doing it.
Of course it's difficult, there are outside stimuli in the system, they get plenty of input from other kids (and teachers) at school and even from the parents of other children who might not raise their kids the way you raise your own, and from people who have no business raising or interacting with children; that steps on a lot of your own work with them. That doesn't negate the fact that they learn how to interact with others by interacting with others.
And that's precisely why men and women should work (and learn) together! Men will point out angles that women miss, and vice versa. Happens with my wife (co-owner of my consultancy) all the time; we'd both make many more poor decisions if we couldn't work from each-others' perspectives.
You're right, it's not difficult at all to relate to the opposite gender. Boundaries are learned, though, and the earlier they're learned, the better. Segregating the genders until they reach adulthood, then throwing them together, results in boundaries being learned later in life. Human interaction is not something that can be taught, it has t obe learned through experience; there are decades of studies that back this up.
I simply don't know enough about the experience and the context
Please, allow me to remedy that.
In general, I agree with your stance, treat everyone professionally and without regard for gender. However, the "without regard for gender" part can actually get you in some trouble here in the US, so it doesn't really work that way. Over here, if you and your male coworkers are having a discussion and a woman enters the room, it's almost always advisable to end that discussion so as not to offend the woman, either because someone said something she didn't like (even though she was not part of the conversation) or because she was excluded (even though she could have joined in). Here in the US, women have been given the ability to point at a man, scream "SEXUAL HARASSMENT", and destroy that man's career and life over the tiniest of perceived infractions; most won't do that unless there is a real problem, but the handful who will do it out of spite have ruined it for everyone. Again, these are most often only children, or raised in a family of all girls, and are commonly home-schooled; as a result, they never learned how to not take something that wasn't said to or directed at them personally. Interestingly this doesn't happen nearly as often in the other direction, as we're taught that men are supposed to be stronger, we're supposed to let things roll off our backs and be unaffected, but we're also taught to walk on eggshells so as not to offend women.
I wish I lived in a society where people treated each other respectfully and professionally, where the general attitude was "if it wasn't said to or about me, I won't let it bother me", where people could have workplace conversations in small groups without fear of someone who had no interest in being part of that group in the first place deciding to cause problems because they weren't included. I wish that was the reality in the US, but it simply is not. You're right, though; it's not a difficult thing. The problem is that some people don't want to put forth even the tiniest bit of effort and, over here, many are raised to believe that it's okay to benefit from destroying someone else's life.
Which is why you, as a parent, teach them to act in a civil manner. Of course it gets uncivil as they grown into that knowledge; they haven't learned it yet.
The quotas are definitely part of the problem. Equality means evaluating based on ability, experience, and performance, not race and gender. The race and gender quotas only ensure that we never have true equality.
Funny, I've noticed the same. I've also noticed that the meetups I attend, which are free and open, are about 25% non-developers who are there to learn the trade. At these events, I've met a total of 6 Black people, 5 of whom were men, all of whom were established developers. The interest just doesn't seem to be there amongst the Black community; but those who do take interest sure do seem to excel. Since your post is absolutely dripping in sarcasm, I won't go on to explain why the idea is a bad one. I will, however, point out that every Urban Outfitters I've ever been in has been 2 stories.
He wasn't assigning sex roles, he was acknowledging societal norms. There's a huge difference and you're part of the problem if you can't understand that. It was pretty clear, to me, though, when he said "Even if one of those emphasized subjects doesn't appeal to a particular girl, one of the others may" and "English will appeal to some boys", rather than "Most of those subjects don't appeal to girls" and "English doesn't appeal to boys", which would have been a form of gender role assignment.
I know at least one who does. Honestly, the Black population is grossly under-represented in the software development community; but that's not the fault of the software development community, really. For proof of this, start attending software developer events and actually ask around to get a feel for who's there as an established developer and who's there to learn the trade. Most meet-ups are free to attend, which makes them a good benchmark. What you'll notice is that roughly 25% of attendees are there to learn the trade, and the mix of races in that sub-group is roughly proportional to the mix of races in the group as a whole.
Over all of the free developer events I've attended, I've met a grand total of 6 Black developers and zero who were there to learn the trade. Hell, I've met more Native Americans than Black people at these events. Even my Black friends (and their Black friends, and so on) who are interested in computers seem to have no interest in development. That tells me the interest just isn't there, thus why Black developers are exceedingly rare. The few I've met, however, sure seemed to know the craft.
It's that "and have many kids" part that destroys your argument. Unless all of your children are of the same gender, you're raising boys and girls in a home environment that teaches them to interact with each other in a civil manner.
Which leads my to my next observation: Most SJWs I've encountered (and, indeed, anyone who has ever threatened me with harassment claims, which were always false and never followed through with) are only children, or were raised in homes with children only of the same gender. A large number of those were home schooled. These are certainly people who never had the opportunity to learn to coexist with members of the opposite gender. I'm saying this as a white male and an only child; but I also had mostly female friends growing up, so I wasn't as hamstrung as many others in my position.
Indeed. The point of school isn't to help one improve one's self-confidence in their academic abilities, it's to help one improve one's self-confidence in social situations, as well as one's self-confidence and actual abilities with regard to the subjects being learned. A school aiming to do anything more or less than that is a bad school. A school where boys and girls don't have the opportunity to learn to coexist is a bad school.
Many of my supposed feminist friends want to place girls in school ghettos.
I've found that most who flaunt their "feminism" are anything but feminists. I've even coined a term for these people (there are men who do it, as well): Fauxminists.
You can tell a feminist by their behavior. He or she will behave in a respectable manner and advocate for equality. Typically they will do so without ever mentioning feminism in any way, often without even knowing they're feminists, themselves. Obnoxious behavior and frequent spouting off of the phrase "I'm a feminist" are massive red flags that you're, in fact, dealing with a fauxminist.
At least she's trying to explain the wage disparity as something other than yet another case of sexism. Yes, in some cases that's exactly what it is, but it's also provably true that women don't negotiate their starting pay or ask for raises nearly at the rates that men do. Women also tend to be more loyal to their employers (this is a good thing) and, thus, are less likely to jump ship for a higher-paying gig like men often do; I think, as a result, they should be paid at least as much as their equally qualified male counterparts, and such should happen without them having to ask. In fact, I think people should be paid what they're worth without having to ask, regardless of race or gender. Worth, of course, not being measured by education and experience, alone, but also by performance.
Slashdot Mirror
"You're a tard" would be almost acceptable. The main problem is that they can't even be bothered with proper capitalization or grammar and, thus, write shit like "YOUR A TARD". But, then, I guess it does take one to know one, eh?
But I saw it on Family Guy, so it HAS TO be true!
Indeed. My phone's battery life seemed to double when I got a Pebble. I'd not say that's useless at all.
When you can't call everyone in for an interview, you call in the more promising candidates.
Where did I say "call everyone in"? I believe what I said was:
that's why you call *both* candidates in for interviews
If you don't have time to interview your top two candidates, you're doing something wrong. Seriously.
Good strawman, though.
And in my case it's 10. Maybe I'm just lucky.
My mistake, I didn't look at who was posting and assumed you were the peron I had responded to previously. I take back what I said about your prior arguments, as those weren't your arguments. The complete and utter bullshit remark stays, though.
So you're saying I'd have been robbed at gunpoint 3 times instead of 2 if I was black? It's quite possible that my assailants were targeting white victims and I'd not have been robbed at all; the hardship would have been replaced with something else, though, for sure; I think we can both agree on that. In other words, your argument is so much complete and utter bullshit based on "what might have been", rather than anything concrete, that I can't bring myself to take you seriously. And your arguments before that have boiled down to "laugh when white people complain because they neve complain about anything real", which I was easily ablt to counter by, well, giving you something real.
You got anything real for me, buddy? If not, bugger off and let the adults have their debate.
I'm going to stick with my opinion on parenting, little girls are raised to be little girls, and boys boys.
We're not in disagreement, here, and I was certainly not arguing.
one wonders if women will actually get anything better when (as Pao states) men are better at it
Well, yes, one does wonder. How do you propose we find out? I say try it; if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. My experience shows me, though, that men aren't necessarily better at negotiation, we're just better at starting negotiations.
Lets start with parents, marketing, and babies.
So many times this! Especially the marketing! I can imagine it would be quite difficult to parent one's child in opposition of the marketing of the day. Sure, you can shield them from marketing at home, but they'll get it fro mall angles in public, including from classmates at school.
Too late for the older others to do anything but "pretend".
And that's where we disagree. You see, it's the "older others" who have to change the marketing and parenting. The kids sure as hell can't do it. In the mean time, those of us who are so inclined can certainly do much more than pretend; we can give equal opportunities where we have the authority to do so, and we can urge others to do the same. I'm certainly not pretending I can change the hiring practices of an entire company, but I can damn well be fair in who I personally hire.
Actually... being a sole proprietor and the sole person in charge of hiring for my business, I can change the hiring practices of an entire (albeit very small) company. Since I hire equally, though, I'm not sure why I'd want to.
I agree, she didn't handle it well at all. I say, make it mandatory, rather than banning it or leaving it optional. The issue, as I understand it, is not so much that men are better at it, it's that women don't generally bother with it at all; making it mandatory would solve that. Of course, it would lead to the company either having to pay everyone more or justify not doing so.
As for sexism, it really comes down to intent and understanding. If a man and a woman of equal qualification and experience are offered the same position and the man gets hired at $10k/yr more than the woman, is that sexism? Maybe; there isn't enough information to tell. Were they offered the same starting wage, but the man bargained for more while the woman did not? In that case it was not sexism. Were they offered different starting wages? In that case, it certainly looks like sexism to me, regardless of any bargaining that went on. If both were offered the same starting wage and both bargained for more, the line blurs, as it cold either be sexism or that the man simply asked for more than the woman, or did so more effectively.
It's also exceedingly difficult to prove that sexism was a factor in most cases. Because of this, there has been a huge push to make sexism the default assumption, which does greatly amplify the perception of sexism for those who are looking for it. The corollary to that is that it is also difficult, if not impossible, to prove that one's motives were not sexist, which is why that predilection for the assumption of sexism is a dangerous thing.
I meant for the company. It's a good thing to have loyal employees. Of course, the corollary is that it's also good to be loyal to your employees, which most employers seem to have forgotten.
You can do everything possible to instil a sense of civility in your children and still have little monsters.
And that doesn't negate your parental responsibility to instill a sense of civility. Sure you might not be successful, that child may experience something that destroys what you've taught them, but if you don't do your job as a parent, its guaranteed that they'll grow into little monsters.
The problem here is you think parenting is an easy job.
I never said it was easy. It's the hardest job on the planet, there's a reason I'm not doing it.
Of course it's difficult, there are outside stimuli in the system, they get plenty of input from other kids (and teachers) at school and even from the parents of other children who might not raise their kids the way you raise your own, and from people who have no business raising or interacting with children; that steps on a lot of your own work with them. That doesn't negate the fact that they learn how to interact with others by interacting with others.
Damn, typo'd that closing em tag.
This is a real issue. However, a girls-only STEM academy is not/em. the answer.
Not harder, but differently.
And that's precisely why men and women should work (and learn) together! Men will point out angles that women miss, and vice versa. Happens with my wife (co-owner of my consultancy) all the time; we'd both make many more poor decisions if we couldn't work from each-others' perspectives.
I simply don't know enough about the experience and the context
Please, allow me to remedy that.
In general, I agree with your stance, treat everyone professionally and without regard for gender. However, the "without regard for gender" part can actually get you in some trouble here in the US, so it doesn't really work that way. Over here, if you and your male coworkers are having a discussion and a woman enters the room, it's almost always advisable to end that discussion so as not to offend the woman, either because someone said something she didn't like (even though she was not part of the conversation) or because she was excluded (even though she could have joined in). Here in the US, women have been given the ability to point at a man, scream "SEXUAL HARASSMENT", and destroy that man's career and life over the tiniest of perceived infractions; most won't do that unless there is a real problem, but the handful who will do it out of spite have ruined it for everyone. Again, these are most often only children, or raised in a family of all girls, and are commonly home-schooled; as a result, they never learned how to not take something that wasn't said to or directed at them personally. Interestingly this doesn't happen nearly as often in the other direction, as we're taught that men are supposed to be stronger, we're supposed to let things roll off our backs and be unaffected, but we're also taught to walk on eggshells so as not to offend women.
I wish I lived in a society where people treated each other respectfully and professionally, where the general attitude was "if it wasn't said to or about me, I won't let it bother me", where people could have workplace conversations in small groups without fear of someone who had no interest in being part of that group in the first place deciding to cause problems because they weren't included. I wish that was the reality in the US, but it simply is not. You're right, though; it's not a difficult thing. The problem is that some people don't want to put forth even the tiniest bit of effort and, over here, many are raised to believe that it's okay to benefit from destroying someone else's life.
Which is why you, as a parent, teach them to act in a civil manner. Of course it gets uncivil as they grown into that knowledge; they haven't learned it yet.
The quotas are definitely part of the problem. Equality means evaluating based on ability, experience, and performance, not race and gender. The race and gender quotas only ensure that we never have true equality.
Funny, I've noticed the same. I've also noticed that the meetups I attend, which are free and open, are about 25% non-developers who are there to learn the trade. At these events, I've met a total of 6 Black people, 5 of whom were men, all of whom were established developers. The interest just doesn't seem to be there amongst the Black community; but those who do take interest sure do seem to excel. Since your post is absolutely dripping in sarcasm, I won't go on to explain why the idea is a bad one. I will, however, point out that every Urban Outfitters I've ever been in has been 2 stories.
He wasn't assigning sex roles, he was acknowledging societal norms. There's a huge difference and you're part of the problem if you can't understand that. It was pretty clear, to me, though, when he said "Even if one of those emphasized subjects doesn't appeal to a particular girl, one of the others may" and "English will appeal to some boys", rather than "Most of those subjects don't appeal to girls" and "English doesn't appeal to boys", which would have been a form of gender role assignment.
I know at least one who does. Honestly, the Black population is grossly under-represented in the software development community; but that's not the fault of the software development community, really. For proof of this, start attending software developer events and actually ask around to get a feel for who's there as an established developer and who's there to learn the trade. Most meet-ups are free to attend, which makes them a good benchmark. What you'll notice is that roughly 25% of attendees are there to learn the trade, and the mix of races in that sub-group is roughly proportional to the mix of races in the group as a whole.
Over all of the free developer events I've attended, I've met a grand total of 6 Black developers and zero who were there to learn the trade. Hell, I've met more Native Americans than Black people at these events. Even my Black friends (and their Black friends, and so on) who are interested in computers seem to have no interest in development. That tells me the interest just isn't there, thus why Black developers are exceedingly rare. The few I've met, however, sure seemed to know the craft.
we marry as a norm and have many kids
It's that "and have many kids" part that destroys your argument. Unless all of your children are of the same gender, you're raising boys and girls in a home environment that teaches them to interact with each other in a civil manner.
Which leads my to my next observation: Most SJWs I've encountered (and, indeed, anyone who has ever threatened me with harassment claims, which were always false and never followed through with) are only children, or were raised in homes with children only of the same gender. A large number of those were home schooled. These are certainly people who never had the opportunity to learn to coexist with members of the opposite gender. I'm saying this as a white male and an only child; but I also had mostly female friends growing up, so I wasn't as hamstrung as many others in my position.
Indeed. The point of school isn't to help one improve one's self-confidence in their academic abilities, it's to help one improve one's self-confidence in social situations, as well as one's self-confidence and actual abilities with regard to the subjects being learned. A school aiming to do anything more or less than that is a bad school. A school where boys and girls don't have the opportunity to learn to coexist is a bad school.
Many of my supposed feminist friends want to place girls in school ghettos.
I've found that most who flaunt their "feminism" are anything but feminists. I've even coined a term for these people (there are men who do it, as well): Fauxminists.
You can tell a feminist by their behavior. He or she will behave in a respectable manner and advocate for equality. Typically they will do so without ever mentioning feminism in any way, often without even knowing they're feminists, themselves. Obnoxious behavior and frequent spouting off of the phrase "I'm a feminist" are massive red flags that you're, in fact, dealing with a fauxminist.
At least she's trying to explain the wage disparity as something other than yet another case of sexism. Yes, in some cases that's exactly what it is, but it's also provably true that women don't negotiate their starting pay or ask for raises nearly at the rates that men do. Women also tend to be more loyal to their employers (this is a good thing) and, thus, are less likely to jump ship for a higher-paying gig like men often do; I think, as a result, they should be paid at least as much as their equally qualified male counterparts, and such should happen without them having to ask. In fact, I think people should be paid what they're worth without having to ask, regardless of race or gender. Worth, of course, not being measured by education and experience, alone, but also by performance.
What ever happened to "best man for the job"?
We realized that the best man for the job isn't always a man.