|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 23 2016 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There are ZERO countries even remotely close to not being highly misogynistic. For the most part, the best western countries can say is "at least we don't kill/mutilate women" as their best examples for progress.
thx man.
i needed a good laugh and this is better than a Seinfeld re-run.
Canada, Ontario and my #1 client ( the largest nursing organization in Ontario) are remotely close to being not "highly mysogynistic". if you want to continue this debate in the Canada thread here is your link....
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/480705-canadian-politics-mega-thread?page=35
i recommend you don't go in there though because i don't think you know very much about my #1 client or Ontario or Canada.
Since Montreal's economy declined Ontario has become the economic epicentre of Canada and it sets the cultural tone of the nation.
psychologists believe over use of compound negatives is indicative of chronic depression, btw.
the statement "every country is highly misogynistic" is direct and simple. just stick with that thesis statement.
|
On May 23 2016 23:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 23:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 23 2016 23:43 Plansix wrote:
The argument that people will be given jobs due to their gender is always brought up. But having worked in the private sector for a long time, people getting jobs that they are not qualified for is already happening. Companies making efforts to increase their intake of resumes from women isn’t going change that problem. It doesn't create a new problem per se, but it does allow for another mechanism through which the problem happens. So does everything else in the world. Self driving cars could have problems. GMOs could create problems. Trying to cure all diseases could have weird side effects on how we live. This is not a compelling argument on its face.
Well I do still think it is a problem worth addressing. It doesn't mean stopping female preference, but I think it's pretty clear it has had its share of issues. I would argue it is hurting women in a lot of areas. STEM specifically. People are starting to get a feel for how often performance is an issue. By throwing lots of unqualified women into a tough area, they end up making things worse by letting co-workers walk away with really negative experiences. Issues like what were brought up by Biff are pretty significant and create a culture that is hard to undo.
|
On May 23 2016 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:
To think any country has fixed its gender bias problems in both the professional and personal field is absolutely ludicrous. I personally know many STEM women who quit the field just because of the men they were taking classes with, or the teachers they were taking classes with. When they're attacked constantly with allies in sight of course the attendance remains low. Its not enough for laws to enforce equality--but so many people have not learned to LIVE in a gender equal way and so many people (men and women included) perpetuate and instill these gender norms on young women so much its no surprise they get led astray.
There are ZERO countries even remotely close to not being highly misogynistic. For the most part, the best western countries can say is "at least we don't kill/mutilate women" as their best examples for progress.
White knighting at its finest.
|
On May 23 2016 23:43 Plansix wrote:
The argument that people will be given jobs due to their gender is always brought up. But having worked in the private sector for a long time, people getting jobs that they are not qualified for is already happening. Companies making efforts to increase their intake of resumes from women isn’t going change that problem.
I'm an ardent feminist and believe we have a long way to go, but as I said, and sorry to take my field as an exemple, I have witnessed completely incompetent female conductors conducting world class orchestras who would NEVER hire a man of that level. With, usually, catastrophic results.
In Gothenburg Symphony, the Swedish National Orchestra, they have had a policy for years to hire as many women conductors as possible. The problem is that they aren't many good ones, it's a male dominated profession (which is something they should tackle through education). I worked with women conductors who just couldn't do their job on countless projects.
It's a rare and extreme case, because Sweden has an extreme way of handling the issue, but denying it exists just goes against the facts.
|
|
|
On May 24 2016 00:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 23:43 Plansix wrote:
The argument that people will be given jobs due to their gender is always brought up. But having worked in the private sector for a long time, people getting jobs that they are not qualified for is already happening. Companies making efforts to increase their intake of resumes from women isn’t going change that problem.
I'm an ardent feminist and believe we have a long way to go, but as I said, and sorry to take my field as an exemple, I have witnessed completely incompetent female conductors conducting world class orchestras who would NEVER hire a man of that level. With, usually, catastrophic results. In Gothenburg Symphony, the Swedish National Orchestra, they have had a policy for years to hire as many women conductors as possible. The problem is that they aren't many good ones, it's a male dominated profession (which is something they should tackle through education). I worked with women conductors who just couldn't do their job on countless projects. It's a rare and extreme case, because Sweden has an extreme way of handling the issue, but denying it exists just goes against the facts.
But you are talking about a specific case, in a specific field, which could be corrected or looked into. There are clearly very specific reasons why that happened in your field and ways to avoid it in the future. Few reasonable people have a problem with that discussion.
It is when people take your example and say “look here, this problem happened. We must halt all efforts in all fields until we are 100% sure this problem will never happen in any of them.” It is the same dumb argument that sexism isn’t a pressing issue because there are other, bigger problems that must be solved first. It is admitting there is a problem, but making excuses to not address it until later.
|
President Obama announced Monday that the U.S. is fully lifting a five-decades-long arms embargo against Vietnam.
The embargo on lethal military equipment had been partially lifted in 2014; now it will be raised fully, the White House says. The president spoke about the decision from Hanoi, during the first day of a weeklong trip to Asia.
"As with all our defense partners, sales will need to still meet strict requirements, including those related to human rights," Obama said at a joint news conference with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang. "But this change will ensure that Vietnam has access to the equipment it needs to defend itself and removes a lingering vestige of the Cold War. It also underscores the commitment of the United States to a fully normalized relationship with Vietnam, including strong defense ties with Vietnam and this region for the long term."
Michael Sullivan, reporting for NPR from Hanoi, tells us that Vietnam had been looking for an end to the embargo for years.
"But some both in the U.S. and Vietnam argued the embargo should remain until the one-party state improved its human rights record," Sullivan says.
Source
|
On May 24 2016 00:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 23:43 Plansix wrote:
The argument that people will be given jobs due to their gender is always brought up. But having worked in the private sector for a long time, people getting jobs that they are not qualified for is already happening. Companies making efforts to increase their intake of resumes from women isn’t going change that problem.
I'm an ardent feminist and believe we have a long way to go, but as I said, and sorry to take my field as an exemple, I have witnessed completely incompetent female conductors conducting world class orchestras who would NEVER hire a man of that level. With, usually, catastrophic results.
at my #1 client is a group of old coder guys 45+ who are solid and competent and don't want to learn new stuff. every department must be 50/50 or better in favour of women. as a result every new coder is female. i'm an independent consultant and not an employee. i'm the only male coder under 30 ... and probably under 40 for that matter.
I am laughing all the way to the bank doing one "project rescue" after another. The old guys don't want to learn the new stuff and the new women keep relying on me to rescue their high-profile big-budget projects as soon as the female CIO turns up the heat. I have too much work and hired 2 coders to do some of the ugly stuff. I'm moving more into project management.
Guess the sex of the 2 coders?
one always makes a lot more money when a project has failed 2+ times. At this point I never do a new project, ever... i always wait for it to fail and then get involved.
Furthermore, I like to keep the incompetent "software engineers" around as long as possible so all i do is talk about how great they are. ROFLMAO. i must confess that ... like my country's fearless leader... i am a feminist.
|
There are other bigger issues that must be solved first.
Sexism isn't the most pressing issue because it's hard to prove and it's case by case. And we already have people in positions to try to see if a claim is true or not. Almost every single girl I've talked to in University or dated has said she hasn't been a victim of sexism. Many have liked their positions as women because there are advantages that come to both men and women. For women, it's easier to find a partner generally and people are generally nicer to you etc.
Sexism works both ways. And it's case by case. It's not, "oh more women aren't in the NBA, this is disconcerting." And it's arguable whether government should be involved, or how much government should be involved when it's a private sector issue. Bill the sexist boss not hiring women as programmers because he has a general experience in them being inferior in the field isn't a government issue. That's an issue with Bill the sexist boss. But how do you prove his hiring practices are unfair? Do you just do diversity quotas? Is that really the right solution or the best we have?
Women have natural preferences to certain topics because of biology. Hormones are a thing, and play a large part in how these gender roles came to be in the first place. Are we suggesting we give testosterone to women at early ages? We already teach them they can be anything they want to be when they grow up.
Anecdotally: All my female bosses who have hired a lot of women in their life have been more sexist towards women than my male bosses in my life. That's not a joke. That's just their life experience. The story is the same generally: "With men you get better quality work without the drama." I've talked with them a lot and asked all about what it's like to be an employer. That's not to say women are useless in the work place or to be overtly sexist. A lot of women I've worked with have been fucking champs. But that's a general feeling from employers that I personally know.
In my own life experience, dating a good number of women 0% of them were into politics. Almost all university graduated, but still no interest in politics. These are educated women, shouldn't they care what direction countries are headed in? How many women are in this thread right now talking politics with us. Are we pushing them out with our misogyny? They could have come here naturally, nobody was stopping them and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be talked down to by a single member here.
I would surmise that 'gender constructs' were not constructs built by society. But that these genders naturally drifted one way or another because of biology. There are plenty of outliers in all sides. But nobody is stopping women from entering STEM degrees. There is literally no barrier, it's invisible. It's their natural interests.
Should we, or government change that? If so, why? According to data, women are doing quite well in university and making more money on average in their 20's and 30's. What seems to be the problem? I'm not sure where you guys grew up, but in our schools if anything women were favoured in our classes over men. A minor amount of people complained about it, most didn't care. Because if you put in good quality work you'd get an A regardless.
Just asked my GF: "Have you experienced any sexism towards you in your life?" "No. Not in a bad way *laugh*"
|
my #1 customer pays for a woman's software engineering degree. it does not pay for a man's software engineering degree.
A man trying to get them to pay for it is similar to a black guy trying to get paid to be a QB in the NFL before Warren Moon. They'll let Conredge Holloway show up to try outs and their first training camp. Sure, Holloway can throw around a few balls.... i mean damn.. look at the throwing arm on this dude. when it comes time to get paid...Sry, Connie you're just "not a good fit".
|
On May 23 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +There's an entire body of literature on the subject. The short answer with respect to policy is: yes, most notably with regards to policies impacting specifically women, children and families. Having women in leadership positions also helps negate restrictive gender stereotypes about the roles of women in society. There's bullshit litterature on many subjects.
Obviously. On this topic, though, much of value has been written.
On May 23 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:
You're telling me the core arguments for women in politics are contradictory : they negate "restrictive" (whatever that mean) gender stereotypes, but mainly play a role in what is traditionally considered to be women subjects (familly, children). A rich woman is rich before all, and it is this reality that define her political stances.
There is no contradiction, and you're misrepresenting what I said. First, by "restrictive" gender stereotypes, I meant gender stereotype which assign certain occupations to one gender or the other (for example: men are good at doing science, women are good at taking care of their homes). Having women in publicly observable positions of power help negate gender stereotypes which present women as unfit for positions in power in society (i.e. in politics or in the private sector). Second, I didn't say that women in politics mainly played a role with regards to women's issues. You asked me what were some of the differences brought by women in politics, and I gave you an example. It doesn't mean women are less involved than men in other topics, but that having them occupy a larger part of the legislative body tends to result in different outcomes when it comes to policies affecting women specifically.
On May 23 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:
Gender or race diversity is used as some kind of way to legitimate our ploutocratic democracy and the election of specific individuals that are, more often than not, originating from rich families. Hence the reason why the left and the right both love diversity.
Sexism and racism are issues that are not solely solved through actions on the socioeconomic front. Pushing for more gender equality in politics is a worthy goal in itself, and it is an important step towards more gender equality in society in general.
On May 23 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:And yet it's the same theorical argument.
...and you said yourself that the empirical results were consistent with the theoretical argument. With regards to women in STEM fields, the empirical conditions and norms at play are different, which makes the fact that the empirical change is not as obvious/substantial unsurprising. In the U.S., and at a first glance, an evolution still does look to be happening, as I showed.
On May 23 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +What matters is how it has changed over time. And it appears to have been growing in several fields over the last few decades. If it is abnormally low, and increase but still stays below the norm, it can be argued that its a specificity of the US more than anything. In France, women in stem related courses account for at least 20 % of student in 2000, up to 40 %, with 25 % on average and we're not particularly advanced.
If you want to argue that the evolution I pointed to is not linked in any way to cultural factors (including norms and practices) pertaining to gender, then feel free to come up with an alternate explanation. I provided you with that data because you were saying that the situation was stable in STEM fields (and that this likely disproved the validity in this case of the theories put forward by gender studies), while the opposite is true in the U.S.
|
Donald Trump says he is “not a big believer in global warming.” He has called it “a total hoax,” “bullshit” and “pseudoscience.”
But he is also trying to build a sea wall designed to protect one of his golf courses from “global warming and its effects.”
The New York billionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare.
A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure.
The zoning application raises further questions about how the billionaire developer would confront a risk he has publicly minimized but that has been identified as a defining challenge of this era by world leaders, global industry and the American military. His public disavowal of climate science at the same time he moves to secure his own holdings against the effects of climate change also illustrates the conflict between his political rhetoric and the realities of running a business with seaside assets in the 21st century.
“It's diabolical," said former South Carolina Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, an advocate of conservative solutions to climate change. “Donald Trump is working to ensure his at-risk properties and his company is trying to figure out how to deal with sea level rise. Meanwhile, he’s saying things to audiences that he must know are not true. … You have a soft place in your heart for people who are honestly ignorant, but people who are deceitful, that’s a different thing.”
Neither Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, nor Alan Garten, the general counsel of the Trump Organization, the umbrella company for Trump’s business ventures, responded to requests for comment.
Source
|
Toss another one into the hypocrisy bin for Trump. Who wants to bet the anti-vaccine dude also made sure his children were always up to date with their vaccines?
|
Trump does realize that he can’t manage his businesses when he is president, right? All of his long term investments must be put into a blind trust and he has to completely give up his role as CEO? This is a big question that people should be asking him, because I bet he won’t be willing to give it all up.
|
On May 24 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:
Trump does realize that he can’t manage his businesses when he is president, right? All of his long term investments must be put into a blind trust and he has to completely give up his role as CEO? This is a big question that people should be asking him, because I bet he won’t be willing to give it all up.
I'm sure Milo can take things over just fine.
|
On May 24 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:
Trump does realize that he can’t manage his businesses when he is president, right? All of his long term investments must be put into a blind trust and he has to completely give up his role as CEO? This is a big question that people should be asking him, because I bet he won’t be willing to give it all up.
I'm pretty sure he hasn't actively managed his business in a while. Certainly not since he has entered the elections.
|
If you want to argue that the evolution I pointed to is not linked in any way to cultural factors (including norms and practices) pertaining to gender, then feel free to come up with an alternate explanation. I provided you with that data because you were saying that the situation was stable in STEM fields (and that this likely disproved the validity in this case of the theories put forward by gender studies), while the opposite is true in the U.S.
"Cultural" as an abstract doesn't mean much. My point is there seem to be a limit to most countries capacity to enroll women in stem courses. The US is way lower than most european countries, so it might be a completly different situation, but simply thinking education is the solution to most "social problem" is shortsighted from my point of view.
The basic idea behind this position is the very liberal/individualist philosophy that individuals should be freed from all constraints (which is why I insisted on your "restricted") - mostly from all social constraint because no one give a shit about economical constraint these days. There is a limit to how much we can, collectively, through politics, modify the social norm, mostly because a man (the species) free of social constraint does not exist. There is no direct causal relationship between two distinct dimensions that would be the social and individual : it seems people always needs ways to distinguish, define groups, differences, etc. .
At which point those social differences become a political problem, it's very up to discussion. But somehow having more women in STEM field has become an important political topic, when the real topic should be how everybody, whatever their gender or race, should be able to find a work that's both valued by the society and that give them the means to live decently. I don't really care about rich people's problem.
I lnow I'm not that clear but I don t have the tome to think more carefully about words.
|
On May 24 2016 01:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:
Trump does realize that he can’t manage his businesses when he is president, right? All of his long term investments must be put into a blind trust and he has to completely give up his role as CEO? This is a big question that people should be asking him, because I bet he won’t be willing to give it all up. I'm pretty sure he hasn't actively managed his business in a while. Certainly not since he has entered the elections.
There is a difference between passively managing and having zero input. If he is elected, he can’t be involved in any way with how Trump operates. He will very literally control many of the agencies that regulate his company. I know there are specific guidelines for politicians that have investments to avoid conflicts of interest and I am sure those apply to straight up owning a business.
The climate change denial while also preparing his investments for climate change just highlights the many conflicts of interest he will have.
|
On May 24 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:
Trump does realize that he can’t manage his businesses when he is president, right? All of his long term investments must be put into a blind trust and he has to completely give up his role as CEO? This is a big question that people should be asking him, because I bet he won’t be willing to give it all up.
He has repeatedly said he would turn over the company to his children.
|
On May 24 2016 00:34 SK.Testie wrote:
There are other bigger issues that must be solved first.
Sexism isn't the most pressing issue because it's hard to prove and it's case by case. And we already have people in positions to try to see if a claim is true or not. Almost every single girl I've talked to in University or dated has said she hasn't been a victim of sexism. Many have liked their positions as women because there are advantages that come to both men and women. For women, it's easier to find a partner generally and people are generally nicer to you etc.
Sexism works both ways. And it's case by case. It's not, "oh more women aren't in the NBA, this is disconcerting." And it's arguable whether government should be involved, or how much government should be involved when it's a private sector issue. Bill the sexist boss not hiring women as programmers because he has a general experience in them being inferior in the field isn't a government issue. That's an issue with Bill the sexist boss. But how do you prove his hiring practices are unfair? Do you just do diversity quotas? Is that really the right solution or the best we have?
Women have natural preferences to certain topics because of biology. Hormones are a thing, and play a large part in how these gender roles came to be in the first place. Are we suggesting we give testosterone to women at early ages? We already teach them they can be anything they want to be when they grow up.
Anecdotally: All my female bosses who have hired a lot of women in their life have been more sexist towards women than my male bosses in my life. That's not a joke. That's just their life experience. The story is the same generally: "With men you get better quality work without the drama." I've talked with them a lot and asked all about what it's like to be an employer. That's not to say women are useless in the work place or to be overtly sexist. A lot of women I've worked with have been fucking champs. But that's a general feeling from employers that I personally know.
In my own life experience, dating a good number of women 0% of them were into politics. Almost all university graduated, but still no interest in politics. These are educated women, shouldn't they care what direction countries are headed in? How many women are in this thread right now talking politics with us. Are we pushing them out with our misogyny? They could have come here naturally, nobody was stopping them and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be talked down to by a single member here.
I would surmise that 'gender constructs' were not constructs built by society. But that these genders naturally drifted one way or another because of biology. There are plenty of outliers in all sides. But nobody is stopping women from entering STEM degrees. There is literally no barrier, it's invisible. It's their natural interests.
Should we, or government change that? If so, why? According to data, women are doing quite well in university and making more money on average in their 20's and 30's. What seems to be the problem? I'm not sure where you guys grew up, but in our schools if anything women were favoured in our classes over men. A minor amount of people complained about it, most didn't care. Because if you put in good quality work you'd get an A regardless.
Just asked my GF: "Have you experienced any sexism towards you in your life?" "No. Not in a bad way *laugh*"
And that is the elephant in the room that everyone is affraid to adress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
