91–100 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the teaching unions here in the UK was asked why they weren't doing more to get men into teaching. They replied that that was sexist as it implied that female teachers weren't doing a good enough job! You can't win.
"win"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's just cultural. I don't see why risk taking favors men millions of years ago.
Large risks imply large potential rewards (otherwise you're just being dumb). But in terms of genetics the female upside is limited by the very high costs of child bearing & the limited number of children they can physically have. The male genetic upside to risk is limited by the number of women they can have sex with. 1 / 200 men are apparently descended from Genghis Khan! This feat would simply be impossible for an…
Civilization is very recent in human history, and without civilization you can't have Genghis Kahn so I don't see how he is relevant.
I feel like people used to say God made people a certain way. Now that I basically only interact with nerds, they just replace God with evolution. I'd prefer some citations, since all I hear are the same assumptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the teaching unions here in the UK was asked why they weren't doing more to get men into teaching. They replied that that was sexist as it implied that female teachers weren't doing a good enough job! You can't win.
"win"?
We need more female teachers -> "Why? Is teaching a female job? Fucking sexist!"
We need more male teachers -> "Why? Are female teachers not good enough? Fucking sexist!"
Lose-lose scenario. Therefore you can't "win".
At a very basic level, when I was volunteering helping the homeless, I saw a great deal of disparity. There are many homeless shelters and programs that only take in women and children, and many shelters which accept people of all genders but have limited space will make men wait to gain entrance, while letting in women and children, so that if someone doesn't get in, it's always men. Donations are frequently given u…
in sf finding a shelter for children is disgustingly difficult and, as i finally concluded, impossible on weekends
i'm sorry, but conflating the issue of a perceived disparity with 'beliefs' about social gender consensus is unhelpful and only incites issue derailing ire
programs to help the homeless are flawed, i know it first hand, but complaining about someone else's idea of a solution does the least possible to help
if you want a shelter organised under your own incentives i'd suggest starting your own
it's an asshole thing to say but look at the landscape of shelters
currently we have overcrowded, underfunded understaffed solutions:
some universal, few women only, few men only
how do we remove the gender bias?
bulk the universal with the necessary staff that administer the specific needs of the gender exclusive shelters
but the universal shelters are already overcrowded, underfunded and understaffed so to ask more of them would only aggravate the issues further
so we need more shelters, and to have more people willing to open and operate a shelter, and some people get the will to do so by focusing their attention on a specific group, in this case gender based
why is there gender bias in shelters? i'd argue because the people who are willing to put in the work choose to create an environment for the gender bias
should we regulate out the bias with legislation forbidding discrimination based on gender? in the current landscape i only see that harming the issues because then those that have the personal will to run a gender biased shelter will lose their incentive and simply do something else, limiting the number of shelters available to share in the solution
instead i think the argument should be to fund a state run universal shelter program well enough that specific interest shelters get phased out proactively
Okay, waaaaay off topic (but still from the article!): > Low-income families are often led by single mothers, which has been found to affect boys differently than girls. "Differently than"? This is the New York Times . I expect better. (For those who don't get it, the snooty among us prefer "differently from".) A quick search shows any number of occurrences of this jarring bit of word choice in the NY Times of late:…
In this case "than" seems correct because it's short for "affect boys differently than [it affects] girls", right? In order to re-order that to use "from" you'd have to do something like "... the effect of which upon boys has been found to be different from that upon girls."
So you're saying that "girls" is not really being used as a noun phrase, but rather as an abbreviated clause. Thus we use the conjunction "than", while we would use the preposition "from" with a real honest-to-goodness noun phrase.
"Than" is a preposition, too, but only when referencing a comparative. So, "A cow has more than one stomach." But, "Cows are different from people." OTOH, I guess you would prefer, "Cows eat different food than people," (?) since "people" in that sentence is really short for "people eat".
I'll have to ponder this. Thanks for a thought-provoking comment.
EDIT. And perhaps the source of all the actually poor uses of "different than", is that many people mentally classify "different" as a comparative.
Okay, waaaaay off topic (but still from the article!): > Low-income families are often led by single mothers, which has been found to affect boys differently than girls. "Differently than"? This is the New York Times . I expect better. (For those who don't get it, the snooty among us prefer "differently from".) A quick search shows any number of occurrences of this jarring bit of word choice in the NY Times of late:…
That's the least of that sentence's problems. A more egregious issue is the ambiguous antecedent. What has been found to affect boys differently? Low-income families, single mothers, being raised by single mothers? It verges on illiterate.
EDIT. If you look carefully, you can see that the sentence is not actually ambiguous. The word "which" is followed by a singular verb: "has". So the antecedent cannot be "families" or "mothers", which are plural; it must be the clause: "... being raised ....".
However, I still agree that the sentence should be restated. Making people think hard to figure out the antecedent of a pronoun, is hardly the way to communicate effectively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the least of that sentence's problems. A more egregious issue is the ambiguous antecedent. What has been found to affect boys differently? Low-income families, single mothers, being raised by single mothers? It verges on illiterate.
Good point. As others have noted, the use of "than" might not be a problem at all. But the issue you bring up certainly is. EDIT. If you look carefully, you can see that the sentence is not actually ambiguous. The word "which" is followed by a singular verb: "has". So the antecedent cannot be "families" or "mothers", which are plural; it must be the clause: "... being raised ....". However, I still agree that the sen…
At a very basic level, when I was volunteering helping the homeless, I saw a great deal of disparity. There are many homeless shelters and programs that only take in women and children, and many shelters which accept people of all genders but have limited space will make men wait to gain entrance, while letting in women and children, so that if someone doesn't get in, it's always men. Donations are frequently given u…
children?! where do you live? in sf finding a shelter for children is disgustingly difficult and, as i finally concluded, impossible on weekends i'm sorry, but conflating the issue of a perceived disparity with 'beliefs' about social gender consensus is unhelpful and only incites issue derailing ire programs to help the homeless are flawed, i know it first hand, but complaining about someone else's idea of a solution…
It's not a conflation, it's acknowledging what I believe to be a causal relation. If I'm correct, changing the beliefs will help fix the issue.
> instead i think the argument should be to fund a state run universal shelter program well enough that specific interest shelters get phased out proactively
Yes. The solution to disparity is enough abundance that it doesn't matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
children?! where do you live? in sf finding a shelter for children is disgustingly difficult and, as i finally concluded, impossible on weekends i'm sorry, but conflating the issue of a perceived disparity with 'beliefs' about social gender consensus is unhelpful and only incites issue derailing ire programs to help the homeless are flawed, i know it first hand, but complaining about someone else's idea of a solution…
> i'm sorry, but conflating the issue of a perceived disparity with 'beliefs' about social gender consensus is unhelpful and only incites issue derailing ire It's not a conflation, it's acknowledging what I believe to be a causal relation. If I'm correct, changing the beliefs will help fix the issue. > instead i think the argument should be to fund a state run universal shelter program well enough that specific inter…
..acknowledging what I believe to be a causal
relation. If I'm correct..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evopsyche is pseudo-science. EDIT: To expand - it is useless to speculate on psychology in an evolutionary context, because we have precisely 0 observation supported models of what anything was like many thousands of years ago. We do however have plenty of evidence that a lot of modern narrative was constructed to suit the current gender roles. For example, "hunter-gatherer" is a complete misnomer. It should "gathere…
> EDIT: To expand - it is useless to speculate on psychology in an evolutionary context, because we have precisely 0 observation supported models of what anything was like many thousands of years ago. We do however have plenty of evidence that a lot of modern narrative was constructed to suit the current gender roles. Really? I thought that anthropologists studied remote tribe in e.g. the Amazon basin in order to gat…
They also tend to defy most evopsyche gender stereotyping anyway because they're totally different cultures with wildly different understandings of things.