561–570 of 630 posts
Women aren't inherently better than men (obligatory "and viceversa") so if both are about as good in one area but one group is (only seemingly) better at another area, there clearly is an issue that needs addressing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>and occasionally fight their way to agreement. If you literally mean 'fight', then that's just a bad work environment.
I’ve seen fist fights on sports teams when I was younger or blow out arguments in my marriage finally clear the air where a hundred previous logical, empathetic discussions only let the feelings fester. There is something liberating about finally embracing the anger, rage and resentment that you feel and just letting it all out. Unfiltered. And strangely, as I get older, I take it less personally if I’m on the receiv…
All this article tells me is that there's a problem regarding boys and reading and that we need to find ways to motivate boys into reading more. Women aren't inherently better than men (obligatory "and viceversa") so if both are about as good in one area but one group is (only seemingly) better at another area, there clearly is an issue that needs addressing.
While I would agree that that is true, axiomatically, when discussing moral worth and human dignity (whether speaking in terms of gender identity or biological sex), it's very clearly not true when talking about, well, a whole lot of capacities with physiological components when speaking of either averages or distributions between the biological sexes. I mean, this is fairly obvious with biological capacities closely related to sex and reproduction (I don't think anyone is going to argue against the idea that biological females are inherently advantaged when it comes to childbearing), but strucural and hormonal (among other) sex differences have far wider impacts. Testosterone levels alone, which are clearly linked to though not strictly determined by biological sex, have fairly wide ranging impacts on physical capacities and psychology/behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Until recently, the men in charge thought that they should not. Not men as a group. Rich old men thought that poor young men, disproportionately African Americans, should be forced into the military. In modern context we still have remnant views that military is a punishment. Popular culture often use the trope that troublesome boys who don't behave get sent to military school so the boy can redeem themselves in th…
>Not men as a group. Of course it was men as a group. You only have to go back a few decades to get to a time when the majority of men, across social classes, found the idea of women serving in the military ridiculous. I still don't see how the rest of your comment is relevant to this discussion. Again, the gender requirement was not specific to conscription. >One never see the idea of sending misbehaving girls to mi…
Young poor men has always been at the bottom of the social ladder.
All this article tells me is that there's a problem regarding boys and reading and that we need to find ways to motivate boys into reading more. Women aren't inherently better than men (obligatory "and viceversa") so if both are about as good in one area but one group is (only seemingly) better at another area, there clearly is an issue that needs addressing.
> Women aren't inherently better than men (and viceversa) While I would agree that that is true, axiomatically, when discussing moral worth and human dignity (whether speaking in terms of gender identity or biological sex), it's very clearly not true when talking about, well, a whole lot of capacities with physiological components when speaking of either averages or distributions between the biological sexes. I mean,…
In this case, I meant reading; I don't think there's anything in our biology that would necessarily make one group better than the other at reading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve seen fist fights on sports teams when I was younger or blow out arguments in my marriage finally clear the air where a hundred previous logical, empathetic discussions only let the feelings fester. There is something liberating about finally embracing the anger, rage and resentment that you feel and just letting it all out. Unfiltered. And strangely, as I get older, I take it less personally if I’m on the receiv…
Are you saying that fist fights in the office are ok, then? Or you mean something else?
But if two consenting adults want to physically fight in a controlled, fair environment, zero problems with that. And I could see how it could be therapeutic to release the resentment towards the other.
Maybe an office boxing league?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that fist fights in the office are ok, then? Or you mean something else?
I’ve never seen a fist fight in an office. Probably not a good idea from a legal or liability standpoint. But if two consenting adults want to physically fight in a controlled, fair environment, zero problems with that. And I could see how it could be therapeutic to release the resentment towards the other. Maybe an office boxing league?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not men as a group. Of course it was men as a group. You only have to go back a few decades to get to a time when the majority of men, across social classes, found the idea of women serving in the military ridiculous. I still don't see how the rest of your comment is relevant to this discussion. Again, the gender requirement was not specific to conscription. >One never see the idea of sending misbehaving girls to mi…
Then we are at an impasse. Men as a group did not choose to force themselves at the threat of gun point to go into trench war fare and die. That is just ridiculous. Young poor men has always been at the bottom of the social ladder.
As you must be aware, I didn't suggest that this is the case.
I simply said that men chose to exclude women from military service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a woman, and this pervasive opinion that women are leaving STEM fields because of toxic behavior feels more sexist to me than anything else. It seems to me that if you have a genuine passion for STEM stuff, it takes a lot more than a bad environment to completely redirect your career path. Every woman I know with a genuine and deep interest in STEM subjects has had to deal with some level of toxic/sexist/whateve…
> Every woman I know with a genuine and deep interest in STEM subjects has had to deal with some level of toxic/sexist/whatever stuff in their life, and they persevered and dealt with it because they weren't going to let it get in the way of their passion. I grew up in an era when kids interested in STEM were "nerds" and were harassed, denigrated, and had lower social status. This changed when Bill Gates made his fir…
I recall a well-meaning teacher once publicly recognizing me as a “computer expert”, and the ensuing giggles and ridicule from my friends and peers for being a computer nerd.
While I would not say I was bullied, the “computer nerd”/“spending all your time in front of a computer” was somewhat of an expedient wildcard insult to be used whenever somebody needed to take me down a peg. In terms of group identities, I think the only labels that were lower on the social status ladder were being gay or being obese (exception if you could pull off “the funny fat guy”).
Maybe the millenials had it easier, but I think most people who are well established in their career by now came out of that environment.
Along those lines, it’s no wonder that many men in the field who emerged from that did not develop adequate social skills, and frequently demonstrate their lack of experience in interacting with women. Unfortunately, the social protocol errors are often either lumped in with sexism, or the dreaded “being a creep”, and it’s now fashionable for other (likely traumatized) people to publicly shame them, get them fired, and ensure that their infraction is part of the permanent record of the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this pervasive opinion that women are leaving STEM fields because of toxic behavior feels more sexist to me than anything else I don't think it is sexist at all to claim that some people would not want to be in a field because of its hostile work environment. I sure wouldn't. Factually debatable? Sure. But sexist? > It might sound harsh, but I don't feel terribly concerned about keeping these displaced women in STE…
> If they aren't interested enough to put up with racism, they shouldn't be here to begin with I did not say "put up with", I said "deal with", which includes many options other than accepting what you're given. If your workplace discriminates on the basis of race, you could report them for violation of anti-discrimination laws, lobby for stronger laws, leave the workplace for a better one, etc. > It is their own res…
My niece expressed an interest in taking CS, and two of the women present immediately launched into third-hand accounts of how toxic and sexist they have heard that the industry is. It pisses me off a bit that they are convincing an otherwise neutral and open mind that they are both unwelcome and that they’re already a victim in the making. If the goal is truly to get more women in the field, I think the twitter mobs and one-sided viral medium.com posts are doing way more to scare them away than anything else.