261–270 of 271 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think from a harm minimization perspective, it makes sense to treat complaints of sexism from the minority faction more seriously than complaints of sexism from the majority faction. Also, I disagree that people would complain if the same stuff was written by a guy working in nursing.
You don't mean minority/majority, but yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of interest, are you familiar with Venkatesh Rao's "Be Slightly Evil" mailing list? He has a similar worldview to you (cynical realpolitick as an amoral tool, usable for good or evil).
If you want cynical gender realpolitik you must visit Heartiste, the enemy of pretty lies, who has a superb post today: In simple terms, we proposed that in sex, women are the suppliers and men constitute the demand (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). Hence the anti-democratic, seemingly paradoxical sex ratio findings that Regnerus describes. When women are in the minority, the sexual marketplace conforms to their preference…
I think many of his points may be correct, but he is biased by his excessive cynicism. Grey-tinted glasses are no better than the rose-tinted kind.
If MChurch is chaotic good, and VGR is true neutral, I think Roissy would be lawful evil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I'm parsing this right, you're saying women's social status is mostly based on looks (you say it's better around then) and less so on (cay) career, whereas men's social status is less based on looks, and more on career. Exactly. I'm just a principled person, and want to fight this! You're fighting against millions of years of evolution. Speeches aren't going to do it, very advanced biotech might.
Millions of years of evolution aren't as strong as you think. We have women out of the home and working, and lower class commoners and black people have near equal rights with the upper class nobility. Bring it on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of interest, are you familiar with Venkatesh Rao's "Be Slightly Evil" mailing list? He has a similar worldview to you (cynical realpolitick as an amoral tool, usable for good or evil).
No. I'll look into it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want cynical gender realpolitik you must visit Heartiste, the enemy of pretty lies, who has a superb post today: In simple terms, we proposed that in sex, women are the suppliers and men constitute the demand (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). Hence the anti-democratic, seemingly paradoxical sex ratio findings that Regnerus describes. When women are in the minority, the sexual marketplace conforms to their preference…
This is Roissy's new blog, correct? I don't know, the guy's writing just creates a strong, visceral negative reaction in me. Complete 'ugh' reaction. Like the worst parts of 4chan, it's disgusting, horrifying, and strangely compelling. I think many of his points may be correct, but he is biased by his excessive cynicism. Grey-tinted glasses are no better than the rose-tinted kind. If MChurch is chaotic good, and VGR…
For a more palatable experience, I recommend The Red Pill Room guy, Ian Ironwood, who has an excellent series of posts on the evolution of marriage, with cute artwork from a bygone age.
Sample:
'With the economic impetus for Marriage 2.0 removed, the sex-for-security trade of Marriage 1.0 becoming weaker, and cash taking the place of land as a holder of value, it was Industrialization that forced the development of Marriage 3.0, not feminism. Indeed, feminism is a by-product of the Industrial Revolution, just as Marxism is, an inevitable social response to an economic change. Women invading the workforce in large numbers greatly upset the socio-legal environment, and regulatory reform reflecting this fact was as inevitable as the rise of feminists.
Add to that the revolutionary development of the Pill, allowing a woman to control her reproductive destiny reliably for the first time in history, and between the two a tectonic shift in Male-Female gender relations was also inevitable. Liberalized divorce laws, open access to contraception and abortion services followed as a matter of course. That was as inevitable and predictable as the rise of the Civil Rights movement two generations after the end of slavery.
Marriage 3.0 is an entirely different animal than the previous two versions and their variants. Let’s break down the variants that have evolved out of the chaos and confusion, shall we?'
http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2011/12/marriage-10-and-1...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do tech women identify somehow with this girl in the picture and feel offended? When guy sees some looser made fun of on some picture he thinks: "Hehe. What a looser!" as he sees almost no resemblance between him and the looser. Does women feel more strongly connected to other women because of shared gender than men?
I'd feel offended if presented with this sort of nonsense at a tech talk. The implication of the picture, given the structure and history of our society, is that women are there to be pretty and submissive and men are there to control women with money. That and it makes absolutely no sense as an analogy for MVC, it's just a cheap shot in an attempt to titillate an assumed audience of sexist men. So yes, women in an a…
Would it be better if it were a male model?
Can anyone recommend some of the "tech superstars" to follow on twitter that she mentions?
It is a nice article. Interesting read for me as a male programmer. But this line kinda caught my eye under the "Gender-advantage" headline: "If a male and a female developer with a similar skill level apply for a job, I bet that in 99.9% of the cases the girl will get the job." This is a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That's the flirting I speak of, the same sort of flirting/friendliness that was originally mentioned I was responding to the idea that being single or not has some effect on the scenario. Flirting (whether deniable or not) is neither exclusive to single people, nor required to affect the social status of men you interact with. >It's foolish to assert that female approval matters, but darn it, no one knows why! It is…
"[Women] are still able to coerce me into doing what they want even though both of us are fully aware that there will be no sex rewards happening." I'm pretty sure that random female co-workers can't actually coerce you into doing anything that you don't want to do. More likely, they're just better at persuading you to do something, and this could be attributed to women having better-developed social skills (without…
Why is inventing something that makes no sense "women have better social skills" a good plan, but a well known observation "women's social interactions confer social status on men" bad? What social skills are women using to get the men in the office to carry boxes of paper? Do you seriously think a man could just practice socializing really hard and suddenly be able to ask another man to do that and have it work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, I think this is sexist -> just as if I knew that I lived in an area where a certain race commits more crime, it would be racist of me to cross the street if I saw a person of that race coming. If you assume a woman in your office is a secretary or a designer rather than a coder, that is a sexist assumption regardless of your fine knowledge of statistics.
just as if I knew that I lived in an area where a certain race commits more crime, it would be racist of me to cross the street if I saw a person of that race coming Suppose through a sequence of unfortunate events you find yourself needing to walk through a bad section of town. You have your choice of two roads. Down one road you see a group of 5 young men of a race that commits crimes significantly higher than aver…