561–570 of 596 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment boils down to, "It was this way for me. Life's tough. Suck it up." How can a situation where a child enters a classroom full of enthusiasm and leaves a year (term?) later depressed not be an "actual issue"?
Your deliberate misrepresentation of the posts you are replying to is simply dishonest. There is no way for a constructive conversation to come out of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment boils down to, "It was this way for me. Life's tough. Suck it up." How can a situation where a child enters a classroom full of enthusiasm and leaves a year (term?) later depressed not be an "actual issue"?
"Life's tough." is a truism, whining about it or demanding everyone "be nice" is fail. You have control over yourself, believing you have/can control others is delusional and dangerous (to society). The way to deal with it is "Suck it up." i.e. have self-confidence and act you, yourself, personally, better than others. Lead by example, not legislation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the first, IF as you say it's 2/3 women, and IF as one short Google search suggested to me it has around 13M viewers, and IF we agree that those are all in the US and the US has around, what, 100M adult women?... then that's 8% of those adult women watching it. If those 13M include people outside the US, then it's lower than 8%. Apparently 92% of women do not watch DWTS. In response to the second, I don't understa…
Likewise, you can probably construct a more sophisticated argument than calling people "reactionary dullards", but you curiously choose not to. Somehow that isn't a lowbrow dismissal.
Also, I didn't call you a reactionary dullard. I see that your literacy is as poor as your numeracy. What I said was that such was the principle use of referencing political correctness, and advised that you could do better yourself. If I was sure, at that time, that you were a dullard, I wouldn't have bothered getting into it.
So it wasn't, at that time, a lowbrow dismissal. By now, you're getting a dismissal. I guess that the collective audience can judge for themselves whether it's lowbrow or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the first, IF as you say it's 2/3 women, and IF as one short Google search suggested to me it has around 13M viewers, and IF we agree that those are all in the US and the US has around, what, 100M adult women?... then that's 8% of those adult women watching it. If those 13M include people outside the US, then it's lower than 8%. Apparently 92% of women do not watch DWTS. In response to the second, I don't understa…
I don't want to defend a sexist comment, but I think the point the opposing comment was making was that of the viewership of DWTS, 2/3 are women - so, 2/3 of 13M, not that 2/3 of the US population watch DWTS. I think that thread of your comment is looking for a fight where one probably doesn't exist. It's also not sexist to identify a specific TV show with a female demographic. Second point was pretty easy to underst…
Okay, fair enough, understood, and I'll direct my response to my disagreement about the math of it.
Why would it matter that 2/3 of DWTS viewers are female? Suppose that I publish a fanzine called "jh's dumb stuff", for which 100% of the readers are female (that's right, my mom is the only reader). Would it make sense to say "you can look at this awesome thing while your wife reads 'jh's dumb stuff'"? No.
The relevance, here, is that original oafish-seeming comment was "while your wife watches DWTS", which appears to imply that it's typical for wives to do that. And, based on the stats I could find, it is NOT typical for wives to do that. Over 90% of American women do not watch the show, right?
Mathematically, the fact that 2/3 of DWTS viewers are female is just not relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All bullying is based on traits that set you apart. People don't bully "one of the crowd". They bully the outliers, the different ones, the ones who are female, or fat, or thin, or clever, or stupid, or black, or white, or old, or young, or even the kid that wears last season's "cool clothes". It's not about gender. It's about ostracism. You don't have to be female to be ostracised. You just have to have something, a…
>All bullying is based on traits that set you apart. This is certainly true. What I meant to convey was that in the context of a programming class, being bullied for a trait that is itself already suspect within oneself reenforces it and thus is more damaging. If that girl had been bullied in the programming class because she was fat, it may not have had as much of an impact on her decision to pursue the career. Bein…
We as a species have a remarkable proclivity to be very unkind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a learning moment for you, Mr stefantalpalaru. What you've just said, although I know you meant it sanely and sensibly, has been interpreted as lacking in compassion. This is not your fault; what happened is you have made a comment from a position of unrecognised privilege. For your own good, and the good of any women you may have any kind of relationship with now and into the future, it would be a very good…
It's probably safe to assume that you're parodying the nakedly Orwellian nature of third-wave feminists, but I'm going to respond just in case this is a serious post. This use of "privilege" as a targeted weapon to silence specific demographics has to stop. Women in the western world have always been among the safest, most privileged people on Earth. This entire thread, in fact, has been a shining example of female p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a learning moment for you, Mr stefantalpalaru. What you've just said, although I know you meant it sanely and sensibly, has been interpreted as lacking in compassion. This is not your fault; what happened is you have made a comment from a position of unrecognised privilege. For your own good, and the good of any women you may have any kind of relationship with now and into the future, it would be a very good…
It's probably safe to assume that you're parodying the nakedly Orwellian nature of third-wave feminists, but I'm going to respond just in case this is a serious post. This use of "privilege" as a targeted weapon to silence specific demographics has to stop. Women in the western world have always been among the safest, most privileged people on Earth. This entire thread, in fact, has been a shining example of female p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Anecdotes like the original article, as well as many others that have come before, demonstrate that there is a real problem. Sure. And that problem is bullying. It has absolutely nothing to do with women in technology. Saying "imaginary problem X is totally real because real problem Y is real" is not logical. >He's saying that we need to stop being defensive about it, stop trying to deny that problem, and start taki…
> Sure. And that problem is bullying. It has absolutely nothing to do with women in technology. Saying "imaginary problem X is totally real because real problem Y is real" is not logical. The problem is not bullying alone, though that is part of the problem. Something can be both bullying and sexism at the same time. Bullies will frequently reach for the strongest ammunition they can get, whether it's racist, sexist,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are welcome to your opinion, but you aren't welcome to try to force me to accept it as fact. I've seen no evidence to support your interpretation, and all my experience has shown the opposite. What wider implications make the millions of other taunts adolescents hurl at each other effective? Have you spoken to a high school girl before? Do you actually think they believe there is some "woman's place" making a san…
I, too, was a child, and so I have my own counter-anecdotes. Most taunts from kids don't have wider cultural implications. Sexist insults are an exception--as are racist insults, you certainly wouldn't be so dense as to claim that a kid calling another black kid a nigger derives its power from 4th-grade-power-dynamics would you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I, too, was a child, and so I have my own counter-anecdotes. Most taunts from kids don't have wider cultural implications. Sexist insults are an exception--as are racist insults, you certainly wouldn't be so dense as to claim that a kid calling another black kid a nigger derives its power from 4th-grade-power-dynamics would you?
That depends on the context. Believe it or not, plenty of kids of all colors have no idea what nigger means or why it is offensive. A white kid calling a black kid a nigger can be racism, or it can be that the kid has no idea what it means and also calls white kids and asian kids niggers too. That's really the very crux of the issue here, sexism is a motivation, it doesn't exist purely because the word sandwich is us…