Yes, I receive praise and promotion even though I feel like i don't actually ship anything. I can only deduce that people like me and so they speak well of me.
Doesn't sound like a defense as much as balancing. I think it's this over sympathizing/feeling sorry for women that I can get exhausted with. The op was feeling bad for women because they menstruate and cleanup isn't somehow free. Well duh, and why shouldn't it be? We all responsible for our hygiene and have to pay it with our own money.
And if it shouldn't be free then why don't men get an extra check for consuming extra calories? The question is to demonstrate how ridiculous the idea is. The levels that people go to in order to sympathize with women are quite high and seem to be for the purpose of giving men a sense that they should feel bad or sorry for the condition of being a woman when really, if you want equality, you treat women like you treat men. You assume they are strong and they can handle the problem. Yes $7 a box by 9 boxes a year is definitely extra cost of living. But are we really going to make this one thing free or tax free just because it only affects women? It's such an oversensitivity to women and it should be considered offensive to them that anybody even considers that kind of special treatment.
The diversity efforts of business is all about the ego. To me it looks like insecurity. A fear that women are or appear inferior necessitates action to prove that isn't the case, even to the point of giving them an unusual benefit of the doubt to help increase their representation. No doubt, if 0 women are participating entrepreneurs, there is probably a lot of untapped potential. The idea should be to unblock women and not to throw them into the fire in order to get a metric up.
Any smart business will ignore diversity in an effort to maximize the bottom line, because skin color and genitals of the CEO do nothing for an ad agency or a customer trying to purchase a smart phone app.
I don't know, I can see why words which have absolutely no intent of being racist are associated with racism. Is it any more offensive than calling a node with no parent (which is going to be garbage collected) an orphan node? Or using 'kill' to end a process or (to be ridiculous) separating things by "Class", and calling things equal (instead of different or not different)
Intent is everything and giving into pressure like this just reinforces consideration of every word you speak or write and in what possible dimension it can be deemed offensive. In your life you can contort your language and behavior to please everybody but at some point you are no longer behaving for yourself but for everyone else. You have to pretend like you want to speak different pronouns, you have to pretend that calling someone black is much more offensive than calling them African American. You have to make sure that you specifically don't interrupt women, you have to double check (and counter) your implicit bias towards women and minorities when you think they didn't do a good job in the interview.
Some of these things are hyperbole and some of them are not. I know the standard response is that I'm over exaggerating but its par for the course to get diversity training, to have quarterly updates on how more women are being hired! (as if the company were actually eliminating discrimination instead of just bumping numbers up). This is all new and its moving faster and faster.
The whole "priced out of the market" idea is nonsense. That argument isn't even being made by Andreesen here though. The competitive disadvantage is true, by definition. It doesn't make sense to discriminate from a market perspective. The article only supports this: Greenspan got a competitive advantage by hiring women, because they were cheaper. The free market punishes discrimination. It doesn't end discrimination, but it gives an incentive for hiring women.
If I identified as a woman, I frankly wouldn't be so worried about earning a bit less than my male counterparts, but rather about not being hired at all, because of all the legal risks associated with hiring women because of anti-discrimination laws. Nobody is getting sued for discrimination about firing some white boy.
Everyone is equal, but hey heres a WOMAN that did a thing!
I'm happy she achieved this, but the cognitive dissonance from HN is depressing.
That being said, I never knew these records were done with a draft vehicle. It kind of takes the human out of the equations to the point that I don't care if a man or woman set this record.
It seems like the pure record would be whoever has the land speed record in a bike unassisted by a tow and slipstream. I have more respect for whoever did that over some person that needed a mechanical advantage via a draft and a tow.
I haven't used one myself but I've heard the dongles are horrific. They overheat, and sound quality fades as temperature rises. This was a couple weeks ago my friends were telling me they couldn't get anything decent for their pixel2 on Amazon everything is cheap and produces the same result.
The common link between Rick and jbp is that they speak to young men in a way that nobody else does. Rick is careless, extremely independent and a risk taker. Peterson, maybe over stepping his boundaries, gives concrete individualistic direction and life "rules" that young men happily buy into and find success with.
I was thinking the other day about how similar Wolf of Wall Street and Fight Club are. One is sadistic and anarchists, the other is hedonistic and capitalist. Yet I think they inspire men in the same way. They describe figures who defy social norms, who are impulsive and independent. It's interesting that both of these movies are considered the pinnacle of toxic masculinity, but in some way speak to men in a way that inspires. If the concept of toxic masculinity seeks to eliminate these character types and these themes, it makes me wonder what would replace it and if the inspiration that a young man finds for these lawless models will persist or if out culture can instill new ideals that make men more docile and better socialized.
Given the lack of context provided by the study (what commentary can you have about female beauty standards if you don't compare them, using the same methodology, to male standards?) I conclude that this study is only useful for a conversation about genderless conformity in the news room. If the author offers data on women's haircuts, in order to make the commentary you are making, they must also study men's hair.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that there is inequality. If the study doesn't demonstrate inequality then you can not use the study (in isolation) to prove inequality or to throw the burden of matching the statistics on the other side.
Every news anchor's appearance is carefully curated to present a safe face for the network.
