There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.
Except that one of them is irreversible.
You think imprisonment is reversible?
Anyway, regardless of one's stance, everyone should really read this before forming their opinion on death sentences...
Sexism isn't just excluding or discriminating,
Yes, it is, in addition to prejudice and stereotyping.
there is one other vital component: harm.
There is no dictionary that agrees with you on this point. I'm going to side with merriam-webster and oxford on this one, as would most people. There is no dictionary in the world that defines harm as a component of sexism.
It's like having a girl's bathroom and a boy's bathroom. The girl's bathroom might even have more facilities (tampon machines/disposal). It's not sexist because it doesn't disadvantage either gender, it's simply discriminating for a perfectly legitimate reason.
It's not discrimination, and there is no dictionary that agrees with your use of this word either. Providing facilities for physical differences has never been regarded as discrimination, as there is no exclusion going on.
Unless someone can show that this school will somehow harm boys then it isn't sexist.
Only if one uses your definition of "sexist". The rest of us use the the dictionary definitions. Redefining words to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument is broken.
I cannot stress this enough: Redefining the word sexism to a meaning not found in any dictionary just to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument is broken!
It would be easier, at this point, for you to change your argument than to ask every dictionary in the world to change the meaning of the word sexism.
Culture systematically shapes our perception of damned near everything - hell, you probably find the though of shitting in the street or eating human flesh disgusting - you think there's anything *natural* about either of those taboos? Hardly. The onus of evidence lies on you to show that it does not.
Ah. The creationist argument - prove a negative. Well Done!
if society has systematically shaped her expectations and preferences from the day she was conceived? Yes.
That's quite a big "IF"; have you any evidence that this is actually the case?
Yes. It's sexist because women are discouraged from pursuing it.
Extraordinary claim. Citation needed.
It's sexist because women are ostracised if they do.
Another extraordinary claim. Another citation needed.
If I see a woman with a particularly impressive qualification, I would hire her over a man with the same qualification, because I know that the woman had to be better than the man to get it.
You do realise that you are talking about a generation that has been brought up with the mentality of "You can do whatever you want to"? The young women who are choosing not to go into $FIELD have been told their entire lives that they can do whatever they want to. Society has been pushing the gurl powah shlock since the 80's.
And make no mistake, being a white male in this society is like playing the game of life on the easiest setting:
This misconception gets thrown around a lot. "Life is easier when you're a man"
Women live longer than men (82.2 vs 79.8)
work fewer hours than men (7.7 vs 8.4),
are safer in society than men are (23% of homicide victims, vs 77% for men),
have around 1/10th the incarceration rates as men do (126 vs 1352),
do less dangerous jobs (7% occupational fatalities vs 93% for men),
Receive more from a broken relationship
than men (Number so low for men that it is not even significant),
are more qualified than men,
and are healthier.
So, other than living shorter, unhealthier lives, facing more violence, possessing less education while working more hours at 13 times the risk of death, *and* financially hurting more than women after a divorce, men are more privileged than women? Western women are objectively the most well-off demographic in human history. Subjectively, well, that's another story - opinions in the stead of facts don't mean anything anyway and it's pointless to debate subjective statements.
Oh, and the rape-rate for college age women? Roughly 7 per 1000, not 1 in 5 or 1 in 4. So much for "rape-culture"...
PS - I feel like I should post this in response to all the "male-privilege" comments, although I'm sure you'll (sooner or later) once again post about how male-privilege blah blah blah.... so I'm pretty sure I'll get another opportunity to post this.
I read AC upthread - linky - and tend to broadly agree with that sentiment. IOW, you have absolutely nothing to worry about as the force that is waging the PR-war is not going to let any other demographic be victims. They've cornered that market in such a way that no policy-maker will dare make a policy that enrages them - you will not be getting minority teachers because the PR army involved won't allow it because according to their ideology only they are victims.
There's a chance that the bank wouldn't be able to redeem the note, because of fractional reserve banking.
Besides other reasons for discounting notes at purchase time, like fake notes, or loss, or the bank being very far away.
That's trusting that the bank has your gold/commodity. Like the bitcoin supporters keep saying - mtgox is not bitcoin and bitcoin is not mtgox. In the same way, the bank is not gold and gold is not the bank. A currency based on gold is one based on MIStrust, because you don't trust the issuers bill and insist that their bill is backed by gold.
Currencies backed ultimately by gold by some bank are most definitely NOT backed by "trust". If you trusted them you wouldn't need the gold. Once again, I reiterate - since the invention of coinage no currency has existed that is based on trust. Not a single one. I fail to see why BTC, based soley on trust, will succeed. Even as an experiment, all it has shown thus far is that we have been inadequately teaching economics.
Since the invention of coinage there has never ever, not even once, been a currency based on trust.
This is absolutely not the case.
As little as 200 years ago, there were many competing currencies, typically backed in gold. There was even merchant's associations and regular publications on how much you should discount certain bank's currency because the redeeming bank was far away, or not as trustworthy. Wikipedia has a whole catalog of these notes.
These are all bills/scrips backed by banks/companies, further backed by gold... how do you figure they were based on trust? Seems to me that a currency based on gold is not based on trust.
Fiat money is self referential too. You only accept it as a form of payment, because you know others will accept it from you.
Not self-referential at all - I accept it as a form of payment because I can pay taxes with it. I "know" others will accept it for settlement of a debt because if they refuse they forfeit the debt.
Fiat money also has no real value. Just like bitcoin it is based on trust, not on authority or enforcement.
It has value in its jurisdiction. Try refusing to accept settlement of a debt in your local currency and see what happens.
Fiat currency is supported by a government
Didn't work well for Zimbabwe, or Weimar republic.
Neither did elections. Doesn't mean that they are a bad idea.
Ultimately, fiat currency is simply based on trust
Nope. Bitcoin supporters frequently make the mistake that all something needs to be a currency is trust. This is not true. It needs a sovereign government backed by men with guns who will force you to pay your bills only in that currency or face punishment. That is what ultimately makes a currency. Not trust. Since the invention of coinage there has never ever, not even once, been a currency based on trust.
Why should someone with less qualifications make more than me just by having a huge ego and demanding more money?
What makes you think the better negotiator has a bigger ego than you? You've spent this entire thread being smug that you are so modest that you *don't* negotiate
Dear god.... blah blah bug report blah blah
All Ellen Pao is doing here is guaranteeing overpayment for mediocre workers. Think about it. To get the best talent she'll have to pay top dollar. But that doesn't guarantee everyone hired is top talent.
If you read the summary carefully, they are not stating a salary value for a job in advance of making a offer to someone.
They are interviewing and then making an offer they feel is appropriate for that interviewee, that means that they can still adjust the offer based on the person in front of them (and who is to say the hiring managers don't offer less to women?). All thats changed is that the offer is set in stone, the interviewee either takes it or leaves it.
This scheme will live or die on how well they predict the job market for the roles they are hiring for but I don't see how it really addresses the stated goal of equalizing pay ranges between genders.
This scheme doesn't work too well anyway - I won't go for the interview without an upfront statement wrt the salary. I don't think I've ever gone for an interview which did not have a salary range stated upfront. As recently as Monday I've told a slave-trader that the job-spec he sent me neglected to mention a salary range. He came back with "They offer competitive market rates" and I replied with "I don't interview for people who cannot afford me". I will not be going on any interview soon (mostly 'cos I'm happy where I am, but regardless).
It's actually quite simple - if they cannot afford me then they should waste my time. If I'm unable to adjust my expectations downwards then I won't waste theirs. There is no "Well, we'll offer you competitive market rates for your skills after we interview you," there is only "don't enter the fitting room if you can't afford to buy!"
Presumably everyone at the company negotiated their own salary.
She claims that the women didn't.
You obviously don't know how to negotiate. Being a good negotiator is about making the person you negotiate with believe that what you're selling is worth more than its true value. In this case, it's about making your employer believe you're more valuable than you truly are.
That's not negotiation, that's misrepresentation. There is no dictionary I am aware of nor common colloquial usage that means "misrepresent the value".
No wonder you feel the way you do about this - if you knew and used "negotiation" the way the dictionary defines it then you wouldn't make the statements you do, like "rewarding someone for useless skills".
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
