The scary thing is you think that women have been powerless victims for millennia completely unable to have any effect on society or men until an eyeblink ago.

You must think women are pretty inferior to men to maintain that belief.. because how else would that situation have been maintained?

When it comes to people sense of agency, agents are capable of making decisions that affect the outcome of things, and things simply happen to objects.

To say that women are unable to have control over their situation (as you do when you paint them the victim) is to objectify them.

It is often in this way that feminists are the biggest objectifiers of women that I know.

And I think the majority of women back then (who were _not_ feminists) had a better idea.

Women weren't granted the vote until over 50% of the women _wanted_ the vote. To say that it was unfair before then is to say that those women who didn't want to vote were wrong, in which case you are telling women what they should want.

I actually did a rather lengthy post on that topic somewhere else in this thread.

You are looking at things through a great deal of distortion today. Women have always been favoured (see the women are wonderful effect which feminism uses to it's ends), but being favoured has had different sets of trade-offs at different periods.

Oppression: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.

This also may take your interest, from the past.

Is the ability for a woman to put a man in jail effectively at her whim if he is not sufficiently wealthy not injust? Would you consider it a form of oppression, or not?

I can give modern examples, actually far worse ones for men where the women are literally holding the power to end their lives with impunity.

But I'm wondering what you consider oppression first.

Unrelated to the thread at hand, apologies I didn't see it earlier as this very much is the kind of thing I'd chime in on especially in regards to feminists very skewed ideas of history.

Would just like swing you something nice to read that may take your interest, shows how little some things have changed.

Very little to do with the site it comes from, it's well written. here

A small excerpt from towards the end of the piece:

What if they see "giving women what they say they want" as part of their interests?

Some interesting reading from the past (1907) here.

Do those laws and those results sound like they were made by men, to favour men? or perhaps by men to favour women?

People.. especially feminists, like to forget the details of the past, especially when it doesn't fit the very twisted portrayal they put forward of it.

and few would deny that it is mostly women who spend it.

To say that no man or group of men has ever been treated unjustly (oppressed) is a really hard sell man.

You don't think female privilege exists? you don't think they don't have entitlements that men do not also? Do you think it is all entirely mens fault across the board? bullshit.

To say that women have been powerless to men for thousands of years unable to have any effect upon mens wishes or politics I'd consider an argument that they are inferior. Good thing I don't think that. What they lacked in rights they made up for in entitlements.

When men were first granted the right to vote, it was conditional upon them signing up for potential military service (US here) and doing so at an age long prior to when they were allowed to vote. In world war one millions of men went to their deaths without being able to vote. In fact when the draft was challenged a court of law simply said

"It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force."

In other words, men enjoyed the rights and privileges of citizenship granted by government *because they paid for it through the reciprocal obligation of the draft.* And the court considered this bargain to be so self-evident, it need do no more than state it.

And yet a few short years later women were granted the vote, without those responsibilities, as soon as the number of women wanting the vote exceeded 50%. While only three years earlier men were being literally executed for not upholding their end of the bargain that they were unable to opt out of. For men gaining the right to vote was still a condition of their service, for women it was a freebie, no responsibility required.

Sure, women weren't allowed to make that bargain for a vote, but neither could men refuse it. Most of the women who were against women voting back then were against it because of the assumption they would be held to the same standard as males and be required to sign up for potential service.

Hell, during the war the suffragettes (women wanting to vote) took time off their campaigning to shame any man who was seen not in uniform to sign up to war. In one instance even compelling a 16 year old boy who was sent back from the trenches after being discovered how young he was to sign back up. Such is the power of women, they controlled what it was to be considered a man and through this power compel men to do their wishes in such a way that the power is deniable, to maintain an image of weakness.

When times are hard, rights tend to only be given to those that have responsibilities to others, so that they may fulfil them. Since allowing others to have rights they don't necessarily require can impede on those who do have those responsibilities.

What I see today tend to be people that want the rights without the responsibility and without losing the entitlements. Mischaracterizing the situation of the past such to tell a very one-sided story, in order to let the entitled have their cake and eat it too.

I used to think it was unfair that women weren't allowed to vote in the early 1900's, but after seeing the conditions placed under men to be able to vote, no wonder so many didn't actually want to, if it was assumed they would have the same responsibilities and lose their entitlements (which they did not).

Within practical limits and within the confines of what is safe, women are given what they want. Men have no automatic own group preference unlike women. Partly why the idea of men "holding all the power" is ridiculous when they are so easily influenced by the wishes women to the detriment of their fellow males.

Why hold the position of official political power with the responsibility that it entails, when you can simply influence the person in power without any of the responsibilities?

Do not underestimate the power that women have had throughout history, and still have.

Linus generally insults code and sometimes companies actions, he'll only curse at people when he knows them well and knows they are capable of far better. I think swearing at code is acceptable.

He is being portrayed without the original context in order to advance an image that he is some lumbering monster, and from your reaction it is working. It is not linus' fault if you can't see through the "oh, think of the children" style media manipulation for extra eyeballs.

Drama sells, news at 11.

If the people complaining about it all actually followed the lists and followed the technical and social problems encountered there and how they are dealt with, we wouldn't have half of this bickering.

As it stands it's mostly people out there looking for fault, and I don't expect linus or anyone else to try to censor themselves in such a way that there is no possible way out of context to be misconstrued as the bad guy (it's actually pretty hard).

Linus is a perfect example of a no-bullshit engineer, with great insight into the work processes both technical and social that go on behind the kernel.

With the media having so much sway, and nobody actually giving a shit to see how things are and how they work, I fear the "oh dear that poor persons feelings" mob have already won.. at least until they try and stay away from any software project where any kinds of standards were enforced on moral principle, in which case.. at least they won't be on the internet anymore.

If I have a consistent set of conditions that set off the fault, it usually takes me a couple hours to make a fix. Usually it's only some small oss project though, the more popular ones tend to have their stuff a little better in order.

When you are as famous as linus, every time you swear at code you're likely to get media attention. So I don't think it is as prevalent as you may think it is.

I certainly know that if there a media circus every time I swore it would be a lot more frequently than what we've heard from linus.

From linus at a prior time

In effect you are whining that calling a crap code submission crap is not professional. Linus is a very pragmatic and practical man. That so many people want everything to go smoothly and politely even when shitty things are submitted/done reflects poorly on that "everyone is a winner" kind of culture that propagates that mentality.

We should not prioritize peoples feelings over code quality. If something horribly break things that we've known for a while and know they are capable of better, we should be able to tell people that that was crap and we expect more of them without them whinging to the political correctness police yelling "abuse".

This mentality seems to keep on spreading amongst the new generations, and I fear for what the software development industry will look like in fifty years with all of the pragmatic people thrown out by those more concerned of peoples feelings.

From a prior discussion from linus.

some people don't believe in going "oh I'm sorry dear, you are an awesome sugar plum fairy but your performance in this little area was below expectations, especially when it is quite clear said person should know far better given their position of responsibility.

He is clear, to the point, and gets things done.

This is not abuse, this is quite clearly saying that it is screwed, and how it is screwed. It is productive conversation.

All of linus' tirades are followed by an in-depth message detailing in what way they are wrong, being direct and to the point is his style, which he is entitled to.

If calling for standards of quality in a very direct way is abuse.. well.. start a new kernel where you accept any old tripe and see how it goes? And only interact/depend on with projects who have a similar standard and means of management.

Linus is a very pragmatic, practical engineer. Don't let feelings get in the way of practical needs people. His style works far better than most.

Nah, I'm just not under the illusion that we are special in any way. The universe doesn't give a shit about whether we survive or not, that we often want to is simply a personal bias, not an inherent truth, and those personal biases can vary..

Whether we survive or not is just a thing that happens, it's not inherently "right" or "wrong". No matter what happens to us the universe keeps turning, doing it's thing.

You don't need that assumption to make atheism practical. Atheism is practical because "god" is not a falsifiable concept, this doesn't make it wrong, but it puts it in the realm of other things of that realm like the tooth fairy and santa. Things that even if they so happened by some freaky coincidence to be right there is no possible way to have evidence of it because of the lack of ability of the conjecture to be tested.

Critical rationalism allows atheism to function. Not in a hard "there is no god, for sure" stance, but in the "there is no reason, and can be no reason to prefer the conjecture that there is a god, so I'm going to totally ignore it like all other untestable things" sense.

Why? what justification do you have for this?

Just because someone doesn't think that it is an inherent truth that it is "right" that all people should continue to exist doesn't mean they think that people should not exist

What people consider to be a benefit or detriment depends entirely on their desired outcomes and priorities, which can be arbitrary. When what is "benefit" is arbitrary so too can be your morals if what is of benefit is your guiding light.

The main problem I see with people who talk about "morals derived from logic", comes from people not realizing that it all comes down to their own biases and their own preferences.

Sure, the system you've devised might be a reasonable and logical way to achieve the goals you intend.. but why do you have those goals? why are those goals "right"?

It all comes down to an a priori justification of their morals in the end. They just haven't recursively analyzed their own morals enough to realize it yet.

When all morals are effectively arbitrary (as the priorities and values that influence them can be) it is hard to say they are defined by "logic".