You are aware that Interpol regularly handles arrest warrants issued to detain criminals who have committed a crime in only a single country.

Interpol is not an international police organization, it is a framework to allow national police organizations to work together across international boundaries.

If a person were to rob a bank in the US, and flee to Mexico, the US will put out an Interpol warrant (more accurately, the US will issue an arrest warrant, which is then passed on to Interpol, who communicates that warrant to all member nations), and when/if the person shows up in Mexico, Mexico will then arrest them under the Interpol warrant, in order to handle extradition processes. Mexico cannot simply arrest people on a US arrest warrant... that's why they then send it to Interpol who distributes the warrant in an internationally-aware manner that other countries recognize as valid.

So again: Country A cannot legitimately just issue an arrest warrant valid in Country B. Interpol allows Country A to get international recognition of their warrant in such a way that Country B will consider it valid in their borders. There is absolutely no requirement that the crime have occurred in multiple countries, nor that the purported criminal have committed crimes in anything more than just one country.

... but filing in small claims court still costs a non-significant amount of money. Last I checked, $25 in the state of Washington. What happens when a company crosses the line and defrauds a million people of $20? The company just made $20,000,000 dollars, and no one is going to sue, because even in small claims, it's $25 to sue to get even a default judgement of $20, with a net loss of $5 for anyone who wants to sue. And even if everyone did sue in small claims court, the small claims court would be a) clogged with cases, and b) made out like a bandit with $25,000,000 in revenue.

Class action suits are less about benefiting individual consumers, because their damages are usually relatively low, and widely spread out. Class action suits are usually about collecting up a bunch of people who have been wronged a little and getting the company to pay for being dicks.

While this is accurate to say, it's like saying that he's one of the justices that is a human being. All justices, judges, and magistrates accept that corporations are legal persons. This is neither surprising, nor debatable, and is a fundamental part of Common Law tradition. Why are corporations people? Because otherwise, they couldn't own property, and could not be sued.

Let's have a hypothetical. Let's say that corporations are not people in our new world. Alice, Bob, and Charlie are working together in a Corporation, ACME. Now, ACME is not a person, so someone has to own all the assets that would otherwise belong communally to ACME, and the three decide that Alice should be the person of record for ownership of materials. Now, someone has to run the company and be on the line for any legal messes, and the three decide that Bob shall do the actual operations of the company, and direct Charlie in his work, while Alice just sits at home, and collects a paycheck just for not walking away with the money and property. Now, Bob tells Charlie to dump some toxic waste in Derick's yard. Derick is upset, and goes to sue ACME in court, however, since ACME is not a person, he cannot sue ACME. So, he has to sue the people responsible for the toxic waste dumping. Well, obviously, he'd like to go after Alice, with the deep pockets, but she had no hand in causing the harm. Bob would also be a nice choice, because as the director, he has a reasonable salary, and it was his policies that directed Charlie to dump the toxic waste. Except that Bob only ever told Charlie in verbal communication that was never recorded to dump the toxic waste in Derick's yard. Leaving the only person that Derick can sue as Charlie, who is really just a lowly employee with no salary, and no real power. Derick sues and throws Charlie into bankruptcy with the tort finding, while Alice continues to maintain all the company assets that have not been touched, and Bob continues to direct the company however he sees fit with no accountability for his actions.

While it's true that the vast majority of men working in IT have little experience dealing with women, and are thus in poor practice of understanding women, I think you don't understand how life works for a woman in IT. When 90% of your peers are men, and going through school/training/college most of your peers are men... you understand men just fine.

In those situations exploiting men's sexual triggers results in better pay, and better treatment. Whereas in the IT field, being a sexual object doesn't affect your pay, detracts from your job, and reduces how well you are treated. When I left the IT field, I tried to get into work where being feminine and sexy was a positive trait, and appreciated. Namely, cocktail waitress at a strip club... in the IT field, there was the situation where if I mentioned how annoying fingernail paint was people looked at me puzzled and confused with no concept of what I was talking about (happened).

I have met a number of people who were skilled in a particular area, but didn't apply themselves, because of various reasons.

I attended summer school for English one time. I test in about the 97th percentile in English... I'm just crazy lazy, which is why I had to make up the grade. I met another girl there, who sat next to me. I would have put her as extremely intelligent, like 99th percentile. Yet she was there because she didn't know how smart she was, or actively attempted to ignore it as much as possible.

All of my siblings, myself included, are extremely capable in learning languages (My best guess for this is that a mutation in my mother resulted in the language critical-period not ending properly.) I speak German fluently (C1 level) with an impeccable accent (started learning German at 14), and various other languages at various other levels, all with reasonably good accents; my older sister speaks Dutch fluently, and lives in the Netherlands, her accent is so good that often times the Dutch around her forget that she is a foreigner (started learning Dutch at 18); my eldest sister took the DLAB, and they all but forced her to learn Chinese... as in "Dear god, we will give you all this money to learn Chinese!" but she declined, my younger sister clearly has the same ability, but has exploited it even less. I heard her explain matter-of-factly why a Latin noun was the gender it was like it was stupidly obvious to another student. Yet, she's never actually developed or harnessed this ability.

All of us are also really strong at artistic skill, and math skill (all of us having taken Honors math courses), yet I never really applied myself to developing my artistic skill, while they focused less on the math. My older sister was even told directly that she is a woman, and so she should take easier math courses.

Yes, there is aptitude involved, and someone who is not well suited to being a techie will never do well as a techie. But this compulsion about fixing things being limited to primarily men? Bollocks. Think of all the stuff your girlfriend tries to fix in your habits, behavior, dress, etc. Women want to fix things, they're just generally discouraged from fixing things, because other people do it for them.

I like how you put this. "The environment that exists in the treatment of females means that I would not put a woman that I care about in that field"... says a lot. Thanks for your appreciation.

Awesome post, and says everything I could say, and perhaps better than I would.

I've had to work on my own motorcycle from time to time, and my boyfriend kind of refused to help me, knowing that self-sufficiency is better than doing everything for me. However, from time to time, he would call me over with "hey, Japanese hands", because I had the tiny hands to get at/into something that his man hands were just too big to get at.

It's less so natural tendencies, and rather a "conspiracy" of culture. Children are subjected to more gender-stereotype influence than just what they get from their parents. Nearly everything about the western culture kind of discourages women and girls from being techies, and geeks. (Any girl interested in such things would likely readily be labeled a "tomboy", I know I was...) No matter how hard a parent fights against that trend, children naturally want to conform to the rest of their gender peers... so while the actual positions themselves are less so natural, the "conspiracy" that girls want to conform to other girls, and boys want to conform to other boys, results in them all picking up certain common interests which make it difficult to distinguish from "nature".

A totally valid excuse. :)

It's not a crime in the workplace either... however it is a civil offense, that can be sued for in the workplace. Outside of the workplace, indeed it is entirely unactionable.