Actually, when you compare on like terms, both genders are making about the same wages per hour worked. If anything, right now, single women under 30 make a bit more on average than single men under 30.
Because, the free market would claim discrimination. Any men-only scholarships would be labeled sexist and shut down/shunned by the feminist trained community...and of course, that wouldn't be considered an act of oppression.
yes, except, soon, to get involved with producing will cost you $20000 instead of $2000...or even $300, for an entry level pc.
Sure beats the bloated 'skinned' graphics and 100MB worth of support libraries common with today's graphical applications. Winamp 2.x and foobar are examples of gui applications done right.. itunes is an example of it done wrong especially on windows.
1. software installs shouldn't default to bundling extra bullshit that really shouldn't be there in the first place?
2. software shouldn't have features that mess with source files turned on as start up/initial defaults?
itunes on windows is a piece of shit... hell so is quicktime. What started as a simple directshow/vfw codec turned into a monstrosity that installs tons of bullshit that is not necessary nor asked for.
not really since once tablets/phones have seen their day, they're discarded.. desktop and laptop computers can be repurposed..
Ie, consumer versus producer.
How quickly we moved from a 1990s society of p2p potential producers, to a society of cloud dependent, mass consumers. How sad.
Not just that such machines are overkill, full blown computers running traditional systems are for geeks, and are unsuitable for typical users.
They're quite suitable.. They were used by plenty of non technical users for several decades. Tablets and 'smart' phones are a recent development, and are really only adequate for a small subset of the uses a PC has, and ideal for none of them.
Users do not want to constantly be installing updates, they do not want to worry about security and they do not want to be braving random potentially malicious websites to install software.
Then they wouldn't want tablets/phones either, because the same thing is done here. Instead of random, malicious sites, we have apps written by random, malicious authors who want the users' personal information in return for using their app. I'd take having to clean out the occasional bootsector virus over this, anyday.
Well the first possible warning sign was the author's last name. Women who don't take their husband's last name tend to be the 'empowered' sorts who have axes to grind. I feel sorry for the husband.. a day in 'family' court is probably in his future, if it hasn't already occurred.
Would you take a book about evolution seriously from an author who had the title of pastor?
This doesn't mean that books like these shouldn't be read. Arguments stand or fall by themselves, so it doesn't matter who makes them. I am just saying it's a possible/probable indicator of bias that should be examined, and if found, excised, and the info re-evaluated. In most cases, it's bullshit, but occasionally, not.
That seems to be what universities spend their research dollars on now.. That is, when they're not spending them trying to cherry pick facts that 'prove' the veracity of their hard left political positions...just like the christians do with the bible, evolution, and their beliefs. This article falls into the latter category, because while they 'proved' that men and women are neurologically different, the goal was to show women as being deeper, more cerebral thinkers.
Tell that to feminists demanding societal concessions from men.
It is a continuum, but it is not flat. There are effectively two bells on the curve. Most men are more masculine than most women, and most women are more feminine than most men. I am sure the hormone bias follows closely. The corner cases you speak of only get the attention they do because certain political proponents' ideologies need the attention on them in order to make their own arguments appear more valid than they are.
I would agree.. However, this isn't the implied definition used by politicians and activists..and if it is, they have utterly failed because the policies they've enacted are anything but 'equal' by this definition.
teehee isn't misandry so funny? Apparently 'misogyny' isn't. Try making jokes about negative female stereotypes and see how quickly your posts got moderated down to -1 troll or flamebait by all the whiteknight pussybeggars around here.
Then women are the ones who have the privilege, not men. This is true both in the letter of the law, and the precedent set by its enforcement.
1. women get lighter sentences for crime.
2. women are assumed to be victims in 'abuse' cases whether they are or not..
3. if men call 911 because their wives are throwing knives at them, he is arrested and brought to jail. look up 'mandatory arrest.'
4. women pay less into social security yet retire sooner.
5. women don't have to sign up for the selective service in order to vote.
6. women are given access to public money (scholarships) for education just because they are women.
7. Title IX. Enough said.
8. VAWA. Enough said.