Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:This Guy's Talents Should be Put to Good Use (Score 3, Interesting) 75

by hey! (#49361119) Attached to: Prison Inmate Emails His Own Release Instructions To the Prison

Well, in the end you have to ask "did he get away with it?". Or, given that he turned himself in later, "did he have some purpose in escaping that he fulfilled?"

Intelligence is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It includes things like thinking through unintended consequences before acting that quite clever people are sometimes bad at.

Comment: Re:This whole issue needs to be buried (Score 1) 245

As to universal truths, actually your study doesn't prove anything. Do you have a study that shows what women working in academia are paid compared to men? Those actually hired and actually working because they're actual people doing actual jobs?

That introductory offer might not reflect anything more than an introductory salary that is increased to some average rate upon proof of competence. Possibly the grades of women in academia are known to be inflated? I don't know... but that could be a reality for all I know. As such, perhaps scientists have to be a bit more careful when hiring women for that reason? Any number of such reasons are possible and none of them would technically be bigotry. It is only rational to try and manage risks as you perceive them. If a woman is walking through a bad part of town, is it sexism if she feels threatened by a group of men walking down the street but not threatened when a group of women walk down the street? It is just rational threat assessment. That isn't bigotry and complaining about it is completely pointless because it will never go away... ever. Any society that banishes rational threat assessment will destroy itself, devolve into barbarism, the anarchy will cull anyone that doesn't know how to manage risk, and the society that forms from the chaos will be wiser.

Trying to remove rational threat assessment is about as clever as lobotomizing yourself. It won't happen and if it did you'd destroy yourself. Pointless.

And once we have that bit of information, if there is a wage gap... I will want to separate out the women that have children versus not to see if the wage gap remains. I understand your study, I am saying what happens to the wages when they actually get the job... and what happens to their wages over the course of their career given different choices and how does that compare to the men.

Absent any ability to evaluate these things, we do not know enough about the situation to draw any firm conclusions.

I grant that it is intriguing and I'd love to see a more exhaustive study. However, that study is not proof of anything. It is too thin. I cannot emphasize enough that I do completely agree that this study should be expanded upon to figure out what is actually going on. We have some data here that is suggestive but we don't actually know what would happen if we really dug into these institutions and figured out what was really going on.

As to reasons... here are some non-sexist reasons:

1. Liability. Female workers might involve different legal and ethical strictures and thus increased risk.

2. Commitment. It is possible that female workers get hired, work for a short time and then quit to start a family or something requiring the people that hired her to go find someone else. This is avoided to some extent by just hiring a man.

3. Overwork. Men are known to overwork. This is one of the reasons men dominate programming and a few other fields. They don't go home at 6pm. They obsesses and invest themselves. Not all men... but certain personality types that tend to be the sorts of men that dominate given fields. Overwork is valuable to companies and is generally compensated in various ways. It also implies a flexibility in the worker in that they will do what is needed to get the job done even if that means coming in on week ends and working through the night.

And I can come up with other reasons as well.

This is not sexist because it is correlative. It is based on an assumption that a given worker is going to follow a given pattern of behavior based on the past experience of the person hiring. The reason for hiring or not hiring in this case is not because of their gender but because of those assumptions about what they'll be getting in a worker.

That said, that is only applicable in your study.

And I would point out again that it is very thin and there were lots of women in that study showing the same hiring pattern. You say I am arguing that sexism is right... I would point out that if I were arguing that, that the female managers would be guilty of it as well which is very unlikely.

The whole "internalized bigotry" bullshit is nonsense. If the women scientists are making the same choice then it is because they have observed something of note that leads them to that behavior pattern. The whole notion of internalized bigotry is highly questionable. I have met real bigots. They're very obvious and they are very aware of their bigotry. This notion that everyone is basically unknowingly believing things they think they don't believe is a bit goofy. It reeks of projection. I think some people WANT to justify a given position and to justify that position they have to label a lot of people bigots. And if they can't support that position, they'll just come up with wilder and wilder theories about people's secret bigotry to support an increasingly threadbare position.

I am not a bigot. And this attempt to call pretty much all of society bigoted is offensive.

As to bringing up gender all the time... Okay, all topics of gender are now forbidden then... We'll just shut this topic down and any like it ever again.

Or can I bring up gender in a topic about gender? Don't be absurd, please.

As to your claim that I am obsessed, don't cite that study and I won't undermine it. That's the deal. Cite it and I will challenge it.

That isn't obsession. That is entirely reasonable. I detect a shift on your part into sophistry. I'd would caution you against that. I am intensely logical. Sophistry does not work against my personality type. I turn everything into logic and sophistry looks like errors in arithmetic to people like me. It is profoundly obvious and neither confusing nor compelling what so ever.

Fair warning.

Comment: Re:Staying with the Halo theme eh? (Score 1) 51

Don't be a killjoy. Halo was a pretty cool game especially for a console. I'm a PC guy so I've only played the Halo games that have made it to PC. But they're pretty fun.

its just funny that MS is using all these references from halo to name their smartphone crap.

Comment: Re:Occums Razor (Score 0) 179

by Karmashock (#49360455) Attached to: Dark Matter Is Even More of a Mystery Than Expected

Friend, I value empiricism. I am not a belief cultist... apparently you are.

You're also apparently a very petty person that likes to bring ad hominems into any discussion he possibly can. You are what is wrong with the internet.

If you valued the discussion more than your pathetic insults, perhaps you might have profitable discussions here... So far as I have seen, you don't. Not just with me. But with anyone.

I however have such discussions on this board all the time. Instead of disagreeing with me or offering up alternative opinions you have to devolve into this... pitiful.

Comment: Re:This whole issue needs to be buried (Score 2) 245

Okay, so her first issue is that there are a lot of men in tech.

That isn't a valid complaint or evidence of discrimination. Do men in the fashion industry or any female dominated business have the right to whine about discrimination because they're surrounded by women? Obviously not.

next issue.

Her next point about computer science degrees and women 30 years ago is a half truth. Yes, women were getting those degrees but it was because at that time the job was seen as clerical and like typists, women tended to dominate such professions at that time. When the personal computer came around and programming stopped being about managing the giant business computer in the basement... it stopped being seen as a clerical position and so not part of the traditional female jobs. The lack of women in programming these days is not due to companies not wanting to hire women. It is due to women not thinking that they need to CS because they don't think it is part of that traditionally female career path.

There is no discrimination there.

Next issue.

She then busts out with an out of context quote from a 1980s silicon valley programer saying that he didn't have time for women... He was mostly talking about girlfriends and relationships... not female peers in his industry.

Next issue.

She then blames it on lack of role models. Which begs the question of who are the male role models? The thing about technology is that you get into it because you love it. You don't do it because of role models.

How is lack of female role models the fault of MEN? That's on you ladies. Women have to take some responsibility for themselves. Providing their own fucking role models is a pretty low standard to meet. I mean, if they really can't then we men can of course provide such role models for them. However, they will be abdicating that choice to us. Comes with the territory.

I don't see how this issue is the fault of men or even society.

She talks also about games marketed to men forgetting that the game companies have tried to market to women all along. THey've just not been very successful at it. It isn't that games for women aren't made. It is that women don't buy them. That is until Candy Crush came along and now women love all those facebook games. But that won't stop people from complaining that there are games made that men like. Why is that a problem? There are books and movies made for men. And there are books and movies made for women. there are also games made for men and games made for women. These various markets meet different levels of success.

So yet again, no discrimination.

And that got me past 10 minutes.

I want the last ten minutes of my life back. X-(

Comment: Re:This whole issue needs to be buried (Score 2) 245

No, my view is of someone that understands the employer employee relationship.

As to society needing children, yes... but it is not the corporation's responsibility to do that. That is up to the family and the community. Not the company.

What is more, the community does help women. Again, about 90 percent of government medical subsidies go to women. Why is that?

What percentage of homeless people are men versus women? Why is that?

Women are taken care of far better by our society than are men. We recognize that women must be protected. But no one owes you a job. And if you show up with this entitlement that you should be paid more than you are worth, then you are in for disappointment.

You will be paid what you are worth. What you get beyond that will be charity.

Furthermore, if the point is for women to have children, then why are we putting women into the labor force and encouraging them to have careers? This does not help women have children.

What is more, why do we not encourage women more strongly to be bound into some sort of sexual relationship with the opposite sex? It would help the birth rate.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say society should give you a career because society needs babies. That is not an argument for giving women jobs. That is an argument for denying them jobs, compelling them into the kitchen, and giving their male partners the jobs instead.

The argument for giving women careers is EQUALITY. Not babies. Equality. And equality means you get paid what you are worth.

You cite babies and I have to ask how giving you a career helps society get babies? Limiting the opportunities of women has a proven track record of improving birth rates. Actually, the more opportunities women have, the lower the birth rate becomes.

Think about it.

You can't use babies in this argument. If society really needed the babies then the last thing it should do is give women anything to do besides have babies.


As to your various welfare recommendations, that is fine. The government can raise taxes and give more women welfare and subsidies. That is however not the company's responsibility. You can tax the company and use those taxes for various things. But as an employee you're going to get paid what you are worth.

Crying discrimination when you're not being discriminated against is dishonest and foolish.

Comment: She was comfortable around men. (Score 1) 245

She had a not-showy manner of dressing that looked both excellent and comfortable.

She was comfortable around men. Men accepted her as someone with whom they could talk.

Most women in the U.S. show by their manner that they aren't comfortable around men.

Comment: Re:This whole issue needs to be buried (Score 1) 245

They sent those to both male and female employers.

What is more, it was exclusively in academia. You don't know how that would be received in other institutions.

What is more still, we're talking about wage gaps that tend to form over time. Your entire premise is based on the notion that at hiring the prices people are paid are different and you're not taking anything beyond that into consideration.

Your study while interesting is hardly definitive of anything... even in academia.

There was also no follow up to find out why any of that happened. The could be correlative problems associated with female applications.

This recent lawsuit by a woman against a company has already been noted BY professional women to be damaging to women because it increases the RISK of hiring women.

If I don't hire a woman because I'm afraid she's going to sue me for example that isn't discrimination against women. That is fear of lawsuits.

You can't damn our entire society using that one flimsy study as evidence. It isn't remotely enough.

Comment: Re:This whole issue needs to be buried (Score 1) 245

In fairness the men in prison are there mostly because men tend to commit crimes with greater frequency and when they do they tend to commit more serious ones.

It is important to be fair so that when you pass judgement it has meaning.

If you judge impulsively or unfairly then your judgment is of diminished value.

Keep that in mind and keep your comments fair.

The homeless comment is fair. The prison comment is not.

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." -- Artemus Ward aka Charles Farrar Brown