Enforcing gender roles (saying a person cannot do x/y/z) is silly, however letting people choose their own path can be good. There is a tendency to go towards typical roles, because on average men and women are better at different things.
People gravitate towards things they are good at in general. With such different brain structures (men having seven times the gray matter of women, and women having ten times as much white matter) come different aptitudes, and different ways of applying that aptitude to a given problem.
They _export_ to jpeg. The working file never sees release. The working file is what would be in psd (or if you use gimp xcf).
Just like when they author blu-rays, the working file would be some form of lossless, end result h264, you never see the working file.
While it is true that seagate does hybrids at the block level so it is transparent, linux hit some bugs in the hard drives firmware that windows did not quite some time ago, and the results weren't so pretty. That was a few years ago though hopefully they have it sorted by now.
If there's a material and measurable harm to one group
So because society doesn't value the types of jobs women ten o gravitate towards in general we must make their pay even because capitalism and getting paid as a function of demand and perceived worth doesn't work? Suckier jobs that need to be done pay more, news at 11.
Just because the overall numbers swing in mens favour of earnings doesn't necessarily mean society wide sexism is going on. People could just be different and expecting everything to be 50% down the line is silly.
why are you against righting that wrong?
Because you aren't righting any wrong, you are guaranteeing new ones.
When "actually try" doesn't work, what do we try next?
Just keep on trying, it is all you can do. Implementing systematic injustice because some people let criteria irrelevant to the task get in the way sometimes is idiotic, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Yes, and those "generalizations" are illegal discrimination when applied to gender, but not education level.
Only when being used as criteria for a task where it is not necessarily so. When you make criteria you use the _actual_ value, the one that matters. I can say that on average men are physically stronger than women and that is fine. If I have a job that requires lifting a certain amount of relatively heavy weight of course I'd wind up finding more males as suitable applicants, but so long as their ability to do the job is what is being assessed and not other things having more male employees than female in that context isn't sexism, just happened that one demographic had more people suited to the task.
They exist and are legal,
And so is paying women more than men for the same job, both of these injustices are legal, I propose we endeavour to end both.
monumentally stupid to end the support of the most disadvantaged while not ending the support of the most advantaged. End the white AA (legacy), and then we'll talk.
As I said before, I support ending that also. The same argument is used for both, that it is using criteria irrelevant to the task and so should be stopped
If you support ending the legacy items, you should support ending affirmative action also.
so your suggestion is "change human nature."
Nope, my suggestion is "actually try ", instead of going "The most benefits to the people who complain the most!". All you can ever do is attempt to treat people fairly. You might not always succeed, but the opposite is to purposefully treat them unfairly, like with affirmative action and other discrimination based on sex/race.
You are trying to replace a potential injustice with a systematic and purposeful one.
Men (and women) assume a married 35 year old women looking for a stable job is more likely to take maternity leave than a man in the same situation, and thus account for it in the hiring decision (often unconsciously), or that a woman with 2 kids is more likely to take sick leave than the man with two kids.
Employers also often assume someone with a bachelors degree is more capable than one without, while in a fair number of cases it is true, that does not make it universal. They are incapable of knowing everything about their potential employees, so some generalisations will happen to an extent, but generally if it is overly pertinent to the job, they will ask or test instead of assuming.
That, and AA is good when it's *for* white males. Bush got into Yale as a "legacy" (he got a benefit based on who his daddy was).
Who says I support that?, kick those kinds of things to the curb also.
By what standard disadvantaged? For someone who cares about family the typical woman has things a lot better than the typical man who wants to be able to spend as much time as possible with the children.
I'm hesitant to consider "different life priorities result in different outcomes" as disadvantage.
I'm also hesitant to consider "overall x earns more than y, so lets make their wages even" fair when the jobs can be completely different.
Next thing you know people will start saying "Bankers earn more than McDonalds employees, lets fix the wage inequality by treating them the same"
Or "hey, that guy that took two years off to look after his kids, lets promote him over this other guy who's pretty much the same but stayed the duration"
Different jobs, different hours, and different life priorities end up with different results.
This "I am a victim" culture needs to stop. People should be treated only by criteria relevant to the task. Affirmative action is akin to an eye for an eye.
Different jobs get different pay. Even within the same job at the same pay rate men typically earn more through *gasp* overtime.
Once you factor in hours worked and breaks from work for children/other things, a lot of women are doing better than a lot of men.
In fact part time/casual women workers on average make more than their men counterparts, but I don't see anyone trying to fix that 'inequality'.
You don't fix unfair discrimination by introducing more unfair discrimination.
I think you didn't read the article
''It's one of the reasons women are more likely to live in poverty in their twilight years, because of the gap in retirement savings,'' Ms Broderick told BusinessDay. ''One of the largest contributions is women's unpaid caring work.''
This has nothing to do about history, this has to do with women doing different unpaid/lesser paying work and winding up with less money at the end of the day, if you take a _different_ lesser valued job or _less_ hours you will get less pay, this is life.
If you go by the same profession, the same uninterrupted (single, no children) time of progression and the same number of hours if hourly, women are actually doing better than men in many regards.
The 'solution' to men getting paid more for overtime/more dedication to the job by ignoring family shouldn't be to just raise womens pay just because they have different life priorities, not putting working yourself to death as one of them.
With less hours comes less pay, and with year or longer interruptions from work along with other responsibilities comes delayed progression.
Women on average are paid more than men until about the time the majority of them have children.
Should we punish men for doing more overtime by claiming they are unfairly getting more money for having the gall to work longer hours?
Not to mention in the part time and casual areas women on average get far more money than men, what are we doing about that?
How many white men would change places with a black woman, for example?
In what context?
I think many people wouldn't mind a pay rise. Same job, same work, different pay because one is female.
Just because you have a penis or vagina shouldn't affect your pay rate. Feminism is the art of preaching superiority under the guise of egalitarianism.
The thing is, different criteria and focuses yields different results.
Choice in the OSS world usually comes from different goals and priorities of the projects when it comes to details.
Depends on your definition of "large"
All tasks big enough get broken up into smaller more manageable tasks where they can be, it just makes sense to.
If they don't need to alter the documents you send them, why aren't you sending it as pdf?
Also if you want to make something look really nice, Word is probably a bad choice. LaTeX is lovely in that regard. Higher learning curve sure but once you've used it a bit you'll never go back to crappy old things like word.