Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:Boy toy (Score 1) 786

You swapped from cognitive differences to performance at cognitive tasks.

Most cognitive tasks require general intelligence, there is a range across men and women, it is suitable to ascertain an individuals ability at that cognitive task regardless of biological sex. There are also cognitive tasks which show a generalised advantage for females or males.

There are also large differences in the physical structure of female and male brains, likely changing perception, expectation, behaviour, etc. By better understanding the needs of groups of people we can specialise medicine, society and better understand relationships.

Your turn, what is the use in ignoring these observable differences ?

Comment Re:correlation, causation (Score 1) 387

The Curious Case of Country C, Grant Brown


Injustice is ubiquitous in this world. Heaven knows there is enough of it in Canada that we do not have to look abroad to fill newspapers with alarming stories of discrimination and oppression. Still, we might learn something about how a blind eye is turned to injustice by considering the case of a relatively minor country--call it Country C--which, amazingly, ranks favourably in United Nations reports.

Country C contains two groups, the majority Xs and the minority Ys. In spite of what the UN says, the standard social indicators suggest that the Ys are an oppressed minority. Among other things, oppressed people tend to experience poorer health, more violent victimization and aggression, discrimination in the administration of justice and in employment, and disadvantage in educational attainment. The following is a brief indication how the Ys fare in these respects, relative to the Xs.

The infant-mortality rate among Ys is higher than that among Xs. Ys are also more prone to alcoholism, drug abuse, and a host of psychological problems. Adding insult to injury, a highly disproportionate amount of public health-care money is spent on Xs. About twice as much medical-research money is spent on illnesses experienced almost exclusively by Xs, than on those experienced almost exclusively by Ys. In the final analysis, the life expectancy of Xs is seven years longer than that of Ys.

In Country C, Ys are a particularly brutalized group. Most violence committed by Ys is directed at Ys themselves; whereas most violence committed by Xs is also directed at Ys. Overall, Ys are twice as likely to be victims of violence, and three times as likely to be murdered, compared to Xs. Yet the mainstream media of Country C devote a hugely disproportionate amount of their coverage to the violent victimization of Xs, especially that perpetrated by Ys. Government commissions have been set up to look into the problem of violence against Xs, but not into the much larger problem of violence against Ys.

Ys are about nine times more likely than Xs to spend time in prison. Besides the harsher social conditions that tend to make violence a part of the Y culture, this difference is due in part to the fact that the law in Country C treats violent Xs differently from violent Ys. Ys are more likely than Xs to be investigated, charged, and convicted for similar crimes on similar evidence; Xs are more likely to be believed innocent, given favourable plea bargains, and awarded probation--even when participating together in the same crime with Ys. In violent conflicts between Xs and Ys, it is standard police procedure to haul the Ys off to jail even before establishing who was at fault or who was the aggressor. Perhaps most alarmingly of all, the law of Country C recognizes several excuses for Xs to kill Ys, with no parallels for Ys who kill Xs. In a large number of cases, Xs who kill Ys serve no time at all in prison.

Although a minority of the general population, Ys account for about 85 per cent of the homeless adults in Country C. It has been estimated that as many as half of these street people have been displaced from their homes by angry or violent Xs. Public money is spent on subsidized housing and shelters for needy Xs, much of it to the exclusion of equally needy Ys. (Public housing for Ys takes the form of jail cells.)

The education system, although officially integrated, nevertheless systematically favours the Xs. Especially in the early grades, when life-long attitudes toward scholastic achievement are formed, the distinctive needs and interests of Ys are ignored or trampled on. Few Ys have teacher training at the primary level, leaving young Ys without positive role models. As a result, the grades attained by Xs are, on average, higher than those attained by Ys throughout their school years; and Ys also have higher failure and drop-out rates than Xs at every level from primary school to university. In spite of this, attempts to ameliorate the educational disadvantages of the Ys by running Y-only schools staffed by Y teachers are deemed to be unconstitutional in Country C--though X-only schools and programs are permitted and even encouraged. Many millions of dollars of public money are spent on scholarships and other inducements aimed exclusively at increasing the participation rate of Xs at the country's universities, even though the participation rate of Xs is already significantly higher than that of Ys.

One academic study reported that if current educational trends continue, Ys will be completely eliminated from the job market by the year 2050. Meanwhile, Xs continue to enjoy legislated employment preferences and benefits in Country C, ranging from giving the position or promotion to an X whenever there is an approximate tie, to excluding Ys from even applying for certain important public-sector jobs. Manual labour and high-risk jobs remain the preserve of Ys: over 95 per cent of occupational deaths occur to Ys. (Of course, that is not an occupational opportunity the government of Country C wishes to equalize.) Not surprisingly, then, Ys own a disproportionately small share of the private wealth in Country C.

X-ists, who dominate media discussions of these issues in Country C, account for this array of facts by maintaining that Xs are innately superior to Ys--physically, morally, and intellectually. X-supremacist groups, supported mainly by public funds, claim that Xs are naturally more suited to govern, both in the public and private sectors, and openly yearn for a world ruled by Xs. Ys who dare to complain about the inequities in their society are trotted out as proof of the sniveling, inferior nature of Ys. The hate-mongering laws that exist in Country C do not proscribe hate mongering directed at Ys.

Perhaps you are wondering how such a deeply racist country as this could have fooled the United Nations for so long. A very good question, except that X and Y represent chromosomes, not races.

Comment Re:correlation, causation (Score 1) 387


It means that in a domestic conflict you'd be regarded as the perpetrator because you're male (and a member of the 'patriarchy'). It's a problem because domestic violence is actually close to gender symmetrical and male victims are ignored (women start most conflicts, men do more damage, women use weapons more often). It's a problem because male victims receive no support. It's a problem because it contributes to an imbalanced societal view of domestic violence and gender interrelations.

Please check if you self label as male feminist because you understand it as utopian socialist dogmatic ideology or if you self label as feminist because you've read propaganda from one side only and you like to compete with other men in a direction you believe women desire.


Comment Re:Opportunity / Outcome (Score 2) 548

Tokolosh differentiated between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

Equality of opportunity is close to human rights, freedom from prejudice. e.g. everyone gets an education.

Equality of outcome is a political concept, an arbitrary target is set (e.g. with sex/gender often a 50:50 participation outcome) and individuals are supported unequally to achieve this outcome.

I agree, equality of opportunity is worthy of intervention, equality of outcome is not.

Comment Re:Why blame Mozilla (Score 1) 406

You can't watch BBC videos because you don't help pay for their production. Every home in the UK which can receive TV has to be licensed. I don't watch BBC media and do pay for its production.


If you can get a VPN with a UK IP for less than £145.50 per year and want the content then you'll have the better deal.

Comment Re:Uh (Score 1) 545

I didn't attempt to make a problem go away, I didn't change the subject, I added another variable to it. You've attempted to incorporate my argument to show even further victimisation of women, which is dishonest, especially as you're attempting to do what you're accusing me of, make my problem disappear.

Women are people, with all the associated evolutionary baggage which comes with that, men and women are very similar on most counts. Both objectify the other based on mate potential. Men objectify females sexually. Women objectify males on ability to provide for children, also using physical cues to ascertain breeding potential. Height is one aspect of this, preferred by women and a cause of 'short man syndrome' in males.


If you can't show me many, many millions of women dying bravely and horribly to defend men and society, I'd say men were considered more disposable. Here's a smart cap and a rifle, choose looking sexy or


Comment Re:Uh (Score 1) 545

You're more concerned over women who may or may not exist than you are that the poster is sharing his thoughts. Yours is a gynocentric viewpoint, your lack of male-male empathy is portrayed as sympathy for the female.

You've used ad hominem to attempt to position yourself as a champion of lack of personal attack. 'Is it because your mom was mean to you', this is expression of male hierarchy and exactly the problem under discussion here.

Man up, you're giving the rest of us a bad reputation.

Feminism is for equality, misogynist. America is for freedom, terrorist.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 2, Funny) 224

Negative, each red LED makes the computer 1(one) faster. A P-III with one red LED is functionally equivalent to a P-IV.

Unfortunately, given predominance of heteronormative patriarchal culture, PIV is problematic and females cannot be said to have truly consented to using these machines.

This is why Apple products don't have red LEDs, and are popular with females whilst technically 1(one) slower. Most females can detect attempts to 'red light' PIV consent even remotely, so unless you can identify server traffic by bit-gender it's best to use the slower machines.

If you can identify bit-gender reliably, masculine traffic is unproblematic processed by PIV methods, feminine traffic should be directed to a cluster of co-operating P-III servers.

Hope that helps.

You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.