MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   Anyone know where these meetings are held? (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/505504/anyone-know-where-these-meetings-held/)

 
Snow-i Oct 31, 2013 08:31 PM
Anyone know where these meetings are held?
Unsurprisingly, none of the traditionally liberal outlets are reporting on this.

Anyone know where I can sign up for this club? I could sure use some unfair unearned advantages simply because I'm white. I wonder if I'm white enough to qualify.

Pentagon training manual: white males have unfair advantages | Fox News
 
Snow-i Oct 31, 2013 08:41 PM
Racism is okay as long as it's against white people. I hate myself. What an asshole I must be. I only work about 60 hours a week, so any opportunities I take advantage of are definitely because I'm white. I only manage save about 5% of my after tax income each, so any returns on my investments will certainly be because I'm white. I also only pay full tuition to a state school myself on my own income with no financial aid or other assistance, so i definitely had an advantage in school.

You know I've been white my whole life and never managed to oppress anyone else. I bet that's why the club doesn't want me. :/

What are you supposed to do if you're white and not part of this club? I guess I don't fit in anywhere :(
 
subego Oct 31, 2013 09:41 PM
Basically, you are a member of this club, even if you don't realize it.

An equivalent amount of effort by a white female would garner less, as would the same amount of effort by a black male.

If you were a black, openly* lesbian female, it would be even less.

This is in the aggregate. Of course there will be exceptions and variance. Just like you'd have different effects yourself if you put that effort in, say, Utah, versus where you are now.



*By "openly", I mean doing things which are considered normal for heterosexuals to do. Hold hands, peck on the cheek, etc.
 
Snow-i Oct 31, 2013 09:57 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4255306)
Basically, you are a member of this club, even if you don't realize it.
When do I start getting these advantages? Do we have a country club or something?

Quote
An equivalent amount of effort by a white female would garner less, as would the same amount of effort by a black male.
And the DOD should be wary of me because....? I'm a wizard that can negatively affect those around me who aren't in this club simply by the color of my skin? Well shit subego, you make it sound awesome! If only I could find the damn application. I've had a pretty awful decade and could sure use some of the benefits of this club.
Quote
If you were a black, openly* lesbian female, it would be even less.
I'm still not sure what I did to cause this or for what I did to warrant extra scrutiny from the DoD.

Quote
This is in the aggregate. Of course there will be exceptions and variance. Just like you'd have different effects yourself if you put that effort in, say, Utah, versus where you are now.
So I should change races next chance I get to avoid extra scrutiny from the government? Anyone know a good clinic? Which one did MJ use?
I know, too soon. It was too easy though

Quote
*By "openly", I mean doing things which are considered normal for heterosexuals to do. Hold hands, peck on the cheek, etc.
Now I know I'm not a part of this club since I've been working and schooling too much to meet someone, and as such I am on a pretty wicked dry spell. Does this club help me out there too? That'ad be awesome!

Forgive my satire. I don't deny anything subego has said. I'm just hoping to point out how ludicrous it is to train our military leaders to hate me for being white, considering I've always been an ardent supporter of racial/ethnic equality. Aren't we supposed to all be equal and working towards a world where race doesn't matter? I hardly see how that can happen when our government sanctions extra scrutiny to one racial group over another.
 
subego Oct 31, 2013 10:10 PM
You're losing me on the jump from "claim you have received privileges due to societal norms" to "personally responsible" and "needs to be punished".
 
subego Oct 31, 2013 10:13 PM
Never mind the above. Allow me to digest your whiteness.
 
Snow-i Oct 31, 2013 10:19 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4255312)
Never mind the above. Allow me to digest your whiteness.
I see what you did there ;)
 
subego Oct 31, 2013 10:37 PM
Let me flip this around a little.

Ignore the means (like the manual) for a second.

Would a military comprised of thoughtful and considerate people be a bad thing in your (or anyone else's) opinion?
 
Snow-i Oct 31, 2013 10:42 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4255315)
Let me flip this around a little.

Ignore the means (like the manual) for a second.

Would a military comprised of thoughtful and considerate people be a bad thing in your (or anyone else's) opinion?
I'll follow as long as the logic is there. In a vacuum, absolutely.

--
I don't see how singling out whitey is going to do anything but make more people hate white people, and force equal outcome via prejudice and discrimination. It does nothing for equal opportunity. Hate begets more hate, love begets more love. You cannot put out one fire with another, yada yada.
 
el chupacabra Oct 31, 2013 11:57 PM
Scholarships, government college grants just for being non-white, government grants to start up businesses just for being non-white. I agree the playing field isn't level at all.

What privileges are these non-whites not entitled to? All you have to do is choose to not idolize cultures of gangsterism and persecutioncomplexism, and instead, be a responsible hard working adult community member who strives to serve others at the expense of thy self. Or at least play the part...

And if one fails at that they can always fall back on college and the free grants...

edit: I forgot to add affirmative action. Which is alive and well; especially in government. If a white of equal qualifications applies with a non-white; the white isn't getting the job; thats white privileged.

For the record Im not against any of these things; but it is interesting seeing the hostility and lack of appreciation by the supposed oppressed groups.
 
subego Nov 1, 2013 01:00 PM
Either I misunderstand, or you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

On one hand, you claim you're not against entitlements, but if someone starts talking about why those entitlements are needed in the first place, they're being ungrateful.

:\
 
subego Nov 1, 2013 01:09 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Snow-i (Post 4255317)
I'll follow as long as the logic is there. In a vacuum, absolutely.

--
I don't see how singling out whitey is going to do anything but make more people hate white people, and force equal outcome via prejudice and discrimination. It does nothing for equal opportunity. Hate begets more hate, love begets more love. You cannot put out one fire with another, yada yada.
I'd imagine the vast majority of people receiving the training are white. The manual even talks about being a "white ally".

Will the training cause self-loathing in these people?


Note, I find phrases like "white ally" to be OTT, but what I'm specifically addressing is does the manual "teach hate". If it was clearly aimed at non-whites, I think you'd have a different story. Not the least of which being you don't need to teach this stuff to non-whites. They already know it.
 
The Final Dakar Nov 1, 2013 01:16 PM
Do good looking people have advantages?
 
Snow-i Nov 1, 2013 04:46 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4255408)
Do good looking people have advantages?
Yes, I do. ;)

But in all seriousness, yes. Good looking people have advantages. So do people with common, one syllable first names and common last names such as Smith, Williams, etc. That reminds me, where is the DoD handbook on being wary of good looking people?
 
subego Nov 1, 2013 04:53 PM
It was written by Gen. Petraeus I belive.
 
el chupacabra Nov 1, 2013 06:20 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4255401)
Either I misunderstand, or you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

On one hand, you claim you're not against entitlements, but if someone starts talking about why those entitlements are needed in the first place, they're being ungrateful.

:\
We probably disagree on the reason those entitlements are needed. I disagree that racial discrimination is the main culprit; instead it's people's flawed perspectives on reality and the result of arrogance that leads to their own poor choices.

I wish the underpriveleged would just admit that; and then accept the grants and affirmative action as a shot at 2nd or 3rd chances and say "Thank You! - We understand you didn't have to do this for us being the all powerful untouchable controlling white overlords that we think you are".

The day people stop blaming others for their circumstances, remove the word "fair" from their vocabulary, and take control, is the day they become winners at everything they do. The valid excuses are those involving a severe disabiltiy.
 
el chupacabra Nov 1, 2013 06:23 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Snow-i (Post 4255472)
Yes, I do. ;)

But in all seriousness, yes. Good looking people have advantages. So do people with common, one syllable first names and common last names such as Smith, Williams, etc. That reminds me, where is the DoD handbook on being wary of good looking people?
...and so do people with all kinds of ambition.
 
subego Nov 1, 2013 06:34 PM
@el chupacabra,

What is discrimination the culprit for in your estimation?

One would presume you think discrimination has some effect on something?
 
el chupacabra Nov 2, 2013 11:29 AM
Unjust discrimination causes Darwin awards all the time. Just look at the consequences to businesses or people caught discriminating, or even just being accused of racial discriminating. Such businesses and people will be pushed to the bottom of the totem poll and probably never be allowed to redeem themselves considering the intense stigma against racial discrimination.

Many businesses practice gender discrimination as much as they can get away with. This is because women are a much higher risk for the company than men. Many of the laws surrounding these issues add costly bureaucracy and inefficiency that in the end is passed on to the consumer and the rest of society, if someone needs to be cut because they're not as profitable as another candidate would be, then they should be allowed to cut without having to worry about lawsuits. One of the effects of these laws is companies being overly careful, not giving certain people a chance, simply because they calculated the added risk of a discrimination lawsuit. Such a risk should not even exist in a companies calculations, but thanks to progressiveism it does, and it prevents some good people from ever getting a chance. It's not always about being open minded vs close minded, it's about the numbers. Why would a business discriminate against anyone if that person was going to add more value to the workplace than male-whitey? They'd just be handing over their best candidates to the competition.
 
BadKosh Nov 2, 2013 12:40 PM
Any excuse for the lesser people. Who ever said life was fair? Who ever said you would do just as well as everyone else? Its jealousy redefined.
 
subego Nov 2, 2013 05:42 PM
@el chupacabra,

You mention there are issues with affirmative action laws, and it may surprise you to know I agree with you on most of them. I'm also of a certain libertarian bent, so on a philosophical level I think the ideal situation would be to discriminate all you want. If you (general you) don't like black people, a black person is going to have a better time somewhere else. As you said. If you are going to let me steal talent out from under you, that benefits both me and the black person.

When it comes to my own hiring practices, I don't hold myself up as some paragon of equality, but I go out of my way in the women and minorities department. This is because my business (film) is a ****ing white boy's club, and I don't like that. Now, I deal with freelancers, so I don't have to do the EEOC dance, but if I did, and as someone who bends over backwards, the idea I could get hit with a lawsuit would make me go nuclear. It would make me want to hire white men just so I could sack them without the hassle.

So, affirmative action laws have problems, and are easily abused. You'll get no argument from me.

OTOH, you'll have a hard time convincing me our society isn't massively stacked towards white males. I'm 42. I've never been hassled by the cops, and I've never felt in danger of being raped. You won't be able to find a black guy or a woman my age who can say the same. Those are just two examples. I've also never had someone call me a slut, or behave in a way which declared that without saying it. I've never been groped on the bus. I've never had the face of the person at the counter at the store go from cheery for the white person and then become gruff because I'm black. I've never had to worry about someone thinking I got my job not because I'm good, but because I ****ed someone, or (directly relevant to this discussion) as a "thank you" from whitey. No one's ever crossed to the other side of the street when they see me coming. I've never been the only other person on a train platform with a woman who is pants-shitting scared of me, so I needed to start whistling Vivaldi to let her know I'm "educated". I've never been called a ******, or a cracker for that matter. I've never gotten the cold shoulder when my girlfriend introduces me to the family.

I've never had someone pay me less because I'm white, or because I have a wang.

I've never had less than 50% representation on the Supreme Court, and it's been much higher for most of my life. My representation in the legislature is even more skewed on many counts. Excepting Obama, Washington, and Byrne, all the executives in my life, from local to federal, have been white males. Is this because white males are just that much better? Women are too much of a risk?
 
subego Nov 2, 2013 05:57 PM
Sorry for the wall-o-text. The tl;dr is,

I agree with you on a lot of things.

I think I disagree with you on the pervasiveness of discrimination.

Long list of examples which in total, are meant to be considered an irrefutable argument. :D
 
ghporter Nov 2, 2013 09:57 PM
I found it interesting that every Equal Opportunity worker in the Air Force seemed to be "other than white and male." In fact, my unit in the late 1990s had our Executive Officer abruptly reassigned to Patrick AFB where EEO career field training is conducted, so that he could take command of the school. He was Major Tony Nelson, and yes, Patrick AFB is the base connected with the Kennedy Space Center. Except my Major Nelson was about 5'6" tall and most of his forefathers definitely came from Africa rather than Europe.

Anyway, as a white male Senior NCO, I had to pay extremely close attention to specific "P's and Q's" when it came to anything that might possibly be interpreted as discriminatory, while on the other hand, it was generally believed (with plenty of empirical evidence to support that belief) that a non-white, female (or both) GI or civilian employee could suggest that some sort of discrimination had taken place for the purpose of disrupting a unit's operations, ruining someone's career, both, and more.

On a daily basis, I saw almost zero friction between groups in the Air Force. One day, my team mates and I decided to go to breakfast together before digging into a project we were working on. We sat together in a booth and commented about how others in the dining hall seemed to congregate with like-others (Anglo guys with other Anglo guys, African American females with other African American females, etc.). But these groups were all very junior people who had been hanging out at home 2 or 3 months before, and these little groups were a measure of "like home" to them. My coworkers and I were one Italian American, one African American, and two "Heinz 57" Anglo guys, and we were all NCOs with 12+ years of service. After working with folks assigned based only on their job training and experience, we'd all basically stopped paying any attention to unimportant things like our coworkers' skin tones or accents.

On the other hand, I've learned from a number of folks who served in the Army that the Army seems to have problems with internecine conflict, possibly because group-to-group antagonism, and even serious violence, is tacitly accepted within the Army. To me, it looks like Army policy is to try to develop aggression in Soldiers through these conflicts, but without even bothering to apply checks and balances to ensure that Soldiers learn when to be aggressive, and when not to be. That's a Bad Thing. What's worse, it seems to be turning around and biting the Army in its collective derriere.
 
el chupacabra Nov 3, 2013 01:23 AM
Ok bear with me, this will be my last long post. Dont read it on the phone
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4255549)
@el chupacabra,
but I go out of my way in the women and minorities department. This is because my business (film) is a ****ing white boy's club, and I don't like that.
This is pretty common. Here, we're a city of engineers. You can guess what gender rules this sector and hence gets paid ( Is it because of sexism or because women don't have the "hard" degrees?).

Managers I talk to try to maintain certain ratios of women at work; but NOT with the intent of acquiring 'career ladder workers', its for the atmosphere. With 40hrs at the office men are more productive with workplace girlfriends to flirt with. It's interesting seeing the skirts and weight class that big oil hires for menial tasks. It sounds bad but what else are companies to do with food-science, criminal justice, and psychology degrees?

Women who are passed up, fail to realize what they accuse men of all the time; the fact that men are more ambitious, power hungry, nerdily obsessed with work. Men put effort into entertaining other people at work. When men are called sluts fag etc they brush it off turning it into a joke. Women prefer routine jobs. They do what they're asked, nothing more nothing less, gossiping, creating mortal enemies with other women who looked at them cross. Their demeanor is often a robot like professionalism that rarely turns off. Then they get pregnant. The last one? 4 times in a row! She's on the books as an employee who's rarely seen, and can't be replaced by law. And when 1 of them is sick, she calls in sick. Talk about wild cards businesses fear.

Women are less socially tuned for the workplace. Which might be attributable to the fact that when they had problems as kids others solved them? They didn't need to learn how to make friends which would later become the rubbing-elbows skill, because friends came easy to them. Women are less prone to bullying. I don't think my childhood was anything exceptional so if most guys grew up like me - When us guys couldn't solve a problem, we got the shit kicked out of us until we learned to solve it or brush it off. Guys are verbally abused, kicked below the belt, punched in the face (or stabbed), then thrown in the deep end; women are given a kiddie pool of confidence boosting programs and free tutoring from all the nerdy guys in college; and don't realize they're promoted less because they never learned to swim.

There is a flip side. While it's easier for men to be promoted; It's easier for women to get introductory jobs (30k) out of college than for men. ie clerical jobs favor women for the reasons I cited above, even though many men would love the option of one these starter jobs.

Quote
OTOH, you'll have a hard time convincing me our society isn't massively stacked towards white males.
In your discrimination list; with the exception of rape, none of these have any serious life altering consequences. These are just "brush-off" items that don't destine people to a life of poverty, or prevent people from reaching goals. I don't see society as stacked in a significant "club" manner that would give white males a significant advantage in life. IOW I don't believe it is very prevalent that someone walks into interview and the manager thinks "oh thank god a white one, he's hired"... or "A black person applied for college, oh no we don't except black people". If looking at me gruff at the store is one of the worst discriminatory problems..... Well I'm super ugly and creepy looking; so this happens to me all the time, I'm uncomfortable if it doesn't happen at this point :)

It's funny you mention whistling at the train stop, I do stuff like that all the time. Most the things on the list happen to me routinely throughout my life, and I don't wish for any sweeping legislation to make everyone more open minded about ugly people.

Quote
I've never had less than 50% representation on the Supreme Court,
Any examples of how this has given you a significant life advantage over others though?

Quote
Is this because white males are just that much better? Women are too much of a risk?
Not better, but if I walk down the engineering hall at any college most the people will be white males. There are so many jobs women refuse to do. Maybe ambition and choices are the cause, after all men strive to be tribal chief of everything. I have no animosity to women in all this. I'm willing to believe what the contenders say is true; but only after I see these people choose the hard majors/jobs, get the same grades as white males, same accomplishments on resume, and maybe instead of visiting white-male's hall all day when they need help... do some free tutoring themselves to struggling guys (that'll be the day).... then show me they can't get a job of equal pay. For now I can't picture it.
 
subego Nov 3, 2013 09:35 PM
If I had to characterize the point of your post, I'd say it's "you reap what you sow".

Do you think the particular differential in how we treat children is correct? That's not a setup for a "gotcha" or something. I'm actually curious about your opinion.

Isn't that differential treatment sexism? Note, not all sexism is necessarily bad. I think the basic tenets of chivalry towards women are good.

No worries about the length. :)
 
el chupacabra Nov 4, 2013 12:57 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4255710)
If I had to characterize the point of your post, I'd say it's "you reap what you sow".
No, we've all heard that, just like we've heard the accusations of sexist racist undertones. Im just presenting the other side with examples of how things are sowed. You can probably tell from the undertone of my posts, I think our nation is increasingly becoming a culture of irresponsible adults who act like children.

If I was born in Tibet, I'd think Americans were the happiest zen masters of the world. What problems could they have with all that money? I wouldn't guess they'er bitter adults who spend 20% their resources worrying about all the ways their feelings have been hurt, and what needs to be done, who needs to be sued to stop it again.
Quote
Do you think the particular differential in how we treat children is correct?
The differential isn't the problem. We all want diversity no? Even in personalities. But if the differential has to come with people being raised as spoiled complainers then I might prefer they be raised more like 3rd world street kids. All I want is people to 1st realize their place, 2, be honest as to why they're in that place and realize it's their choice to stay in such place. Why can't we have the differentials without the accusations of a club white conspiring to oppress, or without riling people up about unfairness and hurt feelings?
Quote
Isn't that differential treatment sexism? Note, not all sexism is necessarily bad. I think the basic tenets of chivalry towards women are good.
Not to me, some things are just gender roles, sexism is a negative word; if you replaced it with racism.... If someone called me sexist, to me it means I want women to be in a lower place based on a philosophical belief that females are inferior just because. In 2013 I think its a violation of common sense that people think men want to surround themselves with a bunch of dudes at the top because they don't like having women around.

Would you agree that women generally aren't as motivated to seek power as men?
 
The Final Shortcut Nov 4, 2013 07:13 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by el chupacabra (Post 4255641)
Managers I talk to try to maintain certain ratios of women at work; but NOT with the intent of acquiring 'career ladder workers', its for the atmosphere. With 40hrs at the office men are more productive with workplace girlfriends to flirt with. It's interesting seeing the skirts and weight class that big oil hires for menial tasks. It sounds bad but what else are companies to do with food-science, criminal justice, and psychology degrees?
This was something I had a discussion about a few weeks ago; in Canada, female representation in engineering actually peaked over a decade ago and has dropped since. Meanwhile, female representation in other professional capacities that have traditionally been male-dominated (lawyers, doctors) has gone absolutely bonkers - both are now female-dominated amongst newer grads. Also in the conversation were two university professors, science (chemistry) and business (commerce) - their personal teaching anecdotes was that women are slowly increasing in number but are now pretty much close to even, but more importantly, women in their classes are in general dominating the men in terms of work ethic, commitment, and high marks. (I have no data to back up any of their observations; it may certainly be region/field-specific.)

Quote
Women who are passed up, fail to realize what they accuse men of all the time; the fact that men are more ambitious, power hungry, nerdily obsessed with work. Men put effort into entertaining other people at work. When men are called sluts fag etc they brush it off turning it into a joke. Women prefer routine jobs. They do what they're asked, nothing more nothing less, gossiping, creating mortal enemies with other women who looked at them cross. Their demeanor is often a robot like professionalism that rarely turns off. Then they get pregnant. The last one? 4 times in a row! She's on the books as an employee who's rarely seen, and can't be replaced by law. And when 1 of them is sick, she calls in sick. Talk about wild cards businesses fear.

Women are less socially tuned for the workplace. Which might be attributable to the fact that when they had problems as kids others solved them? They didn't need to learn how to make friends which would later become the rubbing-elbows skill, because friends came easy to them. Women are less prone to bullying. I don't think my childhood was anything exceptional so if most guys grew up like me - When us guys couldn't solve a problem, we got the shit kicked out of us until we learned to solve it or brush it off. Guys are verbally abused, kicked below the belt, punched in the face (or stabbed), then thrown in the deep end; women are given a kiddie pool of confidence boosting programs and free tutoring from all the nerdy guys in college; and don't realize they're promoted less because they never learned to swim.
:lol: Wow. What a load of sexist, stupid bullshit wrapped in a paper-thin veneer of pseudo-psychology. It would be simply hilarious if not so downright ****ing insulting.

Over my relatively short lifetime I have gone to school with and worked with an equal slew of "power-hungry", "ambitious", "nerdily-obsessed" men and women. A huge number of the small-to-large businesses I work for/with have women in upper-management capacities, and those I interact with are fearsomely and intimidatingly capable. And good luck trying to convince any of these women (or the ones I work with) that they need networking skills, or confidence boosting and free tutoring - they all have huge jobs and work 65+ hours a week and in my experience are regarded by all the men they work with as being far more efficient with their time. In addition, women also won the "Top Marks" award for each of my degrees. Oh, and at least two of my female co-workers were life guards. :lol:

In short, you have related some personal anecdotes and drawn sweeping, controversial, and offensive conclusions regarding the status of women in the workplace. Shockingly, those anecdotes are not universal and may be specific to your particular profession. Oh wait...no one saw that coming at all.

Quote
I have no animosity to women in all this. I'm willing to believe what the contenders say is true; but only after I see these people choose the hard majors/jobs...
And yet, as I stated at the beginning, new lawyers and doctors are now predominantly women, even though traditionally those professions have been almost exclusively male. Both of those professions are equally as difficult and demanding as engineering.

Despite your protests to the contrary, methinks your "theory" doth need considerably less animosity towards women. (Not to mention some better data than your own personal experiences as an engineer.) I'm more than a little suspicious that the source of animosity is likely tied to the number of times you explicity mentioned your own lack of good looks. :lol:

Quote
Would you agree that women generally aren't as motivated to seek power as men?
No. Would you agree that until recent decades, women have generally not been given anything remotely close to an equal opportunity to seek power? And, looking around at the number of prominent women in both politics and business, would you agree that this situation is rapidly changing?
 
subego Nov 4, 2013 08:14 AM
@el chupacabra,

You lost me right of the bat.

You talk about "how things are sown", but I'm not supposed to take you reap what you sow?

:confused:
 
el chupacabra Nov 4, 2013 11:42 AM
I could have said reap what you sow, and anyone here would have had a perfectly valid excuse to roll their eyes at me and say "prove it". So I went straight to the proving it in detail, that's all. Even if people here want to think Im sexist or whatever I would think they'd want to know what our reasoning is... Even if they don't agree.

@ Final shortcut, I agree with much of what you said... Ill address your post later, but Im a little confused on a few things. The accusation is that women don't get paid as much or promoted as much in the workplace because of an exclusive club white male. In your 2nd paragraph you seem to be arguing that no part of this is even true.

I'm trying to keep this as condensed as possible. Clearly everything I'm saying are stereotypes, not absolutes.
 
subego Nov 4, 2013 11:56 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by el chupacabra (Post 4255770)
I could have said reap what you sow
Which is why I'm utterly confused by this exchange.

chup: Stuff.
subego: Ah! Reap what you sow.
chup: No. Even though we hear that.
subego: It's not reap what you sow?
chup: No, its proof you reap what you sow.

Still :confused:


I feel like we're on different wavelengths here, which is odd, because I feel like I agree with you on a lot of things.
 
The Final Shortcut Nov 4, 2013 11:57 AM
If you are referencing my third paragraph, then the statements were made with no connection to how much women get paid or promoted in the workplace (other than the fact that they certainly do, which is in direct contravention to your statements), and certainly no connection was made to "an exclusive club white male" (hilarious btw).

Frankly, "much of what I said" is in direct opposition to much of what you said. So either I completely missed all the sarcasm dripping from your post, or else you completely missed the intent of mine.
 
subego Nov 4, 2013 12:00 PM
I'm getting thrown too. There will be one statement, and then a statement which completely opposes it.

Something is getting lost in the translation.
 
The Final Shortcut Nov 4, 2013 12:45 PM
I don't suppose you're suggesting this can all be translated another way?
Quote
Women prefer routine jobs. They do what they're asked, nothing more nothing less, gossiping, creating mortal enemies with other women who looked at them cross.
...
Women are less socially tuned for the workplace. Which might be attributable to the fact that when they had problems as kids others solved them?
...
...women are given a kiddie pool of confidence boosting programs and free tutoring from all the nerdy guys in college; and don't realize they're promoted less because they never learned to swim.
I actually had to bite back incoherent rage when the response was
Quote
@ Final shortcut, I agree with much of what you said
Oh. Really.
 
subego Nov 4, 2013 01:23 PM
Well, yeah. They're not trolls per se, but there's no effort being put in to avoid "incoherent rage" as a response.
 
el chupacabra Nov 4, 2013 02:27 PM
Yes i generally agree we reap what we sow, but isnt this already a given? Dont we all kinda agree on that? But we know how this forum stuff goes, if i had just said that, someone would say "oh yeah what about disabled people " or something to this effect for the sole sake of arguing and proving the statment wrong. Thats because its overly simplified statement. I try to avoid such circumstances, yet by final shortcuts post, it seems Ive failed in this thread. I just wanted to focus on the details of one subject much as i could.

Im still trying to interpret where he stands, he pulled pieces of my post out and referenced them out of context to laugh at them. I still dont have any info as to why he thinks us business people are reluctant to promote or hire women, if he truly believes it's not due to higher risks accociated their kids.
 
Shaddim Nov 4, 2013 02:32 PM
Meetings? It's overrated, though.
 
The Final Shortcut Nov 4, 2013 02:53 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by el chupacabra (Post 4255817)
Im still trying to interpret where he stands, he pulled pieces of my post out and referenced them out of context to laugh at them. I still dont have any info as to why he thinks us business people are reluctant to promote or hire women, if he truly believes it's not due to higher risks accociated their kids.
...oh, I'm sorry, you were actually saying that it's pregnancy which is the problem?

So all that stuff about women in the workplace only liking routine tasks and doing only what they're told, gossiping, being less socially tuned and not having elbow-rubbing skills, being less ambitious and power hungry...that was all obiter?

Oh. I see.
 
The Final Dakar Nov 4, 2013 03:04 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Snow-i (Post 4255472)
Yes, I do. ;)

But in all seriousness, yes. Good looking people have advantages. So do people with common, one syllable first names and common last names such as Smith, Williams, etc. That reminds me, where is the DoD handbook on being wary of good looking people?
I think the problem would be good looking people are a minority (i.e., they aren't flooding the market) and are much harder to quantify. White people are ubiquitous.

(Also being tall helps one get promoted)
 
Snow-i Nov 4, 2013 05:31 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4255837)
I think the problem would be good looking people are a minority (i.e., they aren't flooding the market) and are much harder to quantify. White people are ubiquitous.

(Also being tall helps one get promoted)
I mean, I fit the bill exactly for the stereotype.

I'm 6'3", white, named James and I've never had any complaints from my lady friends. So where do I fit in with this? Should the government be wary of me simply because I was born this way? Am named this way? Can reach the top shelf?

Which attributes that have statistical significance to workplace success should the government be giving extra scrutiny to?

Should I be scrutinized for being white, but "allowed" to excel because I'm tall and devilishly handsome?
 
Snow-i Nov 4, 2013 05:36 PM
I mean it seems to me the government should be training our military leaders to be careful of the statistical biases that can effect equal opportunity, and to be sensitive to cultural, ethnic, and personal difference when fostering relationships, and to avoid making decisions based on or in spite of these biases.

I don't see how "be wary of whitey" imparts the right message to government trainees. It's basically an indictment of perceived wrong doing based on skin color, which sounds an awful lot like racism (or reverse racism if you hold racism to only mean oppression, vs its actual definition of stereotyping by race for good, bad or indifferent).
 
subego Nov 4, 2013 06:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by el chupacabra (Post 4255817)
Yes i generally agree we reap what we sow, but isnt this already a given? Dont we all kinda agree on that? But we know how this forum stuff goes, if i had just said that, someone would say "oh yeah what about disabled people " or something to this effect for the sole sake of arguing and proving the statment wrong. Thats because its overly simplified statement. I try to avoid such circumstances, yet by final shortcuts post, it seems Ive failed in this thread. I just wanted to focus on the details of one subject much as i could.

Im still trying to interpret where he stands, he pulled pieces of my post out and referenced them out of context to laugh at them. I still dont have any info as to why he thinks us business people are reluctant to promote or hire women, if he truly believes it's not due to higher risks accociated their kids.
I'm working up an answer here, but let me put this forward.

While there's stuff we agree on, there's also some stuff we have some pretty hefty disagreements on.

Despite the differences (or maybe because of it) I'm interested in what you have to say. I know "the Internet you", and what you have to say has value to me.

The upshot of this is I truly have no interest in getting into a fight. I'm okay if when this conversation ends you haven't changed your opinion, even though I may disagree with that opinion.

Sure, I'm going to try and sway you to my position of thinking, but as soon as that no longer holds interest for you, I'm fine with dropping it.


I say this because I feel you're expecting a fight merely for stating your opinion. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not where I'm trying to go.
 
The Final Shortcut Nov 4, 2013 08:54 PM
Good for you. It appears I am in the only one, but I refuse to let those sort of comments slide.
 
subego Nov 4, 2013 09:05 PM
Who's talking about letting things slide?

Making my point is not letting it slide. I'm questioning the value of going to combat over it.
 
subego Nov 4, 2013 09:52 PM
@el chupacabra,

Would having more women pursue STEM degrees, and hence getting more of those jobs, be a good thing?

If so, what do you think would be the best way to encourage them?

If not, why not?


If there's some question of yours I'm missing, hit me with it again, and I'll answer. :)
 
subego Nov 4, 2013 10:04 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Snow-i (Post 4255865)
I mean it seems to me the government should be training our military leaders to be careful of the statistical biases that can effect equal opportunity, and to be sensitive to cultural, ethnic, and personal difference when fostering relationships, and to avoid making decisions based on or in spite of these biases.

I don't see how "be wary of whitey" imparts the right message to government trainees. It's basically an indictment of perceived wrong doing based on skin color, which sounds an awful lot like racism (or reverse racism if you hold racism to only mean oppression, vs its actual definition of stereotyping by race for good, bad or indifferent).
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say the people who wrote this manual have an axe to grind, and that's ****ing everything up.

What I imagine they're trying to say (if they could get over themselves) is be wary of one's own assumptions.

This is a swell piece of advice, which is why I'm hesitating to go the full nuclear.
 
Snow-i Nov 5, 2013 12:48 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4255906)
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say the people who wrote this manual have an axe to grind, and that's ****ing everything up.

What I imagine they're trying to say (if they could get over themselves) is be wary of one's own assumptions.

This is a swell piece of advice, which is why I'm hesitating to go the full nuclear.
That's exactly my point. High ranking officials that shape the way our military is trained are grinding their axes using public means, and I find this deeply disturbing and troubling for the long term preservation of a free republic. It's not just this, it's an indictment of how corrupt our political process has become and the washing off of serious erosion of the sanctity of our public trust, up to and including now our freaking military. The military is the last thing that should be used as a political pawn and the misappropriation of government outlets to "grind your axe" should not be tolerated by the citizenry of the United States.

If it was merely an administrative oversight to have woefully incompetent people in charge of the training programs to the extent that they use military programs to grind their axes, that suggests a level of incompetence that is spreading from Congress and the executive to the world's only current superpower. It's time we as a people reject this level of incompetence and demand a government that is capable of executing it's duties without eroding the public's trust.
 
subego Nov 5, 2013 01:05 AM
Point taken. :)
 
el chupacabra Nov 5, 2013 03:45 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4255873)
The upshot of this is I truly have no interest in getting into a fight. I'm okay if when this conversation ends you haven't changed your opinion, even though I may disagree with that opinion.

Sure, I'm going to try and sway you to my position of thinking, but as soon as that no longer holds interest for you, I'm fine with dropping it.

I say this because I feel you're expecting a fight merely for stating your opinion. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not where I'm trying to go.
Rest assured I know your one of the most diplomatic people here, not looking for a fight. As you might already noticed I usually only go back and forth 1-3 times with most people before calling it quits. Either way, I walked into this saying very controversial things on very progressive forum; I made my choice and now I get to sleep in it. It's not a huge deal.
Quote
1. Would having more women pursue STEM degrees, and hence getting more of those jobs, be a good thing?
Thats not for me to decide. Remember preaching 'personal choice' is one of my mantras. They should make whatever choice fits their goals and take responsibility for it. Im not saying it's a bad thing that women tend to get degrees that don't pay much. I'm saying such a degree is a bad thing if their goal was to make tons of money, and get quick promotions. We've seen one of the results of that, they end up blaming the white boys club.

Quote
If so, what do you think would be the best way to encourage them? If not, why not?
We can fight the societal trends that promote pandering to people's feelings; after all we're not the parents of everyone's child and whatever you want to accomplish you must change the thinking of the parents on a mass scale before they brainwash their kids. We shouldn't encourage people to pick any specific degree, but we should encourage people to take their education choices much more seriously than they currently do. Note one does not have to get a college degree to be successful, wealthy or whatever, there are other paths to be found if people would just take their future planning more seriously. Note one's goal doesn't need to be about wealth; but then I don't want to hear them complain about wealth and blame the sexist when they don't achieve it...
Quote
If there's some question of yours I'm missing, hit me with it again, and I'll answer.
Here's one you missed. Would you agree / disagree that women on average aren't as motivated to seek power as men?

So in any debate there needs to be points of agreement to anchor back to. Otherwise it will go in circles all over the place. For example where I labeled question 1, my response is worthless if you don't even agree that men dominate the money degrees (and btw I don't like the term stem degrees because it's too encompassing including some worthless degrees). It seems Im doing all the talking. You haven't started the change my opinions part yet.

Even Final Shortcut seems to believe women shy away from engineering. Do you agree with this? And if yes why do you think they shy away? Contrary to what some might think, I didn't use engineering as an example because I'm an engineer. After all, I am not an engineer. I used it as example because just about everything revolves around engineering. It's a huge field. And while it's a tough college program (tougher than med school from what I hear from doctors), it is a straight pre-planned path to the wealthy classes or business ownership world.

What about my accusation that women on average gossip more and suffer the consequence of such?
 
ebuddy Nov 5, 2013 07:37 AM
Women do not get paid as much because they aren't nearly as aggressive as men in seeking higher wages. They also prefer jobs with less travel and lean toward a greater work/life balance. This comes at a cost. Is there a men's club mentality? Sure, just as there are women's club mentalities in any capacity where a tribal-mentality is possible over all. I can tell you that study after study affirms that most men and women prefer to work for men. Studies indicate this is so because men are deemed less competitive and emotionally-charged, more concise and direct, and less driven by personal agenda. I'm not going to pretend such polling constitutes a law of nature, but I can tell you that these traits or lack thereof come at a cost. If this is the perception of women regarding other women, what are men to do to instill a greater sense of fairness in the workplace?

As always, it's much easier to conclude that someone else is holding you back and much more difficult to employ a little introspect and seek to better one's self in the corporate environment -- if that's really what you want, though I'd argue happiness is likely more important and that women might actually be the more shrewd in this.
 
subego Nov 5, 2013 01:02 PM
@el chupacabra,

I'm working up questions, but I wanted to answer yours first.

Right off the bat, I want to say I agree with most of your observations to one extent or another.

Is the average woman as motivated by power as the average man? Uhh... not even close. For men, wealth and power is often a means of possessing women. Unless you're a lesbian, that motivator is completely non-existent. Of course, there are other reasons to seek power, and other factors for why someone may or may not do so, I'm only singling this out because it's a big one, and it's right there in everybody's face.

You have the flipside when it comes to pregnancy. As much as a man might want to get pregnant, it's pretty much beyond their ability, just like it's pretty much beyond a woman's ability to attract a man with her wealth and power. Though I'd hazard a guess the latter happens more often than the former. :)

I'll also throw in the dirty little secret most male feminists don't want to admit. Personally, I've wanted to have sex with a lot of the women I've worked with. I'd be full of shit if I said that didn't throw off my work mojo. Sometimes I honestly wish for "the old days", where you didn't cross the streams. I know I'd get more done.

I think it's important to note all three of these rate pretty highly on the "nature" side of the "nature vs. nurture" debate. IOW, these factors are going to be highly resistant to change

Likewise, I don't know how much we want these things to change. We may desire more control over them, but they're all fundamental building blocks of society. The desire for wealth and power drives us forward. Our "biological clocks" convince us to make the sacrifice entailed by having children...

Wanting to bang everybody may not be the most useful thing ever, but the first two are pretty important. :)
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:59 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2