Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

45 comments

There you go. (2, Funny)

rodentia (102779) | more than 10 years ago | (#7128513)


One man's terrorist is another man's Women's Rights advocate. . . . Er.

Wham bam thank you ma'am! (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#7128554)

"Oh don't lean on me man, cause you can't afford the ticket
I'm back on Suffragette City
Oh don't lean on me man
Cause you ain't got time to check it
You know my Suffragette City
Is outta sight...she's all right"

- David Bowie.

Apparently, not as out of sight as we might have thought.

Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (4, Insightful)

pwagland (472537) | more than 10 years ago | (#7128567)

How about we change that blurb to:
The blahblah chronicle has an article, funny because [of] the time that has passed, but extremely serious at the time, about the efforts of the South African government to keep an eye on black rights advocates.
What?!?

How could that possibly be not funny?!?

Oh I get it... we're still meant to laugh at women and their attempts to get equal rights. Doh! I should of guessed earlier!!!

I'm sorry, but this is just as serious now, as it was back then... and a timely reminder that the government cannot be trusted to respect the privacy of the citizens that make their constituency. Think about it...

Oh. the oppressed people! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7128623)

Blow it out your politically-correct bleeding-heart piehole.

This story is funny, as is your variation on it.

Re:Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (1)

msuzio (3104) | more than 10 years ago | (#7128630)

No... I think you're being a bit overly serious here.

It's funny (as in odd or strange to ponder) that at the time this was a huge issue, yet now we take it for granted. It is strange for the current generation to ponder that there ever was a time where women's right to vote could have ever been questioned.

It is a subject worth examining. It wasn't that long ago, really. Looking at the parallels between surveillance then and surveillance now should make us question why we are still watching dissidents today, and are today's dissidents tomorrow's heroes? And if that's so, why aren't they today's heroes?

Or I suppose I could just get all huffy and critical of word choices. Maybe I'm just totally wrong here, who knows? I'm just one of those stupid white men, what do I know?

Re:Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (3, Insightful)

pwagland (472537) | more than 10 years ago | (#7128964)

No... I think you're being a bit overly serious here.
Perhaps I am being overly serious, however I think that there is a serious danger in the tendency to trivialise that which we currently take for granted. In trivialising these things we make them less valuable.
It's funny (as in odd or strange to ponder) that at the time this was a huge issue, yet now we take it for granted. It is strange for the current generation to ponder that there ever was a time where women's right to vote could have ever been questioned.
You say that we take it for granted, yet check out these statistics: Admittedly the situation is 1000% better than it used to be. They do have the right to vote, but Suffrage was about more than just the vote. It was about equal rights in all aspects of society. You are right that many people just take the current situation for granted, that is why I compared it to the aprtheid regime... many people still find that outrageous.
It is a subject worth examining. It wasn't that long ago, really. Looking at the parallels between surveillance then and surveillance now should make us question why we are still watching dissidents today, and are today's dissidents tomorrow's heroes? And if that's so, why aren't they today's heroes?
As another poster wrote, todays terrorists are tomorrows heroes. Yes, the women in the Suffrage movement were considered to be terrorists... and indeed many of their actions would get them labelled as terrorists today.

Re:Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (1)

Mattcelt (454751) | more than 10 years ago | (#7129580)

Comparison of society attitudes to homosexual men and women. (sorry can't find a link for this one, but lesbian women are by far more discriminated against than gay men)

Sorry, I had to do a doubletake on that one. What do you mean, exactly? A friend of mine constantly remarks (and she's not alone in this by far) that she can't understand why girl-on-girl is so accepted in the porn industry, but not guy-on-guy. It seems more socially acceptable, somehow, for girls to be lesbian/bisexual than for guys to be gay.

Now admittedly, this is far from being scientific. What sorts of situations are you aware of that discriminate against lesbians?

Re:Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (1)

pwagland (472537) | more than 10 years ago | (#7131746)

Sorry, I had to do a doubletake on that one. What do you mean, exactly? A friend of mine constantly remarks (and she's not alone in this by far) that she can't understand why girl-on-girl is so accepted in the porn industry, but not guy-on-guy. It seems more socially acceptable, somehow, for girls to be lesbian/bisexual than for guys to be gay.
If only all life were as interesting as a porn film ;-)

Seriously though... There are actually two classes of "lesbian porn" that aimed at guys, and that aimed at girls. Admittedly, the girls market is probably smaller, but there is a lot less of it. Female-Female porn for females is significantly different than it is for men... for one thing it involves a lot less strap on equipment.

In the non-porn world the discrimination against female gays is significant. Partly, I think, because we have been dealing with the issue for a much shorter period of time. The lesbian movement is somewhere about 10-15 years behind the male gay movement in terms social attitudes towards them.

today's terrorists are tomorrows heroes (1)

zenyu (248067) | more than 10 years ago | (#7129059)

As another poster wrote, todays terrorists are tomorrows heroes. Yes, the women in the Suffrage movement were considered to be terrorists... and indeed many of their actions would get them labelled as terrorists today.

I think people need to remember this. Both when considering someone for hero worship and when condemning today's terrorists. A bit of perspective can do a world of good, a bit of time tends to provide it, lets try to keep the number of deaths low and respect the balance between safety and freedom that we've painfully constructed, most of it in much scarrier times but also with much more thought.

I see only one explanation (1)

jeaster (600452) | more than 10 years ago | (#7131405)

to the extreme reaction to the article.....

Could it be its your *special* time of the month?

I just couldn't resist. Bye Bye Karma.

;)

Re:Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (1)

PopCulture (536272) | more than 10 years ago | (#7132786)

not "funny, haha" but "funny strange".

Re:Funny? Ohh... I get it.... (1)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 10 years ago | (#7138403)

What is funny to me is not the woman's fight, but the extremist reaction of those in power -- That someone would see so much threat in women's fight for the right to vote that they would treat them as terrorists and threats to society.

T'is silly and stupid. in our eyes now, but it was deadly serious back then.

There are still fights for women's rights today, but it has now gone from a fight for the right to be considered "a person", to preventing wage discrimination. The fight's not over, but we've definitely come a long ways.

Funny? (1)

DjReagan (143826) | more than 10 years ago | (#7128634)

Err.. what am I missing? What is funny about the article?

Re:Funny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7130746)

Funny strange, not funny haha.

This is something to really ponder. (1)

mellon (7048) | more than 10 years ago | (#7128689)

It seems completely outrageous from my child-of-the-seventies perspective that there was a time when the government would have considered someone who wanted women to have the right to vote to be a terrorist. And yet this really happened, not only in Britain but here in the United States.

This is why organizations like the ACLU that fight for the civil rights of anybody whose civil rights have been trampled are so important - who knows when the next Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, or, heaven forfend, Richard Stallman, will rely on the precedents established by the ACLU to allow them to continue to try to make the world a better place, despite the resistance of the powers that be.

ACLU is NOT for civil rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7128743)

"This is why organizations like the ACLU that fight for the civil rights of anybody whose civil rights have been trampled are so important"

Not at all! The ACLU frequently rights against civil rights. In California, they led the opposition against racist university admissions (arguing that it is OK to punish individuals for their skin color in the name of "diversity"). They have an entire division devoted to punishing people for having the wrong skin color. (shows how the ACLU opposes due process)

Elsewhere, the ACLU fights to censor the speech of individuals who happen to use religious terminology in their speech. (shows how the ACLU opposes the first amendment).

What we need is an organization that opposes all censorship, and supports due process for all individuals regardless of having the wrong skin color or gender. The Anti-Civil Liberties Union is not it.

Example of ACLU blatant racism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7128917)

Please visit this link:
aclu.org [aclu.org] .

It describes in detail their program to encourage organizations to punish people for having the wrong skin color as part of a policy of achieving group diversity.

Re:This is something to really ponder. (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | more than 10 years ago | (#7129301)

Not at all! The ACLU frequently rights against civil rights. In California, they led the opposition against racist university admissions (arguing that it is OK to punish individuals for their skin color in the name of "diversity"). They have an entire division devoted to punishing people for having the wrong skin color. (shows how the ACLU opposes due process)

Overt racial quotas to fight covert racism. A case can be made either way. If you don't like it, join the EFF or something. I said "organizations." I happen to think that the ACLU is a great example. If you don't, vote with your feet.

Elsewhere, the ACLU fights to censor the speech of individuals who happen to use religious terminology in their speech. (shows how the ACLU opposes the first amendment).

Here you get no sympathy from me. The ACLU fights to prevent government-sponsored religious speech, particularly when it favors a particular religion. If you are serious about your religion, you should be all in favor of this.

Chances are that 300 years ago, it was illegal in most parts of Europe for you to practice whatever religion you practice. It's still probably illegal to talk about it in many countries around the world, or if not, it'll get you on surveillance lists here in the states.

For example, I know of several countries, some of which you might even otherwise enjoy visiting, where merely discussing Christianity in a positive light with a citizen of that country can land you in jail for five years.

When municipalities here in the U.S. use government facilities to promote religion, they are stepping to the edge of the slippery slope that leads to just that sort of law. If you enjoy the freedom to practice your religion, you might want to think twice about getting upset about people who fight to prevent that.

ACLU vs first amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7129376)

" The ACLU fights to prevent government-sponsored religious speech, particularly when it favors a particular religion."

No, they fight speech by individuals. And why should they care what religion it favors or not? "Congress shall make no law..."

"If you are serious about your religion, you should be all in favor of this"

Actually, I am much more serious about tolerance and protecting freedom of speech.

"If you enjoy the freedom to practice your religion, you might want to think twice about getting upset about people who fight to prevent that."

No, I am merely upset about the ACLU filing frivolous lawsuits to censor people whose speech happens to involve "religion". I enjoy freedom and which to preserve it, why is why I oppose the Anti-Civil Liberties Union and its gags.

"Chances are that 300 years ago"....

Nothing to do with anything.

"It's still probably illegal to talk about it in many countries around the world,"

This does not excuse the ACLU bringing the same sort of intolerance of free expression here.

Read the Bill of Rights. What part of it do you nut understand?

Re:This is something to really ponder. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7129410)

"Overt racial quotas to fight covert racism. A case can be made either way."

They are not fighting racism at all. "Covert racism"? That's nothing more than making up racism that does not exist. If there is racism, prove it. And then please punish the racists.

Affirmative Action instead punishes person C because person A did something to person B. The ACLU rightly opposes racial profiling in law enforcement (yes, there are some good things the ACLU does), yet it very strongly favors the same sort of thing in other aspects of government.

Certainly, it violates due process, which is part of the Bill of Rights.

Not just the States, also in other "Western'ized (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7131663)


Nations":

Chances are that 300 years ago, it was illegal in most parts of Europe for you to practice whatever religion you practice. It's still probably illegal to talk about it in many countries around the world, or if not, it'll get you on surveillance lists here in the states.

Case in point: Scientology. Germany.

Well, some would argue that the German government has been a frontispiece for "Democratic Christianity" in Germany for years, anyway ... but its a good example of why gov't must be kept separate from religion at all costs.

All religions must be granted the respect of government, equally.

There is just no two ways about it - any government that doesn't, is not a government but becomes ... itself ... an Arm of Its Religion.

{posted anonymously because i don't want anyone to know who i am...}

Scientology is not a religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7134666)

"Case in point: Scientology. Germany"

Scientology is not a religion. It is a cross between organized crime and a hoax, having been founded right after L Ron Hubbard stated that science fiction writers could use their imaginations to create fake religions and get rich tax-free.

Re:This is something to really ponder. (2, Insightful)

styrotech (136124) | more than 10 years ago | (#7129710)

It seems completely outrageous from my child-of-the-seventies perspective that there was a time when the government would have considered someone who wanted women to have the right to vote to be a terrorist.

This is why organizations like the ACLU that fight for the civil rights of anybody whose civil rights have been trampled are so important - who knows when the next Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, or, heaven forfend, Richard Stallman, will rely on the precedents established by the ACLU to allow them to continue to try to make the world a better place, despite the resistance of the powers that be.


Warning: blatant oversimplication and devils advocacy coming up....

To the best of my knowledge Martin Luther King Jr and Richard Stallman didn't go around smashing windows etc*. Maybe there was a (misguided perhaps) fear the vandalism could escalate to what anarchists were doing back then eg bombings etc.

Note I'm not trying to devalue the cause**. Although I wouldn't put RMS in the quite the same class as suffragettes or the civil rights movement, all three did/do pose some threat to the 'establishments' power base. Stability of the status quo isn't always a good thing. And it would be good for governments today to recognise when that is the case.

* Although RMS probably wants to smash Windows(tm) ;)

** I'm proud that my country was the first to give women the vote, and that there was no segregation in it's history. We've done kinda ok with personal privacy issues as well.

Re:This is something to really ponder. (1)

PD (9577) | more than 10 years ago | (#7130866)

You from Finland?

Re:This is something to really ponder. (1)

styrotech (136124) | more than 10 years ago | (#7134178)

New Zealand

Re:This is something to really ponder. (1)

PD (9577) | more than 10 years ago | (#7135620)

And, I looked it up in the meantime. I visited Helsinki, the very beautiful hometown of Linus Torvalds, in early August, and I thought I remembered our tour guide saying that Finland was the first to give women the vote. I think she must have said ONE of the first.

New Zealand - 1893
Australia - 1902
Finland - 1906

But, you may not know that the first place in the world to give women equal suffrage was the Territory of Wyoming in 1869. Now I know why the nickname for Wyoming is "The Equality State".

Re:This is something to really ponder. (1)

styrotech (136124) | more than 10 years ago | (#7138816)


But, you may not know that the first place in the world to give women equal suffrage was the Territory of Wyoming in 1869. Now I know why the nickname for Wyoming is "The Equality State".


Yep I had heard that. It's pretty amazing to think that it wasn't really until the 20th century that western 'democracies' gave women the vote.

now they are considered pioneers... (2, Insightful)

kipple (244681) | more than 10 years ago | (#7129204)

but then they were treated as we treat "terrorists" now.
the scary part is that if such a movement were to take place in this days, I fear that it would not work - because all the draconian laws that are passing in the US would prevent it and eradicate it at the very beginning.

those in power forgot that history and people's opinion changes, and using technology to freeze progress only results in delaying a country's development.

imho, of course.

One man's Photoshop is another man's bromide. (1)

The Cydonian (603441) | more than 10 years ago | (#7129359)

Evelyn Manesta resisted and eventually a guard was used to restrain her around the neck. But when the photograph was reproduced in the official rogue's gallery, it had been doctored - replacing the arm with a fashionable lady's scarf.
Hmmmm.

Wrong section? (1)

styrotech (136124) | more than 10 years ago | (#7129568)

Shouldn't this be in "Your Rights Offline"?

Or am I underestimating 1870s technology? :)

the man show (1)

austad (22163) | more than 10 years ago | (#7129970)

This reminds me of the episode of the Man Show where they got some guy to set up a table and take signatures for a petition to "Stop women's suffrage now!" Plenty of women signed it....

Not Old News Yet (1, Insightful)

Omega037 (712939) | more than 10 years ago | (#7130915)

In some places in the world, women are still seen as property or lesser individuals. While most of these places are in the Middle East and Africa, even in more developed countries it can be found. In America, there are still very few female politicians, business executives, and military leaders. In the Far East, women are often seen as second class citizens and treated as such. They believe that a womans place is to take care her husband, raise her husbands children, and obey any command of her husband.

We look at an article like this we laugh and think back at how foolish we were to think women shouldn't have the right to vote. But when we do we should also remember that this isn't just some issue long resolved, but a continuing struggle. We should look at this article and think about how truly serious this issue is. It should be apparent in the fact that the police and intelligence organizations in what are considered the great democracies of freedom did things such as this not even a century ago.

Maybe there will never be a solution (1)

DahGhostfacedFiddlah (470393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7133188)

I hate to say it, but maybe this will continue to be the status quo. This is a different issue from racism, because there are obvious and measurable differences between the sexes.

It boils down to human psychology. People love to generalize. It makes life a million times easier than having to approach every situation as if you'd never seen it before. "Women are weak" - it's not an absolute truth, but put a woman beside a man, and chances are the man will be stronger, simply because of genetic differences. Thus the human mind wants to build that stereotype as a core belief. I suspect that is why you seldom see women as high-ranking military officers - deep down inside, their superiors don't believe they can be as "tough".

And I seriously cannot see any solution to this. Not through social programs, not through culural changes. People will always be constantly surrounded by men who are on average, stronger than women, and their mind will press that image onto others.

It doesn't just go for strength either. I believe that women are more nurturing, more emotional, and less prone to using pure reasoning in making decisions. This is *not* a bad thing - it is a different thing. And once again, these subtle differences will enforce themselves on the human mind.

So what's the solution? I don't think we will ever have "equality", where men and women are treated equally. Women are not just men with breasts. I think that the best solution would be to recognize that there are things that women do better than men, and nurture that. There has been a boom in female psychiatrists, for instance. Women generally are more empathetic than men, so this makes sense.

I think the best we can hope for is "parity", where women make the same money doing jobs they're good at as men do with jobs they're good at. I'm not saying this is right - I'm just saying that I can't see any way to overcome the overwhelming force of evolution. I'm also not saying that a woman can't rise to the top of the programming industry, or a man won't be able to rise to the top of whatever jobs eventually become mostly the domain of women. But I believe that the barrier to entry will always be higher simply because of preconceived notions of how well a gendre performs particular actions.

Black and White sexism (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 10 years ago | (#7133624)

What you just created is a vivid black and white ink drawing with absolutely no shading. There aren't even any attempts at shading or hiding the distinct lines you've drawn.

When I was a kid I loved to play with dolls (actually, I still have a few). and at recess I played with the girls, because the boys absolutely bored me. I have never had a hypercompetetive attitude and "sports" is, so far as I'm concerned, yet another religion this world would would be better without.

And I've known many women who absolutely love sports, and not just women's sports. I have a girl cousin who can tell you what quarterback played for what team decades ago, and can roll off stats like a young Howard Cossell.

There is a section of the brain that connects the left and right hemispheres. Some studies have shown a correlation between the size of this "link" in the brain and many of the traits we consider "feminine" - increased language skills, more emotional in responses, etc. And it appears this section of the brain is, as a rule, "bigger" in women (another of those physiological differences you mention). But this, like the development of breasts, is not set in stone; plenty of women have this area less developed, and plenty of men have it developed larger than average.

So... even if all that other stuff were true, what does it mean? Women tend to have better language skills, so this should indicate women are better suited to programming jobs (for example), where language skills are quite relevant. And in advertising (for example) because of that "emotional" thing. And what about men? Who gives a shit if a man who sits at a desk all day is physically stronger than a woman? When was the last time you were put into a ring with the other guy you were up against for that promotion?

Those code words you use - like "overwhelming forces of evolution" - are the same excuses everyone else makes when the time comes to promote the man over the woman. It's the same attitude that fosters the notion of "women's work" even in the tech sector.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this expression used - and if you go into any electronic assembly plant you'll see things are little different now than ever: hundreds of women and few men sitting around assembly stations, applying paste or soldering or inspecting assemblies while a few more men walk around "supervising" the floor. Walk into any call center and look at the proportion of women working the phones to the male managers walking the floor.

How is a man better suited to management than a woman? Yeah, I've known some women who were put into management who never should have been there - but I've known lots of men in that same boat.

You "can't see any way to overcome" this because you are not looking. You are, like the rest, too busy making excuses for why things have to be the way they are.

Re:Black and White sexism (1)

DahGhostfacedFiddlah (470393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7134078)

Either I didn't write the post well, or you misinterpreted - a lot of what you said doesn't pertain to what I was trying to say.

I was talking statistics, not individuals. Take a hundred men and a hundred women, and total up how much each group can lift. Men are stronger, on average. This isn't "black and white" at all - it's an average. Men are not stronger as individuals, but I never said they were.

What I said was that given that 70% (made up stat) of the men a child meets are stronger than an average woman, the child will naturally form the opinion that men tend to be stronger than women - a correct opinion. Strength is just the most obvious trait I could think of - empathy, logical thought, language skills - the same could be applied to them. If 70% of the women someone meets are more articulate than the average man, then the stereotype will reflect that.

I'm not making a value judgement - I'm not saying "that's good", "that's bad". I'm saying that because of the natural tendency to group things (including people) and assign traits to those groups, stereotypes will persist. It is extremely hard to even recognize all of your preconceived notions, let alone ignore them.

I'm not promoting a system where men and women are judged based on their gendres - I'm saying that it is difficult to escape that system.

Men - on average - are stronger, and thus better at many sports. This translates to having many sports teams dominated by men. Even if the coach had no idea what the gendre of each member was during tryouts, you would still have mostly men. This is because on average men are stronger.

Basically, I'm saying that genetic differences between men and women are real. They're not absolute, there may only be a difference of 5% or less in a lot of traits. But these real genetic differences will translate into real differences in how women/men are viewed as a stereotype in people's minds. This, in turn, will have an effect on how men and women are treated. If everyone were examined individually, this wouldn't happen and the world would be a better place. But in general we don't have the time/inclination to learn about every single person we know individually, so we fall back on preconceived notions.

You state that I'm "making excuses" for how things are. I'm trying to explain it, sure. But I agree that how things are isn't how they should be. I also can't see any absolute solution to it though, and I outlined why in my post.

Re:Black and White sexism (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 10 years ago | (#7134709)

Again I ask: WTF does physical strength have to do with 90% of the jobs performed in the US? How does being a good goalie make one a better plant manager?

Ergo, what does 90% of the stuff you were talking about have to do with the status of men over women? When was the last time you had to physically defend yourself from an attack, much less stand up for "your" woman? And what makes you so certain that physical strength would even be the relevant defense factor in the event of such an attack?

Re:Black and White sexism (1)

DahGhostfacedFiddlah (470393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7134801)

What the hell? I was using a simple example everyone could relate to. My point isn't that "men are strong".

Women have less incident of schitzophrenia than men. Women have less incident of genius than men. Women are more emotional than men. Men are more aggressive than women. Men are more logical than women. Women are more empathetic than men. Men and women have different thought processes, resulting in different decisions under the same circumstances.

Half of these I've read studies about, the other half I've made up using common stereotypes. The fact is though that women and men are fundamentally different with respect to certain traits.

Assuming women are better at relating to people, and I had to choose a "Friendly Team" for the upcoming "Friendly Bowl", purely on merit - then it would probably end up being made up mostly of women, because they would have the most merit. There - ya happy?

You still don't get it (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 10 years ago | (#7135108)

So you make your point by repeating all the stupid shit that was already refuted? Those differences you list are all related to a lot more than whether or not someone has a pair of nuts. They relate to things like brain physiology - which is also related to developmental hormone levels - which is also related to...

How about if we say "blacks are better runners than white people and mexicans all like spicy food and have black hair..."

So far as that "friendly" stuff - do you actually KNOW any women? And since when is being nurturing a bad managerial trait? I've worked in places where the managers were all encouraged to be assholes, and I've worked in places where we were encouraged to be encouraging. Wanna guess which place was the more productive?

Re:You still don't get it (1)

DahGhostfacedFiddlah (470393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7135238)

I don't quite understand what you're driving at here. I'm saying that there are differences between men and women. I'm saying that humans will pick up on those differences. Those differences will then be converted to stereotypes. And those stereotypes will be applied in situations where they probably shouldn't be applied.

I don't understand what your point is about blacks/mexicans. But to answer your question, the best black athletes are better runners than the best white ones, judging from Olympic runners. And mexicans do not "all like spicy food and have black hair". But if you compare them to your average American, you will find a higher incidence of enjoying spicy food and having black hair. The first is cultural, the second is genetic, and I don't know why you're bringing either up.

I never said that nurturing was a bad managerial trait. I never said that there wasn't more to productivity than gender. I said that people's views of women vs men will have an affect on their decisions. And that women may be more naturally talented at certain occupations.

There's no reason management cannot be one of these occupations. Maybe women's psychological/hormonal differences make them better at managing a team. I don't know - I haven't done the studies.

As a civilization, we are still very young in the process of equality. Women have steadily been getting more rights over the past century. But where will it end? Once we reach a "stable" state, what will it be? I suggest that the fundamental differences hormonally and physialogically will result in men and women preferring different occupations. I'm not saying this as an absolute. Maybe 40% of linguists will be women, the other 60% will be men. Maybe the other way around. But once rights are established as equal, and opportunity is established as equal, there will *still* be a disparity in the portions of women/men pursuing different careers.

Re:You still don't get it (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 10 years ago | (#7141961)

So you make your point by repeating all the stupid shit that was already refuted?
I don't think you'd know an argument -- let alone how to refute one -- if it bit you on the arse. What "stupid shit" was "refuted"? And where was it "refuted"? You said a lot of things that sounded PC yet provided no material to back up your claims -- and you even suggest what he says ACTUALLY true:
...even if all that other stuff were true, what does it mean?

...And it appears this section of the brain is, as a rule, "bigger" in women (another of those physiological differences you mention...

But that would be expected from someone who cites a wiki [slashdot.org] as an authoratative source.

Here's what I think. I think the OP made some valid points that you feel arent PC to talk about such as the fact that there ARE differences between men and women and you jumped on him because you feel the topic is taboo. The fact is there ARE differences. Viv le difference.

The poster even made what I would consider an insightful observation:
I think the best we can hope for is "parity"
I believe this sums up nicely what he was trying to say -- namely: why try to force square pegs in round holes? Let people gravitate to the fields and professions in which they excel... and if that means that there are something like 80% women psychologists and 20% men, and 80% men construction workers and 20% women, then so be it. Why even suggest that its somehow sexist to suggest this? I've read the OPs post and I nowhere see anything suggesting that any sex be held back or prohibited to succeed based on their gender.

and You REALLY don't get it (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149909)

But that would be expected from someone who cites a wiki [slashdot.org] as an authoratative source.

You gotta get over this nonsense. It is crippling your ability to think. What makes the people at Merriam Webster so much more knowledgable about a given topic than others who are able to research? And what makes a "wiki" so goddamn refutable when the information cited is directly from the APA? When was the last time you saw Brittanica cataloging all its references?

Here's what I think. I think the OP made some valid points that you feel arent PC to talk...

Hilarious.

A) You think I'm PC.

B) You think I care what a freak thinks.

Re:and You REALLY don't get it (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150759)

You gotta get over this nonsense. It is crippling your ability to think. What makes the people at Merriam Webster so much more knowledgable about a given topic than others who are able to research?
You obviously have no idea how wiki's work. Wiki's are (A) not static, (B) editable by anyone regardless of qualifications, (C) are even mentioned in the Wiki FAQ about reliability (read it sometime).
And what makes a "wiki" so goddamn refutable when the information cited is directly from the APA?
I'm amazed you can find the nose on your face. If the information is cited directly from the APA, cite the APA. The problem with a "wiki" is that any given time some whack job can change anything -- or worse some well-intentioned idiot who THINKS hes knowledgeable about a given topic (like SOME people around here). SO, what's a verbatum APA definition today may be a recipe for hot cocoa tomorrow.
When was the last time you saw Brittanica cataloging all its references?
Um... all the time? Not only that, they list and/or have on record their editing staff who are answerable for accuracy. Further, their articles are subject to peer review before publication. The fact that this needs to be pointed out to you repeatedly suggests an inability to see the obvious.
A) You think I'm PC.
I think you fall in to the typical "taboos" PC establishes. I also think you're an ignorant prick, but these are just opinions based on a few posts I've read from you.
B) You think I care what a freak thinks.
So far, I haven't seen much from you that would have me care one rat's whisker about what you think.

I'll also note that you breezed passed my observation that you not ONLY didn't "refute" anything from the OP as you claim, you even stipulated he was correct -- further suggesting a serious flaw in your ability to construct a cogent argument. It adds up.

Re:Black and White sexism (1)

CentrX (50629) | more than 10 years ago | (#7145791)

What's needed for programming isn't language skills but rather logical and visuo-spatial thinking processes. Programming languages are different enough from natural languages anyway that the special "language skills" you attribute to women probably aren't even relevant. Computer programming is primarily dealing with procedures (as in logic, mathematics, algorithms, etc.) and structures (as in entities, objects, pieces). Even if, generally, women are indeed more capable with the "language skills" you're referring to, if women are at all deficient in logical thinking processes or visuo-spatial/object relationships, then the language skills are moot.

link to sell! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7131542)

dear slashdot,

please STOP comments with links to amazon or web-site that try to sell something.
it is very frustrating to follow a link in a comment only to find out "just 29$ with free shipping".

woman earn less, because they are lazy. by giving them less money, employies get the incentive to hire them :0
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...