reversecs

Yes, I receive praise and promotion even though I feel like i don't actually ship anything. I can only deduce that people like me and so they speak well of me.

Doesn't sound like a defense as much as balancing. I think it's this over sympathizing/feeling sorry for women that I can get exhausted with. The op was feeling bad for women because they menstruate and cleanup isn't somehow free. Well duh, and why shouldn't it be? We all responsible for our hygiene and have to pay it with our own money.

And if it shouldn't be free then why don't men get an extra check for consuming extra calories? The question is to demonstrate how ridiculous the idea is. The levels that people go to in order to sympathize with women are quite high and seem to be for the purpose of giving men a sense that they should feel bad or sorry for the condition of being a woman when really, if you want equality, you treat women like you treat men. You assume they are strong and they can handle the problem. Yes $7 a box by 9 boxes a year is definitely extra cost of living. But are we really going to make this one thing free or tax free just because it only affects women? It's such an oversensitivity to women and it should be considered offensive to them that anybody even considers that kind of special treatment.

The diversity efforts of business is all about the ego. To me it looks like insecurity. A fear that women are or appear inferior necessitates action to prove that isn't the case, even to the point of giving them an unusual benefit of the doubt to help increase their representation. No doubt, if 0 women are participating entrepreneurs, there is probably a lot of untapped potential. The idea should be to unblock women and not to throw them into the fire in order to get a metric up.

Any smart business will ignore diversity in an effort to maximize the bottom line, because skin color and genitals of the CEO do nothing for an ad agency or a customer trying to purchase a smart phone app.

I don't know, I can see why words which have absolutely no intent of being racist are associated with racism. Is it any more offensive than calling a node with no parent (which is going to be garbage collected) an orphan node? Or using 'kill' to end a process or (to be ridiculous) separating things by "Class", and calling things equal (instead of different or not different)

Intent is everything and giving into pressure like this just reinforces consideration of every word you speak or write and in what possible dimension it can be deemed offensive. In your life you can contort your language and behavior to please everybody but at some point you are no longer behaving for yourself but for everyone else. You have to pretend like you want to speak different pronouns, you have to pretend that calling someone black is much more offensive than calling them African American. You have to make sure that you specifically don't interrupt women, you have to double check (and counter) your implicit bias towards women and minorities when you think they didn't do a good job in the interview.

Some of these things are hyperbole and some of them are not. I know the standard response is that I'm over exaggerating but its par for the course to get diversity training, to have quarterly updates on how more women are being hired! (as if the company were actually eliminating discrimination instead of just bumping numbers up). This is all new and its moving faster and faster.

It would be nice if you said what you objected to specifically and describe or specify how the link you've commented adds anything to the discussion.

Its weird that once a woman does something for the first time people highlight that the person doing it is a woman. Its a little patronizing imo.

I haven't used one myself but I've heard the dongles are horrific. They overheat, and sound quality fades as temperature rises. This was a couple weeks ago my friends were telling me they couldn't get anything decent for their pixel2 on Amazon everything is cheap and produces the same result.

Chauvinistic farts...

The common link between Rick and jbp is that they speak to young men in a way that nobody else does. Rick is careless, extremely independent and a risk taker. Peterson, maybe over stepping his boundaries, gives concrete individualistic direction and life "rules" that young men happily buy into and find success with.

I was thinking the other day about how similar Wolf of Wall Street and Fight Club are. One is sadistic and anarchists, the other is hedonistic and capitalist. Yet I think they inspire men in the same way. They describe figures who defy social norms, who are impulsive and independent. It's interesting that both of these movies are considered the pinnacle of toxic masculinity, but in some way speak to men in a way that inspires. If the concept of toxic masculinity seeks to eliminate these character types and these themes, it makes me wonder what would replace it and if the inspiration that a young man finds for these lawless models will persist or if out culture can instill new ideals that make men more docile and better socialized.

Feminism and anarchy seem to target an entire culture. It really doesn't focus on the individual more than the collective. I think that necessarily manipulates all of these land scapes.

If it becomes transphobic to not date a trans person, purely on the basis of them being transgender, it necessarily affects everyone who interacts with a trans person who hits on them.

If it becomes sexist to watch and produce porn that can be interpreted as degrading to women, it necessarily changes decisions the porn that all people watch. If it is sexist for women to not be represented 50/50 for specifically high paying tech jobs, it necessarily affects that works with women or own a tech company. It almost certainly will make those changes through coercion rather than eliminating sexism in the interview process. People will pretend like all of these changes are justified but deep down it doesn't change the way we think and it only builds resentments against movements which restrict and criticise behaviors which are fair.

Some of the issues that these movements take on simply do not have a place for choice. It affects the entire landscape.

Helping women deal with "unrealistic beauty standards" would not work by ensuring that men don't prioritize or advertise with women that are beautiful (if you raise a bit and glorify images of women who are traditionally considered ugly, it will not work). If a boy is castrated at birth through a medical accident, and is raised as a girl and even given hormones, it still doesn't change traditionally male behaviors and sexual preference. People are not blank slates and I think we need to be careful that we set up a society that fundamentally works against ones nature.

Not that we should give in to every impulse, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at. At a work interview, women should be measured only in merit. Under the law, men and women should not be treated differently, except in manners that can only affect women or men (abortion, circumcision, etc.) In a social system, changing the way that people think about their attraction to women is just twisted.

I think it would be better to work on an individual level to help a person change the way they think about themselves to resolve the self esteem issues that photoshopped advertisements, or cookie cutter models and newscasters produce.

You are right. It is possible. I did have to write a bit of code to get the work done correctly and he seemed satisfied with the progress, but I may have done it inefficiently and he was encouraging.

Given the lack of context provided by the study (what commentary can you have about female beauty standards if you don't compare them, using the same methodology, to male standards?) I conclude that this study is only useful for a conversation about genderless conformity in the news room. If the author offers data on women's haircuts, in order to make the commentary you are making, they must also study men's hair.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that there is inequality. If the study doesn't demonstrate inequality then you can not use the study (in isolation) to prove inequality or to throw the burden of matching the statistics on the other side.

Every news anchor's appearance is carefully curated to present a safe face for the network.

Both men and women will tend to be polite but brief with a person they are not attracted to (in the context that the other person is trying to develop a romantic relationship). That is completely normal and I think it's fine and healthy.

Feminism will struggle against the tendency of women's attraction to be more heavily weighted by appearance than by character or economic status like men are.

I feel like from there men and women have organized themselves and their "competition" according to the criteria set by the opposite sex. Women will become more critical of other women's appearances and men will be more critical of masculine criteria (how much money do you make, can you defend yourself, are you tough/independent/emotionally stable) including penis size, because that is oh so important to making a woman happy.

Maybe men and women impose the harshest standards on themselves because they want to appease the opposite side more. And maybe even though it's true that those are characteristics we value in the opposite sex, we don't objectify the opposite sex as much as they objectify themselves.

Some men and women will resent the way they are "judged", blaming their "judges" for their feelings of inferiority. Some men and women will try to capitalize on the others insecurity to their own gain. Mostly the inferiority is self imposed.

It's a strange balance to acknowledge that (for example) appearances are important, and that it will be more difficult for either sex, particularly women, to find a partner if they don't take care of their appearances. And while that might be true acknowledging that you aren't an object and subjective qualities outside of the rubric of attraction actually do matter and are valuable to people you want to attract.

I don't think attraction will ever be negotiated, and that's where feminism will fail and frustrate people. It might become more taboo to admit you like her cause she's a lingerie model, or that he's a catch because he makes 7 figures, but those things are always going to make a person stand out no matter how angry or inferior it makes us feel.

I have bipolar 2 and the difference between losing an hour of sleep and not is tremendous and consistent. I will be deeply sad and demotivated the next day, no energy to do anything without a extreme amount of willpower.

I have a nice mattress but I stopped sitting on it or laying on it unless I'm going to sleep. I make sure for the hour before bed I turn off overhead lights and just use a lamp, and in the last hour I also refrain from screen use, except for brief moments. No matter how tired I am, I wait until the end of the hour to crawl into bed (build sleep pressure if it's there). Finally, and I just discovered this several weeks ago, I play white noise off my Google home (rain noise actually). That last step has added atleast an hour to my sleep every night, and I suddenly started having dreams again. And give yourself lots of time so that you never need to use an alarm.

A week of that routine and you will be falling asleep and waking up in extremely consistent ranges night to night. My target sleep is 10-630 and I estimate that I'm falling asleep 2 minutes after getting in bed and I wake up between 610-630 everyday.

Results: consistent mood, lower appetite, probably better learning and memory.