Yes, somebody claimed that. Anybody would claim that. Good job shooting it down.
230 karma · joined August 24, 2013
As I see it, you have two options: a) change millions of people to your liking; b) change yourself to your liking. It is not "obviously" true that strangers' words must affect you. If it feels that way, it's because you haven't learned how not to let them. (This is the point the others miss when telling you to just ignore it. The skill is a learned one, not as simple as choosing ketchup vs. mustard, like they make it out to be.)
Let's practice: If they don't care what they're saying, then why do you? Non-rhetorical.
When you want to harass someone - and let's be honest, you, dear reader, have indeed wanted to harass someone at some point in your life - what do you do? You pick something you believe they will be sensitive to and remind them of it in a mean-spirited way. So, if the bully can tell you're a girl in a male-dominated space, that's what he's going to pick. You may (and problably do) receive this as worse harassment than I receive being called a faggot ("Lol another guy calling me a faggot"), but the bully doesn't need to be a worse person in order to choose to harass you in that way. Both times, it's the exact same guy, and both times, he's just reaching into his insult grab bag. What's he's not doing (necessarily, anyways) by calling you a "stupid slut" is revealing his deep-seated mistrust of women. If you're coming to that conclusion, you're overrating the complexity of the thought process that goes into online harassment. Which is to say, the problem is not what he thinks - it's that he's not.
Others in the thread have probably pointed out by now that the linked NPR story leaves conspicuously absent a key point in the "private buses in SF" narrative, i.e. that the recent ire (past week or two) flared up when some Vanguard type filmed himself pretending to be an obnoxious "let them eat cake" Googler. The next day, the even bigger story was that that video was a fake (not a hoax but a "true fake", to use Assange terminology). Indeed, were it not for the true faking of the perspective of one "side" of A Divided San Francisco, this NPR story, titled "Private Tech Buses Drive Tension" couldn't exist. Couldn't. So what? So whether the original was a lie or not has become definitively irrelevant - the length of its shadow is the same. The point being not that NPR is lying or something like that, but rather: that the Symbol has progressed on through to the fourth stage, that of the fully realized Simulacrum, now totally divorced from the "map-reality" (you remember the Borges fable about the nation-sized map at the beginning of the book?) which begat it in the first place. It now exists only on a plane of interaction with other Symbols (e.g., this is part of a series on Income Inequality, which, of course, has no non-wholly-symbolic connection to private buses) which have also divorced themselves of their original connection to reality and which also only interact with other Symbols. Baudrillard, you will recall, names this plane the "Hyperreal." Real because it is.
2. Spend 100% of winnings on lottery tickets
3. Win all the lotteries.
4. This is stupid.
Statements of this category are not going to persuade anyone to your side in a debate over social tact.
>If you have any examples of de-regulation of a labour market
Because that ever happens. C'mon.
> buyers market (employers purchasing wage labour)
That's not what 'buyer's market' means.
>my company is in public beta and haven't even launched yet!
Buy low, sell high. You don't approach this early for no reason.
>they specifically said that their senior M&A team and C-level execs have been thinking about building a product similar to ours
That was meant to scare you. Ironically, if you're smart, it achieves the opposite. "Ok, so why don't you? What does a 6-man startup have that a global player doesn't?"
My tentative vote, pending further information: Nay. From your thread comments, you seem psyched about the product - see how far that enthusiasm can push your product before you risk losing it. When you're enthusiastic, you want to "control your own destiny," as they say in college football. Also, beware "best case scenario" bias. If it were me, I would promise you creative control, teams on top of teams beneath you, fair captain. But where do you see that. Google acqui-kills 100 companies a year.
Really? The mere fact that someone would take these as different questions should suggest that they don't believe they would partake in campaigning as women do now, were they in the same position. Now, perhaps I'm wrong about myself-- people very often are-- but in this case I very much doubt it. Power, tech jobs, diamond rings. Women want none of these; they want the wanting. How to tell? That which they actually do want, they are far more goal-oriented about obtaining. Boyfriends, shoes/handbags, an appearance of not standing out, etc.
Each of your points of evidence is true in-and-of-itself, I think. But not enough compare-and-contrast with outside situations for my taste. Programming is a good career. So is finance. So why no campaigning there? 2) You're right, Men don't campaign for teaching or sanitation careers. What do men campaign for? Further, I might compare-and-contrast with the transitions of other groups which were formerly underrepresented within their industry and ask whether it was campaigning which won that victory.
>Why are women fighting for more women to do STEM while men are not fighting for more men to be therapists?
...and Freakonomics hears: "Why don't more men pursue female-dominated professions?" Not once, but twice. Alfred writes back to clarify his meaning, yet Dubner, again, simply lifts keywords out of his sentences and writes his own question to answer. Literally failing to think outside the bounds of political tropes.
It's a real thing. This summer, because my room would get hot at night, I had to leave a fan on. At first, I couldn't sleep with the noise. But now that it's getting colder, I've tried leaving it off, and guess what. Ha. Now I need the noise.
--top 1940 scale-model builder