Hehe, it's actually amazing how much the Sims have affected my feelings about child-rearing. Sometimes the Sim babies are really cute and stuff, and it's somehow satisfying to teach them to walk and stuff, and to watch them grow up. But when they start crying and rattling their cribs, I just want to punch them in the face.
So yeah, this is why I don't think I should be responsible for children. That and it seems to me there are better things to spend money on than ungrateful little leeches.
The 'hard' sciences are still very much boys clubs - and thers still a pervasive attitute that women who are good at the 'hard' stuff are either wierd or dykey.
I think it would be more accurate to say ALL people in hard sciences are considered weird. Also I would say that both men and women in hard sciences, on average, wouldn't be ranked really high in terms of classical beauty compared to other fields.
Edit: I do, of course, think there are exceptions where there are very attractive 'normal' people in hard sciences.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So yeah, this is why I don't think I should be responsible for children. That and it seems to me there are better things to spend money on than ungrateful little leeches.
You can join Colleen and I with whoever you're with on globe spanning vacations and sip chablis at a delightful little cafe outside Rome while we discuss the finer things.
Chemistry isn't as Y-chromosome-dominated as physics, but it still is to some extent, especially once you get to the graduate level. Biology grad school is pretty close to equal these days, happily (I was in an evenly-split cell biology program, and ditto for my old roommates' micro program), and there's a least a decent proportion of young female professors compared to young male ones. Once you get to the middle-aged and up professors though, even in biology it's pretty overwhelmingly dudeful in most places.
Yeah, that's about it. All my lecturers were good people, but the only females were relatively early-career compared to most of them, fitting with the lag-time theory. I tell you what was interesting, though; the women had both done far more interesting and risky things with their careers than the men, travelling overseas and teaching and researching in all sorts of places. The men had done a bit of that too, but didn't seem to have ventured nearly so far afield. It was kind of weird, and I wonder if its got anything to do with the known problem of female academics having to do like twice as much stuff to get the same recognition as everyone else.
There was no funky gender ratio in the GIS classes, though. The only one that was a bit skewed was the one where the surveyors could enrol too - they were all guys. The built environment faculty still has really obvious gender skewing in their courses, with the interior design major more women, the architecture one 50/50, and the landscape and surveying stuff mostly guys.
The 'hard' sciences are still very much boys clubs - and thers still a pervasive attitute that women who are good at the 'hard' stuff are either wierd or dykey.
I think it would be more accurate to say ALL people in hard sciences are considered weird. Also I would say that both men and women in hard sciences, on average, wouldn't be ranked really high in terms of classical beauty compared to other fields.
Edit: I do, of course, think there are exceptions where there are very attractive 'normal' people in hard sciences.
man, what. There's no statistical connection between physical features and brains, far as I know. I'll give you deportment, but that's about it.
Exploiting isn't really the word, but if you don't think the media propagates some impressively harmful ideas about what it means/takes to "be a real man" you're deluded.
I agree- I think the conditioning of what it takes to 'be a man' is probably in many ways as bad as the conditioning to 'be a woman'. The big difference is we are conditioned to be POWERFUL, and thats what is most important so that is where most talks about sexism find their focus.
I think the reason young men are so eager to commit suicide might be that they are taught that their problems are THEIR PROBLEMS and no one else's.
And I think men tie up their self-esteem in silly ideas of gender possibly slightly more than women are taught to, because nowadays women are (sort of) told that they can do whatever they want (even though men are still stopping them).
Ding ding, you win the wheel of brie. Men who beat other men for not fitting their definition of manly (gay/effeminate/simply refusing to cave to peer pressure), anyone? Classic, if extreme, case of overinvestment in stupid ideals. men don't get taught that all that stuff is bullshit as much as women do, I think, and that's a real problem, because look how many women don't get it even after a lifetime of being told they're equal.
The suicide thing is strongly connected to social isolation, which is why the rate is so high in the early twenties. Just out of home, no established social network, often no idea how to establish one... bad times.
The 'hard' sciences are still very much boys clubs - and thers still a pervasive attitute that women who are good at the 'hard' stuff are either wierd or dykey.
I think it would be more accurate to say ALL people in hard sciences are considered weird. Also I would say that both men and women in hard sciences, on average, wouldn't be ranked really high in terms of classical beauty compared to other fields.
Edit: I do, of course, think there are exceptions where there are very attractive 'normal' people in hard sciences.
man, what. There's no statistical connection between physical features and brains, far as I know. I'll give you deportment, but that's about it.
Yes, but I think deportment will determine how well someone takes care of their personal grooming and how well they dress which can effect how attractive they appear to others.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
The 'hard' sciences are still very much boys clubs - and thers still a pervasive attitute that women who are good at the 'hard' stuff are either wierd or dykey.
I think it would be more accurate to say ALL people in hard sciences are considered weird. Also I would say that both men and women in hard sciences wouldn't be ranked really high in terms of classical beauty compared to other fields.
I... I'm pretty sure you only say this because you haven't spent much, if any, time in the "hard science" community.
I just thought of a good example to to differentiate sexism from, well, not sexism:
Only stocking the Women's bathroom with tampons, not sexist.
Only putting urinals in the men's bathroom, not sexist.
Only putting baby changing stations in the Women's bathroom, sexist.
The 'hard' sciences are still very much boys clubs - and thers still a pervasive attitute that women who are good at the 'hard' stuff are either wierd or dykey.
I think it would be more accurate to say ALL people in hard sciences are considered weird. Also I would say that both men and women in hard sciences wouldn't be ranked really high in terms of classical beauty compared to other fields.
I... I'm pretty sure you only say this because you haven't spent much, if any, time in the "hard science" community.
I just thought of a good example to to differentiate sexism from, well, not sexism:
Only stocking the Women's bathroom with tampons, not sexist.
Only putting urinals in the men's bathroom, not sexist. Only putting baby changing stations in the Women's bathroom, sexist.
That just means I get to hang out in the women's washroom when I'm changing my kid. If you've got a kid already, I'm sure your not gonna be surprised by anything in there.
The 'hard' sciences are still very much boys clubs - and thers still a pervasive attitute that women who are good at the 'hard' stuff are either wierd or dykey.
I think it would be more accurate to say ALL people in hard sciences are considered weird. Also I would say that both men and women in hard sciences, on average, wouldn't be ranked really high in terms of classical beauty compared to other fields.
Edit: I do, of course, think there are exceptions where there are very attractive 'normal' people in hard sciences.
man, what. There's no statistical connection between physical features and brains, far as I know. I'll give you deportment, but that's about it.
Yes, but I think deportment will determine how well someone takes care of their personal grooming and how well they dress which can effect how attractive they appear to others.
Deportment in this context is more about how they interact with other people than about whether or not they bathe.
I think having kids would be like playing the Sims, except with consequences. People love this Sims.
Eh, do the Sims randomly break all your shit, cost $400,000 and scream at all hours of the night?
Man fuck that game.
Except for the money, pretty much. Those people are idiots.
The hard sciences may be male dominated because autism seems to be x-linked, and people with autism are almost as highly represented in the sciences (see Temple Grandin) as engineering (a joke at MIT is that, in most departments, the game is to name the professors with Asperger's, while in the engineering, it's those without)
I think having kids would be like playing the Sims, except with consequences. People love this Sims.
Eh, do the Sims randomly break all your shit, cost $400,000 and scream at all hours of the night?
Man fuck that game.
Except for the money, pretty much. Those people are idiots.
The hard sciences may be male dominated because autism seems to be x-linked, and people with autism are almost as highly represented in the sciences (see Temple Grandin) as engineering (a joke at MIT is that, in most departments, the game is to name the professors with Asperger's, while in the engineering, it's those without)
Do you have a citation for this?
Also, even if every single autistic person born in the 80s went into hard science I still doubt it would account for the discrepancy.
I think having kids would be like playing the Sims, except with consequences. People love this Sims.
Eh, do the Sims randomly break all your shit, cost $400,000 and scream at all hours of the night?
Man fuck that game.
Except for the money, pretty much. Those people are idiots.
The hard sciences may be male dominated because autism seems to be x-linked, and people with autism are almost as highly represented in the sciences (see Temple Grandin) as engineering (a joke at MIT is that, in most departments, the game is to name the professors with Asperger's, while in the engineering, it's those without)
Do you have a citation for this?
Also, even if every single autistic person born in the 80s went into hard science I still doubt it would account for the discrepancy.
Dude, haven't you heard?
Aspergers is the new black, all the cool kids are doing it.
I think having kids would be like playing the Sims, except with consequences. People love this Sims.
Eh, do the Sims randomly break all your shit, cost $400,000 and scream at all hours of the night?
Man fuck that game.
Except for the money, pretty much. Those people are idiots.
The hard sciences may be male dominated because autism seems to be x-linked, and people with autism are almost as highly represented in the sciences (see Temple Grandin) as engineering (a joke at MIT is that, in most departments, the game is to name the professors with Asperger's, while in the engineering, it's those without)
Do you have a citation for this?
Also, even if every single autistic person born in the 80s went into hard science I still doubt it would account for the discrepancy.
A story on NPR about Asperger's had an interview with someone from MIT who said the place is nearly dominated by people with Asperger's.
This would also explain the reputation scientists have.
The syndrome has been very undiagnosed, so it's hard to know exactly how many there are.
Pffft. Everyone with a minor lack of social graces thinks they're an aspie these days. Its easier than realising you're simply crap at people-stuff and need to pay more attention.
Pffft. Everyone with a minor lack of social graces thinks they're an aspie these days. Its easier than realising you're simply crap at people-stuff and need to pay more attention.
Pffft. Everyone with a minor lack of social graces thinks they're an aspie these days. Its easier than realising you're simply crap at people-stuff and need to pay more attention.
Actually, it seems more common that they don't realize it.
sorry, should have used the word 'admitting'. People who are crap with other people and frustrated by this, especially on this forum and in places with similar demographics, frequently cop out of making an effort to improve their skills by claiming to have an autism-spectrum disorder in the total absence of any more information than a wiki article and a lawl-that-sounds-like-me. Social graces are learned, and they don't want to make the effort.
Pffft. Everyone with a minor lack of social graces thinks they're an aspie these days. Its easier than realising you're simply crap at people-stuff and need to pay more attention.
You sound like like a misogynist on sexism.
You sound like a fucking retard, so I guess we're even.
Pffft. Everyone with a minor lack of social graces thinks they're an aspie these days. Its easier than realising you're simply crap at people-stuff and need to pay more attention.
You sound like like a misogynist on sexism.
You sound like a fucking retard, so I guess we're even.
Assuming you're being serious, I think he was just saying that Cat's response was as
misogynistic:sexism::lack_of_grace:aspie, i.e., being biased against the afflicted people yourself, and thus not seeing the actuality.
I like starting at the end of the thread and working my way backwards until I figure out what the thread is about. I got through about three pages and I'm still confused about this one. Nobody spoil it for me.
edit: A Burger King commercial, holy shit I never would have guessed that.
Assuming you're being serious, I think he was just saying that Cat's response was as
misogynistic:sexism::lack_of_grace:aspie, i.e., being biased against the afflicted people yourself, and thus not seeing the actuality.
People don't claim to be sexists to cop out of misogyny, and "actuality" isn't a real word. I'm sure you think you've cleverly put the boot on the other foot or something but you should put the boot back on the correct foot or you're just going to trip yourself up and look silly.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited January 2008
There is actually a placed called Burger Queen in a town near me. Been there for 20 years.
Assuming you're being serious, I think he was just saying that Cat's response was as
misogynistic:sexism::lack_of_grace:aspie, i.e., being biased against the afflicted people yourself, and thus not seeing the actuality.
People don't claim to be sexists to cop out of misogyny, and "actuality" isn't a real word. I'm sure you think you've cleverly put the boot on the other foot or something but you should put the boot back on the correct foot or you're just going to trip yourself up and look silly.
Did we read the same sentence?
"You sound like a misogynist on sexism."
He's saying the Cat sounds like a bigot defending their bigotry.
The bigotry being against those who may or may not suffer from Asperger's.
Of course telling someone they don't have a mental disorder when there really isn't a foolproof test for it is always shoddy at best, like Tom Cruise believing mental disorders come from alien souls and that Psychiatrists are evil.
Pffft. Everyone with a minor lack of social graces thinks they're an aspie these days. Its easier than realising you're simply crap at people-stuff and need to pay more attention.
This is the same type of reasoning used by people who are apologists for rape.
"She's crying rape because she doesn't want to admit she's promiscuous."/"They're crying aspie because they don't want to admit they're losers."
I missed out on the beginning of this thread. Is it derailing/off-topic to comment on the OP at this point?
To WH: I don't think "Burger Queen" refers to homosexuality. I think people see the Whopper as an inalienable part of "Burger King." And the King, male, has a penis. Queens don't. So if you take away the Burger King's Whopper, it's analogous to taking away a King's penis. And a Queen is the closest thing to a King without a penis: a penisless person in a similar position of power.
I may be dead wrong, but that's what I think the comment meant. Calling BK "gay" because it has no whopper makes less sense to me than the Whopper-dick thing.
I bet half the people on these forums are self diagnosed Aspies.
What always annoys me about these threads is that everyone talks like they are so enlightened and completely above sexism and gender roles. Everyone pretends that they see men and women as 'people' with no difference.
I mean come on, if you were brought up in the same world as me there is no way you can have so escaped your gender assignment. The fact that I am a man is a huge part of my identity, for better or worse. I can't undo that. Maybe far in the future we will, but that day is a long way away.
To WH: I don't think "Burger Queen" refers to homosexuality. I think people see the Whopper as an inalienable part of "Burger King." And the King, male, has a penis. Queens don't.
Kings are also sitting rulers. Princes aren't. But you may notice that he didn't say that BK without the whopper may as well be Burger Prince.
MrMister on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Pffft. Everyone with a minor lack of social graces thinks they're an aspie these days. Its easier than realising you're simply crap at people-stuff and need to pay more attention.
This is the same type of reasoning used by people who are apologists for rape.
"She's crying rape because she doesn't want to admit she's promiscuous."/"They're crying aspie because they don't want to admit they're losers."
These aren't analogous except insofar as the use the same sentence structure.
Posts
Eh, do the Sims randomly break all your shit, cost $400,000 and scream at all hours of the night?
Man fuck that game.
So yeah, this is why I don't think I should be responsible for children. That and it seems to me there are better things to spend money on than ungrateful little leeches.
I think it would be more accurate to say ALL people in hard sciences are considered weird. Also I would say that both men and women in hard sciences, on average, wouldn't be ranked really high in terms of classical beauty compared to other fields.
Edit: I do, of course, think there are exceptions where there are very attractive 'normal' people in hard sciences.
Yeah, that's about it. All my lecturers were good people, but the only females were relatively early-career compared to most of them, fitting with the lag-time theory. I tell you what was interesting, though; the women had both done far more interesting and risky things with their careers than the men, travelling overseas and teaching and researching in all sorts of places. The men had done a bit of that too, but didn't seem to have ventured nearly so far afield. It was kind of weird, and I wonder if its got anything to do with the known problem of female academics having to do like twice as much stuff to get the same recognition as everyone else.
There was no funky gender ratio in the GIS classes, though. The only one that was a bit skewed was the one where the surveyors could enrol too - they were all guys. The built environment faculty still has really obvious gender skewing in their courses, with the interior design major more women, the architecture one 50/50, and the landscape and surveying stuff mostly guys.
man, what. There's no statistical connection between physical features and brains, far as I know. I'll give you deportment, but that's about it.
Yes, but I think deportment will determine how well someone takes care of their personal grooming and how well they dress which can effect how attractive they appear to others.
I... I'm pretty sure you only say this because you haven't spent much, if any, time in the "hard science" community.
I just thought of a good example to to differentiate sexism from, well, not sexism:
Only stocking the Women's bathroom with tampons, not sexist.
Only putting urinals in the men's bathroom, not sexist.
Only putting baby changing stations in the Women's bathroom, sexist.
That just means I get to hang out in the women's washroom when I'm changing my kid. If you've got a kid already, I'm sure your not gonna be surprised by anything in there.
Deportment in this context is more about how they interact with other people than about whether or not they bathe.
Except for the money, pretty much. Those people are idiots.
The hard sciences may be male dominated because autism seems to be x-linked, and people with autism are almost as highly represented in the sciences (see Temple Grandin) as engineering (a joke at MIT is that, in most departments, the game is to name the professors with Asperger's, while in the engineering, it's those without)
Do you have a citation for this?
Also, even if every single autistic person born in the 80s went into hard science I still doubt it would account for the discrepancy.
Dude, haven't you heard?
Aspergers is the new black, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://medium.com/@alascii
A story on NPR about Asperger's had an interview with someone from MIT who said the place is nearly dominated by people with Asperger's.
This would also explain the reputation scientists have.
The syndrome has been very undiagnosed, so it's hard to know exactly how many there are.
You sound like like a misogynist on sexism.
Actually, it seems more common that they don't realize it.
You sound like a fucking retard, so I guess we're even.
So I don't think I have it; I think, instead, I was never around enough people to learn the rules.
Actually he makes a good point.
Your response, however, is indeed retarded.
misogynistic:sexism::lack_of_grace:aspie, i.e., being biased against the afflicted people yourself, and thus not seeing the actuality.
Game, set, match. Christ. People saying "I don't think there's actually very much of X" sound the same. No shit, sherlock.
Me using an umbrella makes me a pussy. Real men just use the hoods on their sweatshirts.
I think the real point is that men aren't afraid of a little water, ya pussy.
Man nothing less than golf ball size hail even merits a reaction. And that reaction is punching it out of the fucking air.
edit: A Burger King commercial, holy shit I never would have guessed that.
People don't claim to be sexists to cop out of misogyny, and "actuality" isn't a real word. I'm sure you think you've cleverly put the boot on the other foot or something but you should put the boot back on the correct foot or you're just going to trip yourself up and look silly.
Oh, and don't tell me what doesn't exist
Did we read the same sentence?
"You sound like a misogynist on sexism."
He's saying the Cat sounds like a bigot defending their bigotry.
The bigotry being against those who may or may not suffer from Asperger's.
Of course telling someone they don't have a mental disorder when there really isn't a foolproof test for it is always shoddy at best, like Tom Cruise believing mental disorders come from alien souls and that Psychiatrists are evil.
This is the same type of reasoning used by people who are apologists for rape.
"She's crying rape because she doesn't want to admit she's promiscuous."/"They're crying aspie because they don't want to admit they're losers."
To WH: I don't think "Burger Queen" refers to homosexuality. I think people see the Whopper as an inalienable part of "Burger King." And the King, male, has a penis. Queens don't. So if you take away the Burger King's Whopper, it's analogous to taking away a King's penis. And a Queen is the closest thing to a King without a penis: a penisless person in a similar position of power.
I may be dead wrong, but that's what I think the comment meant. Calling BK "gay" because it has no whopper makes less sense to me than the Whopper-dick thing.
What always annoys me about these threads is that everyone talks like they are so enlightened and completely above sexism and gender roles. Everyone pretends that they see men and women as 'people' with no difference.
I mean come on, if you were brought up in the same world as me there is no way you can have so escaped your gender assignment. The fact that I am a man is a huge part of my identity, for better or worse. I can't undo that. Maybe far in the future we will, but that day is a long way away.
t VC: how's that for a stupid comment?
https://medium.com/@alascii
Kings are also sitting rulers. Princes aren't. But you may notice that he didn't say that BK without the whopper may as well be Burger Prince.
These aren't analogous except insofar as the use the same sentence structure.