Parge wrote:I was looking for a fun and unique instance of batshittery to lift for my sig. That Rhys Morgan sexism "debate" fit nicely.
That is all.
That's a nice one. The conversation was actually full of jewels, like not a dog's suggestion of "castrate yourself and burn your balls like marshmallows".
My favorite was
@doxievee @LilyPowers lol some ally you are, dickhead. feminism is a movement by + for women. you don't get a say. you dont get shit.
I'm keeping that one to show when someone asks men to be feminist allies.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:15 am
by windy
Hai guys! What have I missed? The usual witchfinding business?
He's getting asked in the comments about his phrase "It's a guy thing". If I remember correctly, Notung also mentioned that point on Twitter.
I'd like to have other people's opinions, but the way I'm reading it, he didn't say atheism or skepticism were a guy thing, he said that "standing up and talking about it, going to shows about it, being intelectually active about it" was a guy thing.
Yes, that's the only way it makes sense.
He was stating/implying that men tend to be more active about things than women, tend to go to more conventions and speak more about it.
Is it true? I don't know, we could probably apply some (insert scary lightning) Evo pscyh to the question.
Yes, sort of like most celebrity chefs being men doesn't imply that men do most of the cooking. It could conceivably be because of (scary lightning!) structural sexism, maybe women's contributions tend to be less valued/taken for granted, or women on average have less time to dedicate to their careers because of family responsibilities. But it would be silly to shout down alternative explanations to the gender bias of celebrity chefs by referring to the whole population (SO YOU THINK WOMEN CAN'T COOK??)
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:18 am
by welch
Altair wrote:
Trophy wrote:
Because you know, black people are really at the mercy of the white people and it's the white duty to always ask black people if something is bothering them, otherwise, we might never know what issues are faced by black people! You see, PZ Myers is not being condescending at all! He's just trying to be the white savior! You know, all non-whites need non-white savior! So, if you are white, don't be racist, be a white savior!
Better instead, as Gina recommends, to change your system. For conference organizers, that means not just opening up a public call for proposals and asking Women 2.0 and Girls in Tech to tell their friends, but also seeking out and inviting individual women. That may sound inefficient, and it is time-consuming. But if your supposedly efficient public-call system isn’t yielding the desired results, then it’s simply failing efficiently.
(bolding mine)
So women and black people are unable to come forward and say "hey, I'd like to talk about this and that", but need to have someone call them and ask them if they would like to participate and what's bothering them. Besides it being too close to preferential treatment for my taste, it just minimizes them as persons with no capacity for self-motivated action.
I have to disagree, and i base this on personal experience. It can be damnably hard to get a woman to speak for the first time. The second time is usually cake, but not always. It may not sound right, but the reality is, if you want women to speak at your conference, well-qualified women, there are a lot of areas where you are going to have to do more than a little work to overcome their reticence. Shit, you have to work to FIND them.
Altair wrote:There's also this in the comments section:
As you noted, there is a large body of research that shows women don't ask/raise their hands/put themselves in the ring nearly as much as men. Folks also asked why that is. I want to offer some insights on that.
Social science research - like Steven Asch's conformity studies - suggests how, if you are a minority voice, you begin to doubt your own basic competencies. Sometimes the findings are almost humorous. For example: a group of people are gathered in a room for an experiment. Unbeknownst to him/her, only one person in the room is actually being experimented on; the rest of the folks are in on the experiment. They are asked a very basic question, with an obvious answer. But everyone in the room who is in on the experiment gives an obviously wrong answer. In about 30% of the cases, Asch found, the person being experimented on will go along with them. This is not a gender thing - it applies to any minority voice.
So women don't respond to calls for speakers because they're a minority (51% of the population, if I remember correctly) and have been socialized/oppressed into thinking they are not good speakers. Women are never responsible for anything they do, it's always the fault of someone else with these people :doh:
You're conflating human population with career field population. Speaking only for my own career field, if you were to tell me that 51% of sysadmins were women because 51% of people were women, I'd laugh at you. According to 2009 figures from the Bureau of Labor, the percentage of women computing occupations, (which is the ENTIRE range, not just programming or IT) was 25% or so, and it had been declining.
I don't see a reason to question those numbers, so it's not even close to 51%. Based on my own experience, I'd say at least half that, if not more, are programmers of some stripe, usually web programming. That area seems to attract more women. My *guess* would be it's new enough and more accessible in terms of effort/reward that women aren't "breaking in" to that area the way they are others. But thinking back across my career, it was...
well, I "officially" started in IT in 1993 or so, and I didn't actually work with a woman sysadmin until around 2002 or so, and that was at MIT. It would be uncommon, but not unheard of to spend many decades as a sysadmin and never have a woman in your department.
So yeah, I actually CAN see how women are intimidated by speaking at a conference in a situation where they're in a rather severe minority. The joke I run into a lot is that women love Apple's Developer conference, because there are so few of them in attendance that the Moscone West has more ladie's rooms than women to use them. Meanwhile the men are practically peeing in the alley.
This is a great clip of shermer, Harris and Chopra. I especially liked Harris starting around 1:50 saying he would never get on a stage at CalTech and give a talk on Physics because he doesnt know physics.
'Cause Shermer is so hungry for adulation and approval that he will do anything to get it anywhere.
I have 20 bucks that says the vague harassment allegations will get more specific in the near future.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:29 am
by Ape+lust
Outwest wrote:This is a great clip of shermer, Harris and Chopra. I especially liked Harris starting around 1:50 saying he would never get on a stage at CalTech and give a talk on Physics because he doesnt know physics.
Anyone we know like that?
ryqwvh5FsCc
The whole thing is a hoot, worth watching. For some reason, Shermer always makes Deepak unhinged, and he does go unhinged here, ignoring the moderator and yelling about the *hack* *ptui* bad crazy-man.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:31 am
by Pitchguest
Ok, I'm just reading over that thread just now and Josh is a fucking trainwreck. He's saying he can't stand her because she's "too feminine" but according to him, feminity is an artificial construct enforced by the patriarchy - then he's saying that he can't stand her because she's trying to please the patriarchy by being feminine. Well, fuck me, but that sounds a lot like "victim blaming" to me, Josh, if you're saying feminity is something that's enforced by the patriarchy.
Seriously, can anyone of you make heads or tails of this comment?
Josh the Official :confusion-shrug: wrote:
a transgender wrote:So you calling her out on performing femininity kind of struck a personal note.
And I’m genuinely sorry about that. But it doesn’t change the coercive nature of women (or those identified as “womenâ€) feeling forced to perform femininity. Don’t get angry at me for pointing out the patriarchy. You’re not going to get any freedom conforming to it and getting all bullshitty over the fact that I point out gender-policing is shit.
:confusion-shrug:
For the rest of the thread, he's angry, flippant, makes silly accusations about sock puppetry and refuses to answer valid questions.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:33 am
by ERV
windy wrote:(SO YOU THINK WOMEN CAN'T COOK??)
Side-rant--
So McCreight watches Iron Chef Redemption now. She tweeted to Alex Guarnaschelli "Relieved you're not in the bottom two! We need a kickass lady Iron Chef"
1-- You mean a straight kickass lady Iron Chef? Forget about Cat Cora there, 'superfan'?
2-- I love Guarnaschelli. I love Freitag. But the best 'lady' contender was Falkner, and she got kicked off a couple weeks ago. Ah, but shes a lesbian, so, into the Cat Cora bin with her.
3-- Why do we 'need' the next Iron Chef to be a 'lady'? Why not Mehta? There are no Indian Iron Chefs. Why not Vigneron? He was *relentlessly* harassed on his season of 'Top Chef' (that he should have won). The other contestants harassed, ridiculed, and *physically assaulted him*, even one of the contestants who framed herself as one of his 'friends'. What a nice message for kids who are bullied-- "Fuck your bullies, you can grow up to be the next Iron Chef!". Hey, why not have the next Iron Chef BE THE PERSON WHO EARNS IT?
Pffffff. <hipster Abbie>Ive been watching Iron Chef since fucking middle school. Used to watch it in my BFFs basement pretty much every night because we lived in a small town/nothing to do. Fucking love that show. Come up in here, Tweeting DERPS like a HERP, man fuck that shit.</hipster Abbie>
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:39 am
by KarlVonMox
PZ responds to Shermers correct assertion that "A variance from perfect demographic symmetry does not necessarily correspond to racist attitudes."
Errm, yes, actually, it does mean that. Secularism itself shouldn’t be an issue for just us white folks; it’s a universal concern. The grand issues that we put front and center in our various movements — atheism, skepticism, science — really are concerns for every human being. It’s all the associated baggage that we drag in that makes us implicitly racist — we talk about White Men’s Problems all the time, we always, as white people, address the grander topics of skepticism and atheism from the narrower perspective of our particular cultural biases
....
For years, I’ve been saying that the way to make conferences and the movement as a whole less biased towards male concerns is to ask women what matters to them, and to listen and respond, rather than telling the little ladies what they need to hear. It’s the same with race.
Fuck this man is stupid. Where does Shermer say anywhere that we shouldn't address the concerns of women and minorities? All he says is that there exists a variance within secularism from the general population - this does not necessarily mean there is exclusion going on. PZ continues to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:40 am
by Al Stefanelli
Dick Strawkins wrote:SpokesGays comments on the video the first time it was posted at pharyngula.
So, who the fuck died and made this douchenozzle the official spokesperson for gaydom?
Do you know what it takes to avoid the dissonance of seeing Skepchicks doing their klutzy sex kitten thing on the internet? You have to blinker your view until there's nowhere to look but up your own asshole... which explains a thing or two.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:56 am
by Pitchguest
Ahhhh shit, I shouldn't have continued reading the comments. I'm going to give myself an aneurysm one of these days. Now skeptifem has joined in, and I'm constantly confused as to why this person is still given quarter at this place. One commenter said in response to Josh's idiocy of Cara's "feminity" that she was hot, and skeptifem busts out this fucknugget:
A woman in public isn’t begging for your assessment by existing, so its gross when you give out such information without solicitation. No one cares what gives you a boner.
Says the woman who coined the term "gender traitor." A word of advice, skeptifem: shut the fuck up.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:05 am
by Cunning Punt
John Brown wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:SpokesGays comments on the video the first time it was posted at pharyngula.
It's hilarious to me when feminists (especially male feminists!) tell women that they are doing it wrong because...patriarchy!
And, that's the whole crux of the matter. Individualism is never allowed. An individual never gets to define how to act, think, or go about their daily life if it goes against the collective.
Individuals are victims of or are emulating "the Patriarchy" (a collective standard which is infinitely pliable and non-falsifiable).
The collective has broken free of "the Patriarchy" and are the only ones who really see the world for what it is.
Up is down. Black is white. Josh the Spokes Gay is the final arbiter of how a women gets to act. If she acts against his collective standards, then, she's just a puppet.
A-fucking-mazing.
To be fair Spokesgay got pretty roundly shat on in that thread for what he said. I was still a reader at that time and I remember all those comments. It was like a pack of dogs turning on one of their own. Eventually Josh rolled over and exposed his belly. I think they do it for the practice.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:07 am
by Pitchguest
Sorry. Femininity.
That's the third time I misspelled that word. By the way, it seems that Caine Flower Power (or whatever) and strange gods agrees with Josh's statements, and unsurprisingly so does skeptifem. May I just say that this "discussion" about femininity on there is incredibly sexist and that nothing like it have appeared here on the 'Pit. The only borderline conversation we had was the cheerleader dispute, but even that was settled. Josh is claiming that anyone that criticises his opinion on this is a sockpuppet. Fucking idiot. (Okay, okay, I'll try to keep it down. Hopefully the last about it today.)
Dick Strawkins wrote:SpokesGays comments on the video the first time it was posted at pharyngula.
It's hilarious to me when feminists (especially male feminists!) tell women that they are doing it wrong because...patriarchy!
And, that's the whole crux of the matter. Individualism is never allowed. An individual never gets to define how to act, think, or go about their daily life if it goes against the collective.
Individuals are victims of or are emulating "the Patriarchy" (a collective standard which is infinitely pliable and non-falsifiable).
The collective has broken free of "the Patriarchy" and are the only ones who really see the world for what it is.
Up is down. Black is white. Josh the Spokes Gay is the final arbiter of how a women gets to act. If she acts against his collective standards, then, she's just a puppet.
A-fucking-mazing.
To be fair Spokesgay got pretty roundly shat on in that thread for what he said. I was still a reader at that time and I remember all those comments. It was like a pack of dogs turning on one of their own. Eventually Josh rolled over and exposed his belly. I think they do it for the practice.
Which is actually *worse* because he will back down when strongly confronted, which says to me that he doesn't really believe what he says.
He's only hostile and petulant when the mob has his back.
People with principled positions don't do that.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:19 am
by ReneeHendricks
It seems *this* has Ophie's knickers in a twist this morning:
She sure does seem to be scrambling for shit to blog about.
It works, bitches.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:23 am
by welch
Someone, i forget where, said that the 'pit were all cowards because we didn't go after Aron Ra. My response was something along the lines of "No, it's because Aron isn't a stupid tit 24x7. I don't always agree with him, but he tries quite hard to state his points well, with some kind of sane thought process behind them."
Funny that. Also, I don't think Aron is terribly different in person than online, and i'm pretty sure he's no problem with calling someone a dumbass to their face if he thinks it's warranted.
Shermer wrote:
It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.
You know what? That is a great big hairy naked sexist remark. It’s a plain assumption that men are intrinsically better suited to leading skepticism and atheism. You can’t get much plainer than “It’s more of a guy thing.â€
A good response would have been to admit that he’d made an unthinking, stupid remark and that he’d like to retract it. But that’s not what he does. Instead, he argues that he really does think the split in participation is 50/50, and points to TAM as having roughly equal numbers of men and women speaking.
Fuck, why are they still reading it that way (yes, I know why, rethorical question).
He's not saying that men are better suited to leading skepticism and atheism. He says that more men than women are interested in going to conferences, shows and to speak about it.
It's also telling that PZ equates "going to shows, conferences and talking about it" with "leading atheism and skepticism". Sounds like he wants to consider himself a leader of the field.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:28 am
by Ape+lust
Pitchguest wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:It seems *this* has Ophie's knickers in a twist this morning:
welch wrote:
I have to disagree, and i base this on personal experience. It can be damnably hard to get a woman to speak for the first time. The second time is usually cake, but not always. It may not sound right, but the reality is, if you want women to speak at your conference, well-qualified women, there are a lot of areas where you are going to have to do more than a little work to overcome their reticence. Shit, you have to work to FIND them.
I still disagree with this point of view. If someone wants to talk, let them talk. If they don't, I see no reason to have to do a lot of work in order to convince them and overcome their reticence. If there is no barrier or discrimination preventing them from talking, that is, if the playing field is leveled, any extra to get someone to talk or participate is discrimination against the ones that don't receive the extra work.
welch wrote:
You're conflating human population with career field population. Speaking only for my own career field, if you were to tell me that 51% of sysadmins were women because 51% of people were women, I'd laugh at you. According to 2009 figures from the Bureau of Labor, the percentage of women computing occupations, (which is the ENTIRE range, not just programming or IT) was 25% or so, and it had been declining.
Now with this I will agree, it was a very dumb mistake from my part. You're totally right that the percentages will be different depending on the area/subject/kind of science.
welch wrote:
So yeah, I actually CAN see how women are intimidated by speaking at a conference in a situation where they're in a rather severe minority.
Why does this happen? Not a snarky or facetious question, I'm actually interested. Is there a perception that men will go after the women who speaks at the conference? Fear of not being taken seriously? Something else entirely?
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:39 am
by Ape+lust
Altair wrote:Fuck, why are they still reading it that way (yes, I know why, rethorical question).
He's not saying that men are better suited to leading skepticism and atheism. He says that more men than women are interested in going to conferences, shows and to speak about it.
The same reason PZ's doing a multi-part takedown of evo-psych that no one asked him to do. It's a diversion for those who expect the same rigor from one of his buddies that he expects from everyone else.
Altair wrote:It's also telling that PZ equates "going to shows, conferences and talking about it" with "leading atheism and skepticism". Sounds like he wants to consider himself a leader of the field.
And the whole bunch likes to call themselves "activists." Activists do stuff. They're pundits.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:44 am
by Dick Strawkins
Pitchguest wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:It seems *this* has Ophie's knickers in a twist this morning:
Ok here's my comment on PZ's shit blog I'm paul something cause he blocked my IP (lotta good it did ;) )
First of all PZ what gives you the right to speak on behalf of women or about what women want? You don't know what it is like to be a woman. You can't understand on the same level. You know what that makes you? A parrot. A parrot can sound smart at times but it really has no idea about the message it is relaying. It simply can't grasp the thinking behind what it is saying. Now if someone teaches a parrot to say something that is incorrect the parrot isn't gonna say "I can't say that because it's not true" It is too dumb to know any better. That's you on this subject and most others concerning social interaction. You are not speaking from the heart or from experience or feeling, you are just making noise really. You have surrounded yourself with people who make you feel all warm and fuzzy so you go on squawking thinking it's all good because so many around you are nodding in agreement. When someone doesn't nod along? Toss em into the dungeon ( a term most often used by people into bondage and S&M didn't you know that PZ? kinky fella )
PZ Myers you are a twit. Why are there mostly guys at a heavy metal concert? Because girls are USUALLY not as into metal as guys. Before any of you myers morons chimes in let me make it clear --THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO ALMOST EVERY SOCIAL RULE-- that is because so many variables come into play. But generally guys are more into metal. That's not because girls are too scared to listen to metal. They aren't afraid it is going to do them harm, they may even like metal but they don't get into it as deeply as boys do. There are just somethings that are more appealing to one sex than the other. Women are into movies that show nurturing and emotion more than guys are. It's not because guys hate women and are trying to hurt them by not watching their movie rentals. You don't seem to grasp this concept PZ. It's okay for one group to be represented more than another as long as no one is being kept out by any other group. Shermer showed he has a good realistic grasp on things, even admitting some of the questions are not easily answered but showing an interest in finding those answers. You think you have all the answers already PZ. You are the Ray Comfort of feminism. It's those misogynists!! They are the reason for everything! Every behavior you can't explain or don't approve of is a result of misogyny or privilege. Social issues are not that easily solved PZ. Just like a squid wasn't created by god snapping his fingers. Social problems need to be examined and tested and there may not be one clear answer there may be several answers and none of them wrong. I know you don't get it but a lot of people do or can grasp it. That is why you and your band of merry nodding morons are doomed to waste time hating and judging all by yourselves. Shermer explained it to you and it went right over your empty squawking head. Wake up already. Hi anthony! are you still pouting? Go and play with your pussy in front of the mirror for a while maybe?? You did say to me "let's see what you got" didn't you? And then you complain.....ingrate. Oh, there's a hole in the dungeon wall btw might wanna patch that up.
Clean your guns and saddle up, Ophelia. We've got your back.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:47 am
by Dick Strawkins
Altair wrote:
Fuck, why are they still reading it that way (yes, I know why, rethorical question).
He's not saying that men are better suited to leading skepticism and atheism. He says that more men than women are interested in going to conferences, shows and to speak about it.
It's also telling that PZ equates "going to shows, conferences and talking about it" with "leading atheism and skepticism". Sounds like he wants to consider himself a leader of the field.
I think we need to face the sexist problem that the bigfoot and UFO community has.
Not to mention the 911 conspiracy theorists.
Or the trainspotting fraternity.
Why do they exclude women?
If there is one thing you guys here at the pit are really good at, its exposing the unmitigated hypocrisy of these fools.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:57 am
by masakari2012
Added Michael Shermer to the Witch Of The Week. Feel free to edit or correct me if necessary. I'm not a writer. Just a pissed off dude who hates FTB/Skepchicks brand of feminism and equality (which really isn't equality).
masakari2012 wrote:Added Michael Shermer to the Witch Of The Week. Feel free to edit or correct me if necessary. I'm not a writer. Just a pissed off dude who hates FTB/Skepchicks brand of feminism and equality (which really isn't equality).
masakari2012 wrote:Added Michael Shermer to the Witch Of The Week. Feel free to edit or correct me if necessary. I'm not a writer. Just a pissed off dude who hates FTB/Skepchicks brand of feminism and equality (which really isn't equality).
As a follow up to PZ's comment, somebody posted the above. I've put it here for Posterity in case it gets memory holed.
First of all you posted the wrong video. The right one is here :
Second of all you didn't post a timestamp for them. The question starts at around 12 minutes and lasts until 14 minutes.
You might want to correct that for them, and also note that he brings up that more than 50% of the speakers at TAM were female. While smiling and nodding - what the bastard! I doubt the regulars will bother to watch but the lurkers might.
You seem to think I posted, I don't post on pharyngula, ever any more.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:13 am
by masakari2012
Al Stefanelli wrote:
masakari2012 wrote:Added Michael Shermer to the Witch Of The Week. Feel free to edit or correct me if necessary. I'm not a writer. Just a pissed off dude who hates FTB/Skepchicks brand of feminism and equality (which really isn't equality).
I was busy during that week. When I had the time to enter the links, it was lost to me. I still plan on fishing out those links from the Slyme Pit serach, and adding it to the list.
What does a bat fear more than anything else? Diarrhoea...
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:33 am
by skepCHUD
PZ called Reap a racist and now it turns out everyone is a racist* including PZ himself. Now that those two former foes have something in common, maybe PZ will come on Reapsowradio and apologize for all the nasty things he's been saying. He may even proclaim Reap as his hero.
*or at least all privileged white people
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:34 am
by Lsuoma
Pitchguest wrote:
It works, bitches.
Unlike the skepchick and related bitches who never seem to have a lick of work to do...
Unlike the skepchick and related bitches who never seem to have a lick of work to do...
I thought being "bitches" was their work?
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:47 am
by Altair
rationalWiki wrote:
Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint.[1] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.
John Loftus wrote:
When will the witch hunt end? I’ll tell you. When atheists kick people like Ophelia to the curb just as people ended the real witch hunt in the 18th century. I read of one incident when a witch hunter came to one man’s door. The homeowner physically threw him off his property, sending him away from the man’s home and wife. Things like that.I’m speaking metaphorically. No physical violence is intended. We just need to stop listening to these extremists.
:roll:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:50 am
by Altair
ReneeHendricks wrote:Does EllenBeth Wachs read the Slymepit?
welch wrote:
I have to disagree, and i base this on personal experience. It can be damnably hard to get a woman to speak for the first time. The second time is usually cake, but not always. It may not sound right, but the reality is, if you want women to speak at your conference, well-qualified women, there are a lot of areas where you are going to have to do more than a little work to overcome their reticence. Shit, you have to work to FIND them.
I still disagree with this point of view. If someone wants to talk, let them talk. If they don't, I see no reason to have to do a lot of work in order to convince them and overcome their reticence. If there is no barrier or discrimination preventing them from talking, that is, if the playing field is leveled, any extra to get someone to talk or participate is discrimination against the ones that don't receive the extra work.
welch wrote:
You're conflating human population with career field population. Speaking only for my own career field, if you were to tell me that 51% of sysadmins were women because 51% of people were women, I'd laugh at you. According to 2009 figures from the Bureau of Labor, the percentage of women computing occupations, (which is the ENTIRE range, not just programming or IT) was 25% or so, and it had been declining.
Now with this I will agree, it was a very dumb mistake from my part. You're totally right that the percentages will be different depending on the area/subject/kind of science.
welch wrote:
So yeah, I actually CAN see how women are intimidated by speaking at a conference in a situation where they're in a rather severe minority.
Why does this happen? Not a snarky or facetious question, I'm actually interested. Is there a perception that men will go after the women who speaks at the conference? Fear of not being taken seriously? Something else entirely?
I wish I knew, but I think in this, you'd have to talk to women about it. I get a huge rush out of speaking in public, so I don't even get being afraid at all. Again, keep in mind, i can ONLY speak for a really narrow slice of the world in terms of experience. There's not a lot of women sysadmins out there, and while you have to have some social skills in my area of IT, the concept of standing out there and talking about what you do is somewhat counter to the nature of the field. It's really a teamwork kind of gig, with everyone helping.
For example, I get credit as someone who "made" adobe start taking installer seriously, but as for myself, I push back. I was neither the only one or the first one to try to get Adobe to improve those things. If I was anything "unique" in that area, I was louder and more profane. if that was what it took to get the issue noticed by the right people, I'm glad it happened, but I'm sad it took fecophile porn analogies to do so. But in no way was I the "only" one or even the "primary" one pushing the issue. I do a lot with SNMP and AppleScript, but I'm hardly the only, or even the smartest one on either subject. I may just be the loudest. There are a lot of smart people I work with, directly and indirectly, but fuck me, getting them out of their shell is like eating oysters with a paper knife sometimes.
The people you see speaking in my line of work are often the only people who are willing/able to get up in front of people and talk, so you tend to see the same people over and over. (There's a rather large ADD and Aspie population in the sysadmin field, neither are groups that tend towards public speaking, that may not help things in terms of public speaking.) This year for MacIT, I didn't submit a session just because I wanted to free up a slot for someone else, preferably someone new. Fuck, I never shut up, give someone else a chance.
Now, do I think that the proportions you see are really bad? Maybe, but I think that my field, and my area of my field just don't have a lot of women in it period, much less ones who are publicly findable, and willing to stand up and talk.
That's why being proactive is important. Sometimes, you just have to ask.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:02 pm
by John Brown
Altair wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:Does EllenBeth Wachs read the Slymepit?
She got pwned by the brave heroes that responded to her comment.
Seriously, everything she (and her comrades) brought up as a "yes, but" objection is so easily refutable that it's embarrassing to see them brought up. Ophelia's "threat?" The upskirt photos? That's all they have?
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:05 pm
by welch
ReneeHendricks wrote:Does EllenBeth Wachs read the Slymepit?
She got pwned by the brave heroes that responded to her comment.
Seriously, everything she (and her comrades) brought up as a "yes, but" objection is so easily refutable that it's embarrassing to see them brought up. Ophelia's "threat?" The upskirt photos? That's all they have?
That's how you know you are dealing with a communally reinforced clique of people: When you discover they are absolutely recalcitrant in the face of correction.
No one was taking upskirt pictures, and the poor bastard guy who had a camera on a monopod was apparently somewhere on the autistic spectrum and has received absolutely no apology over a false accusation which consists entirely of some paranoid, sex-obsessed person not being able to imagine what else a man with a camera on a stick might be doing with it.
Bad enough to have had the incident, bad enough having to debunk it but to keep repeating it regardless?
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:15 pm
by Tigzy
Ever since I saw that video with Peezee making the lewd comments to that hapless woman he pulled from the audience, I can only ever see a guy desperate to demonstrate (probably as much to himself as others) how much of a lecherous old creep he really isn't, whenever he damns anyone with accusations of misogyny.
Speaking of which: Josh OfficialSpokesFatDobber, if you're hoggling here - well, recall your disdain for Michael Shermer 'perving' at that woman? Enjoy! http://www.tubechop.com/watch/745147 (Peezee's amusing, comically-ironic and not at all pervy behavior begins about two fifths the way through - no timestamp, sorry).
I apologize in advance for any rage tears welling up in the corners of your eyes as a result of watching this.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:36 pm
by Outwest
Reap wrote:
masakari2012 wrote:Added Michael Shermer to the Witch Of The Week. Feel free to edit or correct me if necessary. I'm not a writer. Just a pissed off dude who hates FTB/Skepchicks brand of feminism and equality (which really isn't equality).
