flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
 Home   FAQ   Search   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
flat assembler > Heap > Are gender differences real? Why can't we talk about it?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
nyrtzi



Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Posts: 187
Location: Off the scale in the third direction

sleepsleep wrote:
i guess we have too many words here with vague meaning,

what is arrogance? could it be some sort of twisted self-confidence? or somehow it came from egotism?



English not being my native language I checked an online dictionary and what it talked of was basically about being seeing oneself as better than others and then offensively rubbing it in the faces of others. A common saying comes to mind: "Teaching your father how to make babies."
Post 20 Aug 2017, 05:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
nyrtzi



Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Posts: 187
Location: Off the scale in the third direction

system error wrote:

Sending more women for work (competing with men) may sound good in terms of gender equality but on the other end, it inflicts more damage on family upbringing quality, as the single most important unit in a nation and society building efforts. Family units and equity crumble all over the place just to satisfy gender equality in the workforce?



To me there is nothing wrong with the idea of gender equality. It's the way society and lobbyists go about trying to implement it that makes me doubt their motives. What they seem to be doing is social engineering based on the idea that the pie chart that shows the composition of the general population in terms of all the various identity groups needs to more or less but mostly mostly match the equivalent chart of all fields of work and if it doesn't then the assumption is that the identity groups missing are somehow being discriminated against. I find this an incredibly misinformed way of going about it. And yes, I know I'm just parroting others here.

Take for example the state I live in as an example. Female participation in getting higher degrees from universities and technical schools is higher than ever while the participation of men has dropped to the levels it was last at a half a century ago. Tying this in together with the family unit aspect you brought up we now have to ask where all these educates females are going to find a spouse that is "on their level" considering that since times primordial they've always gone for guys that have are better off and equal to them in terms of life achievement and status. The obvious answer is that if higher education translates into a better salary and thus more resources with the guys being very much underrepresented in higher education participation then there won't be enough "good men" around in the long run and probably not even on the short term.

So all of this leaves me wondering if the people who pushed for pushing more women to get higher degrees thought all of it through as far as setting the goals, testing when they've been achieved and how to balance the situation afterwards so that the progress will stop at the point where they claimed they wanted to reach instead of continuing until the situation is equally bad but the reverse. Considering how this stuff usually seems to go in politics and social engineering I'd say all of this probably came up at some point but was silenced until they noticed they were already past the point of no return. What they probably need is a paradigm shift but as we can read from the philosophy and history of science the most likely way to get a paradigm shift is for the older generation obsessed with the old ideas to retire so that the younger ones with their own slightly newer obsessions that better reflect the situation they grew up with. And by that time it will already be way too late. I doubt people will look at this situation with very kind eyes a hundred years from now.
Post 20 Aug 2017, 05:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 7940
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

nyrtzi wrote:

YONG wrote:
I am sorry that I did not read the rest of your post -- because it was way too long.

Which is why I said earlier:

nyrtzi wrote:
And I'm sorry that I usually write posts that are too long for peoples' tastes

But that part precedes the lame joke so I guess you did read that.

My line, with reference to your mention of "tl;dr", was meant to be a joke. Bro, take it easy.

Wink
Post 20 Aug 2017, 07:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 267
gAp

(i'm just saying)
Post 20 Aug 2017, 11:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 267
I probably know what you'll probably think..
but hiring and firing is only a matter of fitness, as much as, particular job over some specific work.
So what's the OPUS? eh..

And how do you call somebody fitting in every "bribal group", eh, tom?

Girls do have a pair (as much as it can be referred to), for those sincerely unknowledgeable.
O unlikely nyrtzi is my kin.

sleepsleep, cheers!


..system narrow
Post 20 Aug 2017, 12:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 759

nyrtzi wrote:
What they seem to be doing is social engineering based on the idea that the pie chart that shows the composition of the general population in terms of all the various identity groups needs to more or less but mostly mostly match the equivalent chart of all fields of work and if it doesn't then the assumption is that the identity groups missing are somehow being discriminated against. I find this an incredibly misinformed way of going about it. And yes, I know I'm just parroting others here.

Social engineering are the words I was looking for, thanks.

Equality, to me, means treating everyone equally. Yes, women are discriminated in certain cases, but treating them specially to counteract this is no different. Both are inequality. Confused
Post 20 Aug 2017, 12:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6835
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

nyrtzi wrote:

sleepsleep wrote:
i guess we have too many words here with vague meaning,

what is arrogance? could it be some sort of twisted self-confidence? or somehow it came from egotism?



English not being my native language I checked an online dictionary and what it talked of was basically about being seeing oneself as better than others and then offensively rubbing it in the faces of others. A common saying comes to mind: "Teaching your father how to make babies."



hi, english is not my native too,
afaics, the meaning in lots of words are vague,

because arrogance requires some sort of offensive attitude, but offensive is probably hardly defined,

and offensive yields both positive and negative output, which further complicated the whole direction,

somehow i think, the whole issues happened because we as a human, don't have a agreed just measurement unit for us, Idea

and we probably too ~ have unknown, vague, weird or unnecessary job requirement for job we advertised, Idea

also we probably have zero reason for the requirement we set in before Idea

i guess these are the root causes, Wink
Post 20 Aug 2017, 15:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6835
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

Furs wrote:

nyrtzi wrote:
What they seem to be doing is social engineering based on the idea that the pie chart that shows the composition of the general population in terms of all the various identity groups needs to more or less but mostly mostly match the equivalent chart of all fields of work and if it doesn't then the assumption is that the identity groups missing are somehow being discriminated against. I find this an incredibly misinformed way of going about it. And yes, I know I'm just parroting others here.

Social engineering are the words I was looking for, thanks.

Equality, to me, means treating everyone equally. Yes, women are discriminated in certain cases, but treating them specially to counteract this is no different. Both are inequality. Confused



but what is equal actually? Laughing
there are almost 7 billions kinds of human on earth, each with their own pattern and behaviour, each with their own memories, know-how, creativity and so on,

some people need help and guide to perform or complete some objectives, some people could finish on their own, some need threats to finish their objectives,

how is it possible to have equality? Wink idk, or maybe we should just burn this word? Idea

equal should probably be objectives based,
Post 20 Aug 2017, 16:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 759
"Equal treatment" is simple to define. You treat them equally depending on their qualities, not what makes them up. Take revolution for example. You don't know his/her/its gender, race, species, etc. So you treat him/her/it based on what he/she/it posts, not what he/she/it is.

This does include not treating women in a special way just because they were discriminated or "to even out the statistics" which, as you can see, is completely inequal treatment. It goes both ways. Helping the minority for being the minority is inequal treatment just as much as discriminating against them.
Post 21 Aug 2017, 12:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15096
Location: The Unicomplex
There is a term for giving minorities special treatment: Positive Discrimination.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, just that it is called that.
Post 21 Aug 2017, 18:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 759
Yeah np always learn new stuff Smile
Post 21 Aug 2017, 18:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6835
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

Furs wrote:
"Equal treatment" is simple to define. You treat them equally depending on their qualities, not what makes them up.


how is it to define treat them equally?
you got one customer who can't walk, sitting on a wheelchair, another one who can walk, how is it to treat them both equally?
Post 21 Aug 2017, 18:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15096
Location: The Unicomplex
Many businesses don't treat their customers equally. Repeat customers can often get better prices (loyalty treatment), big spenders can often get free gifts (bulk treatment), good looking customers can often get better service (sex appeal treatment), etc. But none of those are based upon any of the traditionally "bad" discriminations like race, age, gender, (dis)ability, etc., instead they are generally considered "acceptable" discrimination practices.
Post 21 Aug 2017, 19:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6835
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
dis·crim·i·na·tion
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person based on the group, class, or category to which the person is perceived to belong rather than on individual attributes.

but what are human attributes here?

there are rampant discrimination happened everyday to every human on earth, is allocating gender quota in tech work place a good start to reduce such discrimination? or you got better idea how to reduce discrimination?

what is exactly discrimination in your own words?

is discrimination good? or bad?
Post 21 Aug 2017, 19:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15096
Location: The Unicomplex

sleepsleep wrote:
is discrimination good? or bad?

I don't think anything is good or bad, it is all about how we view it and how we respond to it. Some people think that race/sex/age/<thing> discrimination is good, some think it is bad, and others are indifferent to it. It all depends upon one's POV.
Post 21 Aug 2017, 19:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 759

sleepsleep wrote:
how is it to define treat them equally?
you got one customer who can't walk, sitting on a wheelchair, another one who can walk, how is it to treat them both equally?

If the job in question has nothing to do with walking and they both perform the same, then there is no problem.

Sorry to say and speak the hard facts, but if someone's inability to walk renders him subpar to someone else for the given task, then slacking him off is not discrimination. It's just... facts.

Discrimination is when you do it for what someone is -- and for that reason alone, nothing else.

In this case, you don't treat him worse because he is on a wheelchair or was born that way (which would be discrimination), but simply because he can't do the job properly. If someone else refuses to use his legs, even though he can walk just fine, he'd get the same treatment.

For example, statistics show that black people are less intelligent than white people on average (I mean, statistically speaking -- not that an individual black is less intelligent than an individual white, just that the average bulk of the black population has lower IQ than the average of whites -- simple fact).

If you treat a black person worse because he is black, that's discrimination. However, if on average, your company hires less black people simply because of the respective individual's lower IQ, it's not discrimination.

Heck, do blind-screening and just test his capabilities. If, after doing this, you still end up hiring more white people, then it's not discrimination: you're filtering out people less suited for the job, and the black people you interviewed just happen to be that way.

Do you know what's discrimination? Seeing a black guy, obviously LESS SUITED for the job (blind screening/interview!) take your spot (let's say you're white) just in the name of "evening out the workplace". This is positive discrimination as I said, and it's also disgusting.

I find it disgusting that if you happen to be in the majority working in such a retarded workplace, you have to work harder than those minorities just for being in the majority -- for the same goal and pay.


NOTE: black vs white above is purely for example purposes Wink
Post 21 Aug 2017, 20:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15096
Location: The Unicomplex
Unfortunately IQ results are really only good for showing what someone scored on the IQ test. They don't seem to correlate to any real job requirements or performance abilities IME.
Post 21 Aug 2017, 20:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 7940
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

revolution wrote:
Unfortunately IQ results are really only good for showing what someone scored on the IQ test. They don't seem to correlate to any real job requirements or performance abilities IME.

IQ and EQ are correlated. And EQ is important at work.

Refer to:

Correlation between emotional intelligence and IQ
http://www.memory-key.com/research/news/correlation-between-emotional-intelligence-and-iq

The Importance of Emotional Intelligence at Work
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/245755

Wink
Post 22 Aug 2017, 02:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
system error



Joined: 01 Sep 2013
Posts: 652
This has been misunderstood since long ago that males are holding negative views over competing females? I think it's wrong. Males are not arguing against females in a comparative ways. Men don't see it that envious ways. It's mostly centered around whether women is or isn't suitable for some designated tasks traditionally performed by men. It's not about discrimination at all. It's all about putting the right resource to the right job.

Women are not built to take on jobs that require big, long focus over a long period of time. Men on the other hand are not built to perform short multi-taskings jobs. Women got easily distracted. See, putting more women in a prolonged researh jobs, for example, will be disastrous. Am I lying? No. Google's top Search Engineers are 100% male despite the presence of women engineers. Why is that? Is that Google's own bigotry and sexism?

The answer is much simpler than that: Back to nature.
Post 22 Aug 2017, 06:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6835
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
somehow i thought about this while having my lunch,

anyone could feel discriminated, because the treatment he/she/it received from others, probably we don't have any official channel on how to deal with this, how to discuss this,

~ i felt discriminated because you promote him instead of me, because he is white male, and i am black female,

~ i felt discriminated because you promote him although he joined this company latter than me 2 years,

~ i felt discriminated because you assign him/her to in charge in this project instead of me, when i am the one who propose this project initially, Laughing

is like there is only 1 piece of cake but there are more than 1 person who want to take all piece of cake,

or there is only one car, but there are more than 1 driver who want to take control of car wheels,

~


sleepsleep wrote:
somehow i think, the whole issues happened because we as a human, don't have a agreed just measurement unit for us,



when decision is based on instinct, or preferential, or simply i just want to give you,

but this is kinda puzzling too, because if i own resources, having power, and i can't give to anyone i like, what kind of ownership i actually own?

then this open another question, what kind of rules involve when i am the owner and master of something? Laughing
Post 22 Aug 2017, 07:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2005 phpBB Group.

Main index   Download   Documentation   Examples   Message board
Copyright © 2004-2016, Tomasz Grysztar.