АLL F-!!1 TOPIC TITLE
-
Are you really confused by those words?
Not the words as such, but the sentence they were part of.
Filed under: may be missing obscure meanings
-
The real reason why women is not sticking around to be programmer is that they like giving direction instead of doing work. So they become managers quickly.
This.
-
The main difference being that most everyone else tends to benefit from people being successful in free enterprise, but tend to suffer from people being successful in government.
That seems to be a more pronounced effect in the USA than elsewhere. You guys have really shitty government for some reason.
-
I thought that if I showed an example where a private party owned the means of production, and was therefore able to prevent another party's access to the means of production, thereby restricting that party's ability to produce, that would prove it. It seems pretty solid to me, I'm not sure what the problem is.
This is your brain on Marxism. Any questions?
-
There's a story about some proles who told their capitalist "we've figured out how to make money out of nothing. We don't need you any more."
"Oh really? Out of nothing? Well this I have to see."
"Yeah, it's actually pretty easy, in the end: you just take some dirt and..."
"Excuse me!" said the capitalist "Where did you get that dirt?"
-
That seems to be a more pronounced effect in the USA than elsewhere.
Bullshit.
You guys have really shitty government for some reason.
They're all shitty, but this one is mine. It has its good points and bad points. I'll agree with you that it's the worst one, except for all the others. We've made a concerted effort over the last 100 years or so to break down some of its most redeeming features, and it shows.
Not the words as such, but the sentence they were part of.
Maybe you could ask a real question then? Though it seems pretty straightforward to me. After the 20th century, it amazes me that it's not obvious to people, but there you go.
-
There's a story about some proles who told their capitalist
OK, I'll give you one more chance. You've been whining about how awful it is that people own stuff, because that prevents other people from using the stuff for their own purposes. Lets assume you can't change the laws of physics.
What sort of ideas do you have about making available the means of production a better deal for us all?
-
Face it guys: what.thedailywtf.com is an MRA forum, you're all MRAs for posting here.
1st def or 2nd from that list
-
the tricky thing about words like that in a context like this is that, eg, economic harm can be different from personal harm, so it's never clear whether whether you're talking about net worth, quality of life market share or any of the above. and of course, that suits you perfectly, doesn't it.
-
more women in technology
-
Actually, some "activists" think it's unfair IT is the "boys club" because the boys seemingly do nothing, just typing at the keyboard and receive insane amounts of money for it. They are just glorified secretaries! Anyone can program!
This "war for equality" is revolving mostly around senior executive jobs. No one complains that there are not enough women in mining. No one complains there are not enough women soldiers on the battle fronts. Nah, too dirty! Too little buck!
Yep, anyone can program. Even an ape can, with some training (as we can see in the most software these days, although I suspect the apes wrote the parts that do work). But not anyone can actually build things. Not anyone can produce actual solutions. And most women get seriously scared away when they get an insight to a real perspective of how much brainpower they need to burn to design the damn thing and to make it work. Not for them. Too concerned about "having a life".
Of course there are exceptions. But exceptions are a manifest of a rule that prevails, sadly or not.
I personally have no problems with no women in my team. No hormonal moodiness, no embarrassingly biological tensions (and no potential for it), just plain joy of working and making shit work.
-
-
No one complains there are not enough women soldiers on the battle fronts.
False.
And most women get seriously scared away when they get an insight to a
real perspective of how much brainpower they need to burn to design the
damn thing and to make it work. Not for them. Too concerned about
"having a life". I personally have no problems with no women in my team. No hormonal moodiness, no embarrassingly biological tensions
Wow, you actually hate women in very clear and direct manner.
-
Wow, you actually hate women in very clear and direct manner.
So be it, then. Never thought of it as "hatred", though.
Annoyance, maybe.
-
more women in technology
Still not sure if this is a troll, a woman, or a guy who really enjoys cuckolding and/or pegging....
-
You forgot ballbusting.
-
Wow, you actually hate women in very clear and direct manner.
Yeah, this certainly struck me as actual misogyny. Unless it's just trolling. I think his opinions about giving up / putting forth effort / etc are pretty much correct for most women, but only because they're people, too, and they apply equally to men.
-
@Buddy, I think you need to [up your game][1].
@Crazy Grauniad Writer said:
Even the fact the men’s World Cup is not explicitly stated to be a men’s competition erases women.
[1]: http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2014/06/the-crushing-patriarchy-sporting-edition.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: Davidthompson (davidthompson)
-
there are people who are unable to enter the market without receiving assets that were previously owned by other people
I have three problems with this:
- Most assets have, at some point, been owned by someone else.
- Most companies are started by people using assets that were previously owned by someone else. Only possible exception is someone who found a goldmine and started a company, and that could be debatable.
- In a free market economy, this will always be the case, so what's your problem?
-
so what's your problem?
Too few women in IT. @Buddy already confirmed this. All problems lead to too few women in IT.
Let's get on this, people!
-
I think his opinions about giving up / putting forth effort / etc are pretty much correct for most women, but only because they're people, too, and they apply equally to men.
IT attracts specific mindsets, and it also repels specific mindsets. It just so happens that particular mindsets attracted are mostly male (other professions may bias differently). It also so happens that those mindsets are the ones I'm happy to work with. And I'm really unhappy to work with someone treating their job as a status token or as merely a step on their career ladder, whatever their gender is.
It also so happened that I used to work in mostly-female environments before, and it was bloody hell I'm not entering again, ever.
-
Let's get on this, people!
We should all get surgeries and take hormones to make it more even! I'm sure that's what @Buddy wants!
-
the wtf forums does not care about women
That's a huge fucking leap to make. There are all sorts of barriers, and honestly, I'm sure we wouldn't mind at all if there were more women here. But they damn well be able to take the heat, because we don't pull punches around here, and we aren't going to start just because of someone's gender.
Filed Under: Giving equal treatment
-
the wtf forums does not care about women
Brillant Paula Bean takes her utmost contempt to look at @Buddy with.
-
@boomzilla's always right.
Filed Under: When he isn't wrong
-
Too few women in IT. @Buddy already confirmed this. All problems lead to too few women in IT.
Let's get on this, people!
No, that's @Buddy's other problem. I was asking what the issue is with people having to use assets that were previously owned. I saw you had asked that, and it never got answered.
-
I'm sure there's some terribly awful joke about women and assets that shouldn't be made at this point.
-
I'm sure there's some terribly awful joke about women and assets that shouldn't be made at this point.
Yeah, it would just prove @Buddy's point. See @Buddy, we can refrain from being inappropriate!
-
-
We should all get surgeries and take hormones to make it more even! I'm sure that's what @Buddy wants!
Sure. Take the easy way out.
-
I saw you had asked that, and it never got answered.
No. That was @Buddy's answer. I think we're cool now, though, because @presidentsdaughter.
-
No. That was @Buddy's answer. I think we're cool now, though, because @presidentsdaughter.
Well I'm all confused now because that doesn't make a damn bit of sense.
-
Surely, 'TDEMSYR'?
-
Yeah, if I could find @Buddy's response. I'll give it a go.
EDIT: Found it
-
@boomzilla said:
What sort of ideas do you have about making available the means of production a better deal for us all?
more women in technology
TDEMSYR
-
Ok, I think we agree, if not about the reasons, at least about the fact there is few women in IT/CompSci, and some workplaces might by hostile.
But what I didn't get is why is it a problem?
And in the same mindset, why nobody protests the lack of men in nursing or pre-school teacher professions?
-
But what I didn't get is why is it a problem?
From what I can gather, the argument goes something like:Because, equality!
And in the same mindset, why nobody protests the lack of men in nursing or pre-school teacher professions?
Similarly, anyone who tries to make such a protest gets a response like this:There aren't any barriers, you sexist pig!
At least, that's what it looks like to me, though I may have glazed over a few of the finer points.
-
Maybe you could ask a real question then?
Ok.
most everyone else tends to benefit from people being successful in free enterprise, but tend to suffer from people being successful in government
How do you figure?
-
When people are successful in government, they [tend to] do everything they can to take more power for the government, because that translates to more power for themselves. This generally results in less power for the governed, thus most everyone tends to suffer from people being successful in government.
Conversely, in a free market, everyone [theoretically] has equal access to the resources required to compete. All that separates people at that point is their individual drive and imagination. Lacking any other bariers, a free market [thoeretically] allows everyone the chance to fit into the niche they are best suited for. So, most people benefit from a free market.
Admittedly, not the best comparison, since they aren't opposite sides of the same coin, but still semi-valid.
-
How do you figure?
When someone becomes successful as a result of participating in free exercise, his success is the result of voluntary transactions where everyone benefits (at least they did so believing that). The government guy is using force (or at least the threat of it) to do whatever it is he thinks needs doing (which sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't).
This isn't to say that there are no positives from government or negatives from free enterprise. But as a general rule of thumb, it seems quite accurate as free enterprise typically aligns, almost magically, the goals of disparate people into a direction of cooperation and mutual material progress. Government is the opposite, where the few distort the many.
-
But what I didn't get is why is it a problem?
...you don't get why hostility is a problem?And in the same mindset, why nobody protests the lack of men in nursing or pre-school teacher professions?
They are!
-
I may have glazed over a few of the finer points.
I believe you glazed over everything.
-
in a free market, everyone [theoretically] has equal access to the resources required to compete. All that separates people at that point is their individual drive and imagination
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way - as, I hope, we are all aware.
The main problem isn't whether we're talking about government or private enterprise, but what measure of power is concentrated in individual hands.
The unspoken assumption you are making is that a free market will keep the balance of power between the individual participants, but we know from centuries of observations that this is not the case. Based on purely evolutionary movements, those who are more successful will consolidate their market shares and increasingly start to push out their weaker competitors. The bigger they are, the easier it is for them to do so, with the end result being a monopoly or oligopoly.
This process takes longer if everyone is starting at roughly the same level, but we also know that this doesn't happen in real life. If your family has been rich for generations, you are in a much better competitive position through no achievement of your own, before you actually do anything.
That is why it's important to remember that free markets of the kind you describe exist only in the land of rainbows, unicorns and spherical cows.
-
...you don't get why hostility is a problem?
That is a problem. I meant the lack of women on this field. Why is it a problem?
-
-
-
Don't know. I'm more of a pork man, myself.
-
We should all get surgeries and take hormones to make it more even! I'm sure that's what @Buddy wants!
I'm fairly certain we've had pretendbian's mentioned here before.
If it wasn't here, then: you're welcome. Don't stay too long though...
Reminder:
-
Maybe you could ask a real question then? Though it seems pretty straightforward to me. After the 20th century, it amazes me that it's not obvious to people, but there you go.
It shouldn't. After all, there are people who seriously think the Great Depression was caused by the free market.
-
The unspoken assumption you are making is that a free market will keep the balance of power between the individual participants, but we know from centuries of observations that this is not the case.
Wrong, motherfucker. The assumption is that it will generally do so better than when the power is focused into the government.
That is why it's important to remember that free markets of the kind you describe exist only in the land of rainbows, unicorns and spherical cows.
Yeah, and you can fuck off with your pedantic dickweedery trolling. You're just encouraging the soft headed lefties to keep believing their delusions.
Urban Dictionary: MRA
