There are several of these people/stories out there. All still use some kind of currency, though. Usually favors, or they trade physical things. What's wrong with a paycheck when you're doing work that solves a problem? It's still a system of mutually-beneficial trade, yet it's seen as less noble. Why is that?
Sorry, I hate to be this person, but do you know who the high-paid, "celebrity" hair stylists are? Men. If you look at all the communications careers-- teachers, psychologists, marketers. Men make the most money and have the most prestige in female-dominated professions. "Flipping" a scenario is rarely the best way of formulating an argument.
The general statistical consensus is actually that men have higher variance in general. You're more likely as a man to be rich and famous, but you're also more likely to end up in a ditch.
Most car accidents are male, too. It doesn't mean they're bad drivers, it means that men drive longer distances, longer time than women.
It's a matter of probability. The more you drive, the more you are likely to have an accident at some point.
Match total men mileage and get the ratio accident/man.mile .. Then do the same for women.
More accident for less driving. Numbers say another thing.
If someone's a truck driver and spends basically his whole day driving and has driven hundred of thousands of miles and he's been in 5 accidents.. And I've been in 1 accident.. What do the numbers say ?
I love it when people want to bend numbers to make them say what they want, yet completely take them out of context.
Oh:
84% of homeless people are male ?
Okay, find each one of them. Ask if he was married before. If yes, ask him where is his wife..
I'm willing to bet she's not inside that card-board box:)
> It's a matter of probability. The more you drive, the more you are likely to have an accident at some point.
That was actually part of my point. I am not saying men are inferior, I am saying men are more likely to be in jobs where they have higher workplace hazards.
Women can absolutely be sexist towards other women-- as in a jealousy scenario. Sexism is being targeted because of your gender. The fact that this is not obvious explains a lot.
Isn't that a bit reaching, though? Jealousy is a personal feeling, not a reaction based on societal and political frameworks. Anecdote: gay men in long-term relationships are jealous of their partners too, and their reactions to perceived "enemies" are similar to that of people in heterosexual couples.
To be clear, what we're talking about here is not a simple interpersonal issue. It's sexism within a company.
It doesn't matter whether the source of that sexism is the way the men treat women, or whether its the way a high-powered woman treats the other women. (Both are at play in this particular story.) If someone is being discriminated against due to their gender, the company culture has an issue with sexism.
I brought up jealousy as an example, but I didn't mean it to be romantic. It can be an issue of feeling threatened by another woman, as when a woman used to be the only female voice at her company. It's a twisted perspective, but there's data to say it exists.
Have you ever heard of gaslighting? I don't know what actually happened with this woman either, but it is unfair to say, "Tell us what exact event caused this."
Many people have developed PTSD from a traumatic childhood within which no one distinct event/spoken sentence can be pointed to-- just many, many hurtful episodes over days, weeks, months, and years.
There probably was an event that set her over the edge. I just wouldn't expect it to be some Disney movie scene in which a guy in a suit slams his fists down and shouts, "Women are the worst!" Real people are more crafty than that. Real-life abuse is more subtle.
Again-- I don't know what happened. Just can't help but point out the kind of faulty logic being used here, since it is so common.
Says a person who has obviously never been in such a situation and can't even imagine the reality.
It's cartoon-ish to say, "Well then I'd sue and everything would be worth it." Know why most women don't sue? Death treats. Rape threats. Not being able to ever get a job in tech again. No one believing the claims could possibly be true. The expense of suing someone and losing. Etc.
The day-to-day psychological effects alone are bad enough that, with any familiarity, you would never roll the dice on that chance.
> Says a person who has obviously never been in such a situation and can't even imagine the reality.
I worked on a community care facility for developmentally disabled adults when I was in college. I was young when it happened, probably 19-20, and an older woman I worked with made constant unwanted sexual advances. We worked unsupervised in a two person team in a group home, and for about six months she would never let a day go by without pointing out that she would be willing to engage in intercourse with me, right here and now, in pretty graphic terms. I was pretty low on the totem pole, the woman harassing me was very good friends with management, and so I never did anything about it.
So yes, I have been in a situation like that, can imagine the reality, and would totally be willing to go through it again and do it right by reporting it and maybe saving others from getting that treatment in the future.
She never said GitHub "wasn't like that" as much as that she was doing her best to change the situation from inside of her own company (GitHub). She encouraged women to join GitHub because of the change she was working on creating-- not because it was a utopia at the present time. That was never claimed. (Though your point is still valid that she was "changing her tune" and that is a risk for anyone to do publicly.)
Not all women are extroverts? I'm a woman and could go without seeing people for a very long time. I think this is a huge misunderstanding of what it means to have a preference for the "social." It's about the purpose behind the project, not face time.
You really want to present this law as a matter of women wanting an "out"? You have no idea why anyone is advocating for this.
I have no problem talking "men's issues." I have a problem, though, talking about men's issues with a person who hasn't even investigated the very foundation of what is happening in a situation before jumping to "me, me, me."
Women are regularly-- constantly-- kidnapped and sexually/emotionally/physically abused into sex work. In the US-- not just in third world countries. They make no profit. They win the prize of being beaten, but not to death. Then, when what they're doing is discovered, they go to jail. Instead of the kidnapper. Which they can't fight because the person who has actually profited from what they've done would literally kill them and their entire family if they did.
That is why anyone is advocating that buying-- not selling-- sex be illegal. Because there are far more men benefiting from female prostitution than females benefiting from it. And the organizations that try to rescue women are made helpless by current legislation.
The solution presented is imperfect, of course, because 100% of women do not fall into this category. It's just that the women in this situation have no way of identifying as such without someone going after the people they love.
On the other hand, you have men who are down in the dumps, who seek a prostitute to feel better. There may be legitimate mental health issues there, which is deeply unfortunate.
We could make their side "legal" as well. But would that make the situation better or worse? It seems to me that jailing a man who purchases sex is the least of two "evils." Which is the best any legislation can do, really.
If you want someone to be mad at, please, be mad at the pimps. Not women-- as a big, faceless entity, no less.
Also try to familiarize yourself with an issue before jumping to conclusions like this. If something sounds completely absurd, chances are you haven't heard both sides.
If the receiver doesn't like it, it's called email-the-receiver-didn't-like, and they can unsubscribe. Still not spam, though. Pretty simple?