• (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    lucidfox:
    What does "marriage is already gay" even mean, anyway?
    You seem intelligent enough to understand that words can have more than one meaning. Hoodaticus was making a joke based on the fact that gay can also mean "lame".

    Sincerely, A Married Guy

    I hoped it wouldn't be this meaning, because, I honestly expected more from this community. This... This is just so straight.

  • (cs) in reply to J. McCarthy
    J. McCarthy:
    Actually, since his autism was caused by mercury in vaccines, I was able to cure him through chelation therapy.YMMV
    Presuming for a moment that you're playing the devil's advocate here, but suppose that you're not, that theory has been discredited and the doctor in question has been stricken off the medical register.
  • (cs) in reply to ThingGuy McGuyThing
    ThingGuy McGuyThing:
    Fair enough, I don't 'had' metabolism, or nerve function, or even a hangover. They're not illnesses, they're conditions. It's not possible to have conditions.
    Yeah, whatever. But did the point come across? Being on the autistic spectrum is like having brown hair. You can dye it another colour, but it doesn't change the fact that your natural hair colour is brown.
  • (cs) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    frits:
    lucidfox:
    What does "marriage is already gay" even mean, anyway?
    You seem intelligent enough to understand that words can have more than one meaning. Hoodaticus was making a joke based on the fact that gay can also mean "lame".

    Sincerely, A Married Guy

    I hoped it wouldn't be this meaning, because, I honestly expected more from this community. This... This is just so straight.

    Some of the readers of this site, like me, are knuckle-dragging neanderthals. It takes all types.

  • (cs) in reply to Severity One
    Severity One:
    J. McCarthy:
    Actually, since his autism was caused by mercury in vaccines, I was able to cure him through chelation therapy.YMMV
    Presuming for a moment that you're playing the devil's advocate here, but suppose that you're not, that theory has been discredited and the doctor in question has been stricken off the medical register.
    Do you think for one second that mere facts will slow down a juggernaut like Jenny McCarthy? There are books to sell and fame to be preserved.
  • (cs)

    A programmer who is female is called a "programmer."

    Possibly, in certain colloquial contexts, a "programmeress".

    Never "programmiss" or "programmis". Those words are non-semantic nonsense.

  • (cs) in reply to Rootbeer
    Rootbeer:
    A programmer who is female is called a "programmer."

    Possibly, in certain colloquial contexts, a "programmeress".

    Never "programmiss" or "programmis". Those words are non-semantic nonsense.

    We would also accept "programmatrix", for the froody double meaning.
  • sreagsgio (unregistered)

    CSB:

    Ages ago, we were looking for a new programmer. We actually did get a few resumes from females, and a couple of them has really good credentials. So we lined up some interviews.

    Well, the first female was hot. Incredible blonde, great body, and a very skimpy outfit - miniskirt that just barely covered her bottom, and a white see-through blouse with most of her cleavage unbuttoned.

    Anyhow, the interview actually went well. She actually knew stuff. But her outfit was so inappropriate, we couldn't hire her. It showed a staggering lack of judgement on her part.

    We ended up hiring another lady - she actually dressed like a normal person in her interview, and she knew stuff, and she's had a long IT career since then, so there you go.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Another Anon
    Another Anon:
    There is much problems with these sort of debates (and I'll admit wages and things are not my area).

    Fully agreed! I was mostly trying to point out the gaping hole in Hortical's argument that women have all the privleges. (I want to live in his world!) That said, I do disagree with a few of your points.

    Another Anon:
    This is not unfair - quite the opposite, in fact - it stands to reason that (kepping in mind earlier assumptions) men who have worked in the industry for 15..20...30 years are better qualified to move up the ladder than women who might have been in the industry for 5 or 10. As I say, over time, this will change.

    The wage stuff is partially related. A lot of places have almost guaranteed rises in salary, and someone who has worked in a role for 5-10 years probably has a higher salary than an equivalent in that role for 1-3 - and if they move on, they demand it to be matched or bettered.

    I disagree with your premise that women in the workforce are, on average, less experienced than their male counterparts. I'm pulling stats from a document based on Department of Labor numbers: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104673.html Women made up 30% of the work force in 1950, 38% in 1970, 45% in 1990, and 44% in 2008. The numbers for women's employment hasn't really changed since the late '80s, which means that by now the same proportion of women are retiring as are entering the workforce, the same as men. Portraying women as generally new to the working world (and therefore logically making less) isn't accurate.

    Another Anon:
    A further concern (which may be sexist, but not necessarily as expected) with regards to wage equality is that men and women are fundamentally different. Men cannot have babies. Generally, reasonably significant parental leave is afforded women, with a token leave allowed for men. This, of course, is required, because a man doesn't actually need time to recover from childbirth. Unfortunately (particularly for the career focussed women who may never bear children), the possibility that a company may have to allow maternity leave several times during a woman's career means that their wage is offset to cater for this. Now we really stand on some thin ice.

    Yup, it's very thin ice, but lucidfox already ripped into you for that, so I won't. The average maternity leave is roughly six weeks. For the average woman who has 2.3 children, that means she's out for an extra three and a half months out of a forty-year career. That's a fraction of one percent, if you're doing the math. Plus, most men do take paternity leave at this point. The majority of the companies I've worked for give the same amount of paternity leave as maternity. So the gap narrows even further. It's not a compelling reason to pay women less. That's why there are federal laws against discriminating on that basis.

    Another Anon:
    Life isn't fair. Let me repeat that, because people don't seem to understand it. Life isn't fair, and never will be.

    I'm aware of that, thanks. Contrary to what you might expect, I don't use this stuff to make excuses in my personal life. For each individual person, yeah, life isn't fair, and you just have to play the hand you're dealt. That's not going to keep me from pointing out systemic biases and suggesting that we correct them when possible.

    Some of the gender gap in wages is attributable to other things we've discussed, but I suspect that the majority of the gap comes from this: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitate Women are far less likely to negotiate their starting salary or ask for a raise than men are. They don't want to be seen as too aggressive, and it's an accurate fear - both men and women have a neutral response to a man who asks for more money, but have a negative response to a woman who does the same. There's research that bears this out, it's discussed in the NPR article.

    I don't think anyone's doing that deliberately, men or women. I'm not suggesting any grand conspiracies of oppression. I do think it's worth pointing out so we can all be aware of it and possibly rethink some of our own opinions. Hopefully this will change over time as well.

  • Sparky (unregistered)

    I have never in my long career gone to HR to complain about anything, but call me "programmiss", or tell me that I write cutesy code with emoticons, and I just might have to start.

    BTW, I have a teenage kid who actually does have Aspergers, and plans on working in IT, and it wouldn't ever cross his mind to assume that women in general are worse programmers than men in general, or that they are only there to be oogled, so, no, you cannot pull the Rainman card. Sorry, boys.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    Another Anon:
    is that men and women are fundamentally different.

    Typical essentialist bull. Fundamentally how? Women aren't bipedal primates with opposable thumbs?

    Bzzzt. Wrong.

    lucidfox:
    Perhaps they look like amoebas?
    Bzzzt. Wrong.
    lucidfox:
    Or maybe men and women's thoughts are somehow so drastically alien to each other - despite coexisting within the same culture - that they cannot possibly hope to comprehend each other?
    Ding ding ding! Right!

    Have you never actually spoken to someone of the opposite sex? Have you never read a women's magazine? These are routinely filled with articles in which women try to explain to each other what they've figured out about how men think. Have you ever gone to the women's section of a bookstore? It's filled with "relationship" books talking about how to understand men.

    For that matter, why is it that there even are "women's magazines" and "women's sections of the bookstore" and "women's TV stations". If men and women are exactly the same, then they must have all the same interests. Yet strangely, when people are left free to pursue whatever interests they like, men and women routinely make different choices.

    Surely one need only look at the world around you to see that men and women routinely think, feel, and act differently. Just talk to actual human beings and you'll quickly discover this.

    It's kind of funny that feminists will say that men are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs, and then in the next sentence say that men and women are exactly the same. So women are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs too?

    Or how often have you heard an argument that goes like this: "It's ridiculous to say that men are better than woman at doing job X. Men and women are exactly the same. There are no relevant differences. Besides, women bring a unique perspective to the job that can benefit the organization."

    Right? Heard that a million times, haven't you? But the first part of the argument completely contradicts the second part. If men and women have no relevant differences, then how can women bring a different perspective? If they are exactly the same, then women can't bring anything that men don't bring. If it's true that women bring some special perspective, then that must mean that men and women are different in relevant ways. And if they are different, then maybe men are better at some jobs and women are better at others.

    Yes, heresy I know. But just because you wish that men and women were exactly the same doesn't make it so.

  • (cs) in reply to Jay

    Sigh

    All right, I'll take the bait.

    Jay:
    Have you never read a women's magazine? These are routinely filled with articles in which women try to explain to each other what they've figured out about how men think. Have you ever gone to the women's section of a bookstore? It's filled with "relationship" books talking about how to understand men.

    Surprise, some women are shallow and dumb. Just like some men. I can only presume men's magazines give equally worthless advice.

    For that matter, why is it that there even are "women's magazines" and "women's sections of the bookstore" and "women's TV stations".

    An interesting question indeed. Why?

    Because popular entertainment and mass media are shaped by social customs and preconceptions - and every day, people feel tremendous peer pressure to conform to these expectations, whether they make sense or not. It's easy for laypeople, and convenient for marketers and politicians, to break the human species into two extreme opposites and expect everything to make sense. Reality doesn't work that way.

    It's kind of funny that feminists will say that men are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs

    It's not what feminists say, it's what anti-feminists say feminists say.

    and then in the next sentence say that men and women are exactly the same.

    Bingo! Two straw viewpoints in the same sentence. You truly excel at this art.

    Why don't you go read some actual feminist articles rather than stereotypical portrayals, then we can talk.

  • (cs) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    Surprise, some women are shallow and dumb. Just like some men. I can only presume men's magazines give equally worthless advice.
    No, I think they mostly just have pictures of naked women.
  • Ghost of Nagesh (unregistered) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    *Sigh*

    All right, I'll take the bait.

    Jay:
    Have you never read a women's magazine? These are routinely filled with articles in which women try to explain to each other what they've figured out about how men think. Have you ever gone to the women's section of a bookstore? It's filled with "relationship" books talking about how to understand men.

    Surprise, some women are shallow and dumb. Just like some men. I can only presume men's magazines give equally worthless advice.

    For that matter, why is it that there even are "women's magazines" and "women's sections of the bookstore" and "women's TV stations".

    An interesting question indeed. Why?

    Because popular entertainment and mass media are shaped by social customs and preconceptions - and every day, people feel tremendous peer pressure to conform to these expectations, whether they make sense or not. It's easy for laypeople, and convenient for marketers and politicians, to break the human species into two extreme opposites and expect everything to make sense. Reality doesn't work that way.

    It's kind of funny that feminists will say that men are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs

    It's not what feminists say, it's what anti-feminists say feminists say.

    and then in the next sentence say that men and women are exactly the same.

    Bingo! Two straw viewpoints in the same sentence. You truly excel at this art.

    Why don't you go read some actual feminist articles rather than stereotypical portrayals, then we can talk.

    What exactly is a straw point?

  • onlyme (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    The Great Lobachevsky:
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill". "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.

    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.

    I'm originally from the Philadelphia area, and I pronounce them slightly different. "Mail" sounds like "Ma-yull" and "male" sounds like it's spelled (no exaggerated diphthong).

    Spent five years in Philly ( women in IT shop ). For people who would always make fun of me for saying "y'all" , they really did pronounce things strangely.

  • Syd (unregistered)

    This is my life at work!! So hilarious! :)

  • onlyme (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Careful, your privilege is showing.

    As a woman in IT, I'm so glad I'm married. It heads off a lot of potential drama. Most guys are fine, although the 'ooh, a female!' reaction gets old after a while.

    I am a female developer who works in a large corporation. We have a fair share of females, but not so many white females. Most are Asian or Indian. Not being racist or sexist. Just observing.

  • p (unregistered) in reply to Another Anon
    Another Anon:
    I'm sure google would reveal any host of studies that show men and women think and act differently. Not better or worse, just different.
    Everything I found indicates the opposite of what you suggest.
    Another Anon:
    I suspect you'll be surprised how often distinct couples report the same traits about the male from the female perspective and the female from the male perspective. It's uncanny - or perhaps it's true, men and women do not generally think the same way (of course, there will be a lot of variety, and occasionally there might be some overlap, even reversal.

    That sounds strikingly similar to the ideas presented in John Gray's "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" (in particular the trick with "reversal" to make the theory unfalsifiable). For those who are more interested in reality, here are some extracts from a book by professor Deborah Cameron, in which she debunks it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/01/gender.books http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/oct/02/gender.familyandrelationships http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/03/gender.politicsphilosophyandsociety1

    According to the studies the cites, there is so much overlap (> 99 %), variety and "reversal" that there is pratically no difference between the groups.

  • onlyme (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    Abso:
    Abso:
    [T]he libertarian is an idiot if he thinks that economic pressure won't force Bob to accept the job even if the working conditions are dangerous and the pay won't buy enough food for Bob's kids.
    FTFM

    And the real WTF here is Bob having children when he's clearly not intellectually developed enough to get a job that pays sufficiently without it seriously compromising his safety.

    Replace "safety" with "health" and you argument collapses. Many "intellectual" jobs can be quite detrimental to one's health. Sitting at a desk all day, repeated stress,the assumption that you will be available 24 hours a day [ via phone/email ] leaving you with little to no "down time" can really cause damage.

  • (cs) in reply to p
    p:
    Another Anon:
    I'm sure google would reveal any host of studies that show men and women think and act differently. Not better or worse, just different.
    Everything I found indicates the opposite of what you suggest.
    Another Anon:
    I suspect you'll be surprised how often distinct couples report the same traits about the male from the female perspective and the female from the male perspective. It's uncanny - or perhaps it's true, men and women do not generally think the same way (of course, there will be a lot of variety, and occasionally there might be some overlap, even reversal.

    That sounds strikingly similar to the ideas presented in John Gray's "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" (in particular the trick with "reversal" to make the theory unfalsifiable). For those who are more interested in reality, here are some extracts from a book by professor Deborah Cameron, in which she debunks it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/01/gender.books http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/oct/02/gender.familyandrelationships http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/03/gender.politicsphilosophyandsociety1

    According to the studies the cites, there is so much overlap (> 99 %), variety and "reversal" that there is pratically no difference between the groups.

    No, no, you're all wrong.

    With men, it's a survival trait to speak only when completely necessary, in order to convey vital instructions, otherwise the noise will chase off the game they're hunting skilfully, which is why we only ever communicate to share a pearl of great wisdom and insight.

    With women, it's a survival trait to make as much noise as possible when out as a pack of gatherers, so as to scare away potential predators, which is why their constant yap-yap-yap about pointless trivia.

    Come on, you know I'm talking sense here.

  • onlyme (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.

    To me , the real WTF is people assuming just because you are a woman , you inherently have these "social skills". The same attributes that attract male nerds to IT, also attracts female nerds, who are probably just as socially awkward. And I have seen "girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds".

  • (cs) in reply to onlyme
    onlyme:
    Anon:
    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.

    To me , the real WTF is people assuming just because you are a woman , you inherently have these "social skills". The same attributes that attract male nerds to IT, also attracts female nerds, who are probably just as socially awkward. And I have seen "girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds".

    Thank you.

    Er, um, ahem, you wanna go out? We can, er, go to the bookstore if you like, they've just got in some cool books on homomorphisms and group transformations in Galois structures ...

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to onlyme
    onlyme:
    Anon:
    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.

    To me , the real WTF is people assuming just because you are a woman , you inherently have these "social skills". The same attributes that attract male nerds to IT, also attracts female nerds, who are probably just as socially awkward. And I have seen "girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds".

    I don't believe I claimed that all women 'have social skills'. I was talking about situations where a woman is uncomfortable in a workplace or potential workplace because a guy is behaving inappropriately. (Previous examples were given of stalker-ish behavior, constant attempts at flirting, consistently talking down to/talking over a woman, or making non-stop innuendos at her expense.)

    Matt Westwood's comment appeared to say that in such situations, women need to get over their prejudices and just realize that the guy is harmless (and possibly that it's twu lurve - wtf?). I strongly disagree, if a guy is behaving inappropriately he needs to stop behaving inappropriately. Hence the 'learn some social skills!' The implication is that most inappropriate behavior stems from cluelessness, not malice.

    Anything else I need to clarify for you?

  • onlyme (unregistered) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    *Sigh*

    All right, I'll take the bait.

    Jay:
    Have you never read a women's magazine? These are routinely filled with articles in which women try to explain to each other what they've figured out about how men think. Have you ever gone to the women's section of a bookstore? It's filled with "relationship" books talking about how to understand men.

    Surprise, some women are shallow and dumb. Just like some men. I can only presume men's magazines give equally worthless advice.

    For that matter, why is it that there even are "women's magazines" and "women's sections of the bookstore" and "women's TV stations".

    An interesting question indeed. Why?

    Because popular entertainment and mass media are shaped by social customs and preconceptions - and every day, people feel tremendous peer pressure to conform to these expectations, whether they make sense or not. It's easy for laypeople, and convenient for marketers and politicians, to break the human species into two extreme opposites and expect everything to make sense. Reality doesn't work that way.

    It's kind of funny that feminists will say that men are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs

    It's not what feminists say, it's what anti-feminists say feminists say.

    and then in the next sentence say that men and women are exactly the same.

    Bingo! Two straw viewpoints in the same sentence. You truly excel at this art.

    Why don't you go read some actual feminist articles rather than stereotypical portrayals, then we can talk.

    Double Sigh [ I can't decide to make a witticism on "taking bait" or "feeding troll" ..so Onward ]

    Please, I worked in a male dominated fields fields for years ( construction, painting, cook, programmer ). Sure , there are some truly sexist people out there in both genders. For every stereo-typical male pig, who talks to your chest, there is a female who dresses like a hooker and asks for help with anything technical.

    The point is there is good and bad, stop polarizing.

  • onlyme (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    onlyme:
    Anon:
    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.

    To me , the real WTF is people assuming just because you are a woman , you inherently have these "social skills". The same attributes that attract male nerds to IT, also attracts female nerds, who are probably just as socially awkward. And I have seen "girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds".

    Thank you.

    Er, um, ahem, you wanna go out? We can, er, go to the bookstore if you like, they've just got in some cool books on homomorphisms and group transformations in Galois structures ...

    Oh my God...are you me ? Évariste Galois is [one] of my favorite mathematicians. Seriously.

  • mashthekeyboard (unregistered) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    frits:
    (...)
    I hoped it wouldn't be this meaning, because, I honestly expected more from this community. This... This is just so straight.
    Oh, so heterosexuality is a bad thing. Guess I'll just have to go apoptose myself.

    You do realize that you're trying to argue ``feminism'' on a website mostly populated with sad lonely male virgins (myself included)? That's like pouring water in concentrated sulphuric acid!

    Also, saying that males are exactly the same as females is incredibly stupid; it means that every male is exactly the same as every female. Since sameness'' is a relation of equivalence, transitivity applies. Therefore, every male is the same as every other male and every female is the same as every other female, a statement which, for the sake of your credibility, I hope you don't intend to defend. No two people are alike, not even in terms of needs or psychology (sorry if I just ruined your hope of a soulmate, dear reader). Perhaps what you really meant was that authority, rules, laws and roles (and yes, if you want me to spell it out,and salaries'') should be gender-blind. That, I wholeheartedly agree.

    Honestly, I don't know which of the feminist or anti-feminist group is spreading filthy lies (perhaps it's both of them, I don't actually care), but it seems to me like the term itself feminism'' is an excellent example of poor wording. Perhapsantisexism'' or sexual egalitarianism'' would have been a lot better. A man will be more at ease to sayI don't mistreat people'' rather than I am a feminist''.Feminism'' simply puts too much accent on the female'' part instead of the equality part, which makes it easy to attack it by blurting outthey're not going for gender equality, they're going for female supremacy, quick, to the tinfoil-hat-mobile!''. And that's how yet another 200 comment thread is born.

    Yeah, I know IHBT but I just had to post this.

  • (cs) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    If this site had a point system, I bet at least Jon Skeet would come back :)
    TDWTF could move to a Stack Exchange forum - then one could vote up the articles and the comments, also commenters with too high a troll score could be prevented from commenting. Alex et al would make a fortune...
  • female_it (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    onlyme:
    Anon:
    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.

    To me , the real WTF is people assuming just because you are a woman , you inherently have these "social skills". The same attributes that attract male nerds to IT, also attracts female nerds, who are probably just as socially awkward. And I have seen "girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds".

    I don't believe I claimed that all women 'have social skills'. I was talking about situations where a woman is uncomfortable in a workplace or potential workplace because a guy is behaving inappropriately. (Previous examples were given of stalker-ish behavior, constant attempts at flirting, consistently talking down to/talking over a woman, or making non-stop innuendos at her expense.)

    Matt Westwood's comment appeared to say that in such situations, women need to get over their prejudices and just realize that the guy is harmless (and possibly that it's twu lurve - wtf?). I strongly disagree, if a guy is behaving inappropriately he needs to stop behaving inappropriately. Hence the 'learn some social skills!' The implication is that most inappropriate behavior stems from cluelessness, not malice.

    Anything else I need to clarify for you?

    Good Lord! I am a liberal from way back. Some may even say "progressive". And even I want to call you a c**t.

    Captcha: vindico - how funny.

  • Re-actor (unregistered)

    Damm. No breeder jokes? I am disappointed.

  • (cs) in reply to onlyme
    onlyme:
    Matt Westwood:
    Er, um, ahem, you wanna go out? We can, er, go to the bookstore if you like, they've just got in some cool books on homomorphisms and group transformations in Galois structures ...

    Oh my God...are you me ? Évariste Galois is [one] of my favorite mathematicians. Seriously.

    Well, well. Seriously, mine too. Essential role-model for the youth of today.

    Sigh. One of the regular funny guys out there (if they're are any still watching this 3 days old thread) will be posting "Get a room" soon, brace yourself ...

  • (cs) in reply to Ghost of Nagesh
    Ghost of Nagesh:
    What exactly is a straw point?

    I see two: 1. "Men are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs." 2. "Men and women are exactly the same." Neither of which are remotely close to the points I, or anyone else in this thread complaining about sexism, have been arguing.

  • Bob (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    onlyme:
    Matt Westwood:
    Er, um, ahem, you wanna go out? We can, er, go to the bookstore if you like, they've just got in some cool books on homomorphisms and group transformations in Galois structures ...

    Oh my God...are you me ? Évariste Galois is [one] of my favorite mathematicians. Seriously.

    Well, well. Seriously, mine too. Essential role-model for the youth of today.

    Sigh. One of the regular funny guys out there (if they're are any still watching this 3 days old thread) will be posting "Get a room" soon, brace yourself ...

    I was actually going to say : "And so - true love was born proving that even in times of adversity the power of love will prevail."

    But if I did that I'd just be an arsehole.

  • (cs) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    Ghost of Nagesh:
    What exactly is a straw point?

    I see two: 1. "Men are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs." 2. "Men and women are exactly the same." Neither of which are remotely close to the points I, or anyone else in this thread complaining about sexism, have been arguing.

    The usual term is "straw man" (look it up on Wikipedia, it's actually quite a good article) but lucidfox is carefully avoiding any language which may brand her as sexist.

    Pfshlft.

  • (cs) in reply to Bob
    Bob:
    Matt Westwood:
    onlyme:
    Matt Westwood:
    Er, um, ahem, you wanna go out? We can, er, go to the bookstore if you like, they've just got in some cool books on homomorphisms and group transformations in Galois structures ...

    Oh my God...are you me ? Évariste Galois is [one] of my favorite mathematicians. Seriously.

    Well, well. Seriously, mine too. Essential role-model for the youth of today.

    Sigh. One of the regular funny guys out there (if they're are any still watching this 3 days old thread) will be posting "Get a room" soon, brace yourself ...

    I was actually going to say : "And so - true love was born proving that even in times of adversity the power of love will prevail."

    But if I did that I'd just be an arsehole.

    Nah, mate, yer all right. A little levity is a relief at this point.

  • not Benny Hill (unregistered)

    Benny Hill once said:

    "This world is run by and for women. You only need to look in a newsagents and you'll find rows and rows of magazines for women: titles like Woman's Own, Woman's Realm, Woman's World...

    There's only one magazine there for men. It's called Men Only... and even that's full of pictures of women..."

  • (cs) in reply to onlyme
    onlyme:
    frits:
    The Great Lobachevsky:
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill". "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.

    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.

    I'm originally from the Philadelphia area, and I pronounce them slightly different. "Mail" sounds like "Ma-yull" and "male" sounds like it's spelled (no exaggerated diphthong).

    Spent five years in Philly ( women in IT shop ). For people who would always make fun of me for saying "y'all" , they really did pronounce things strangely.

    Well, I'm from Delaware County - guess that didn't make it out of the city limits :)

    Although I got into a fit of laughter with a coworker making fun of me about how I pronounce almond - AL-mond. He was like "How do you pronounce the last name of Gregg Allman then?"

    Words like egg, leg, etc also sound sorta funny when I say them compared to everyone else where I live.

    And to those of you in western NY, it is ele-men-tree, not ele-men-tarry. That drove me nuts when I lived there!

  • (cs) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    Jay:
    For that matter, why is it that there even are "women's magazines" and "women's sections of the bookstore" and "women's TV stations".
    An interesting question indeed. Why?

    Because popular entertainment and mass media are shaped by social customs and preconceptions - and every day, people feel tremendous peer pressure to conform to these expectations, whether they make sense or not. It's easy for laypeople, and convenient for marketers and politicians, to break the human species into two extreme opposites and expect everything to make sense. Reality doesn't work that way.

    See, I don't buy this. This is presented without any corroboration, and we're just supposed to take it as an article of faith.

    Fact of the matter is that most men are better at parking a car than most women are. Most men are also better are crashing a car at high speed than most women are. That has nothing to do with peer pressure or anything, it's just statistics.

    Let's give another example. This is actually supported by research, and if I weren't at work and somewhat in a hurry, I'd even look up the link. Anyway, it's easy to assume that Fox makes people all right-wing and supporting the Republican Party, whereas in reality, people chose the media that best represents their preconceptions. If you think that taxes are too high and that criminals should be locked up for good (or worse), you're not going to read the Guardian. Similarly, if you're in favour of all sorts of intellectual stuff, international development and aid, that sort of thing, chances are you won't be picking up a copy of The Sun. (People unfamiliar with the British newspapers, replace by left-wing/right-wing, respectively.)

    So quoting some Oxford professor in The Guardian (by somebody else in a different posting) is not suddenly going to swing my opinion the other way, just as I wouldn't buy an article in a tabloid that claims that scientific research has shown that women don't know when (or indeed, how) to STFU.

    I found John Gray exceptionally tedious to read, especially since he presumes that his audience has the mental capacity of a ten-year-old. The book 'Why men don't listen and women can't read maps', by Allen and Barbara Pease, is a bit more fun to read, and it presents a fair list of references in the back. Whether you buy the claims is, obviously, a different issue.

    But also, people who criticise Gray and the Peases, have obviously not understood the point of these books. They're not there as some sort of scientific work: they're relationship books. Their point is not to do exhaustive scientific research, but to stop couples from fighting.

    From personal experience, I can attest that communication can be tricky. Both my wife and I have English as a second language. She's Maltese (English is an official language in Malta) and I'm Dutch (Dutch is the major language that is closest to English); yet we had to learn that we speak different kinds of English, which can easily lead to miscommunication.

    To come back to my original point: women magazines don't exist because of peer pressure and gender roles; women magazines exist because most women are actually interested in fashion, make-up, shoes, handbags and celebrities. Most men are interested in those things as well, but in a very different way: fashion if it's lingerie, make-up if it makes a woman look hotter, shoes if it's the only thing they're wearing (something that I've never understood anyway, this obsession with high heels), and celebrities if they take their clothes off.

    Stating that all of this is because of peer pressure, customs and preconceptions is just as brain-dead as assuming that it's because men and women are practically different species, whose brains work in entirely different ways. It disregards that humans are actually quite intelligent, and able to make their own choices.

    Now, there choices may or may not be influenced by either society or genes. I'm not going to go into that, because I'm not qualified, and I can't be arsed to look it up.

  • wtf (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Inform thyself. Go here: http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination/#publications and read the one titled "The gender wage gap by occupation". The data's all from the US Census. Women's pay is at about 80% of men's, even when you break it down by occupation. It gets worse if you're not white. Programming is better than most, women are making a full 90% of the usual male wage. Yes, women are better represented in college right now, but it isn't doing them any good in the real world.

    Go stick your head in a pig. If women earn less, it's just because they perform worse. Uh, of course, it's all men's guilt, because these lusty hypocritical masochistic (in a way) bitches do nothing but think about men all day, ranging from “male chauvinist pigs” to getting horny from pondering their equipment, which in turn impairs their performance.

    Just do your job, bitches, and your pay will be OK. Oh, and some bad news for you: nobody cares about your fingernails or that you would break them. Or your eyelashes, or lipstick, no one is really giving a shit. So stop wasting your time on fixing your makeup and complaining about low pay, and get to work!

  • Todd Lewis (unregistered) in reply to tom103
    tom103:
    Are both words (male/mail) pronounced exactly the same? I'm not a native English speaker and my pronunciation isn't so good, so I'm not sure...

    Yes, they are. But then, in some parts of the U.S., "pen" and "pin" are pronounced identically. Mine, for instance.

  • Todd Lewis (unregistered) in reply to Severity One
    Severity One:
    But also, people who criticise Gray and the Peases, have obviously not understood the point of these books. They're not there as some sort of scientific work: they're relationship books...

    Oh, so there's in the women's books section. Gotchya.

  • Jeff Grigg (unregistered)

    A significant number of recruiters are female. And they pretty much all wear "wedding rings" -- even if single. Otherwise they would probably get far too many inappropriate offers.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to wtf
    wtf:
    Anon:
    Inform thyself. Go here: http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination/#publications and read the one titled "The gender wage gap by occupation". The data's all from the US Census. Women's pay is at about 80% of men's, even when you break it down by occupation. It gets worse if you're not white. Programming is better than most, women are making a full 90% of the usual male wage. Yes, women are better represented in college right now, but it isn't doing them any good in the real world.

    Go stick your head in a pig. If women earn less, it's just because they perform worse. Uh, of course, it's all men's guilt, because these lusty hypocritical masochistic (in a way) bitches do nothing but think about men all day, ranging from “male chauvinist pigs” to getting horny from pondering their equipment, which in turn impairs their performance.

    Just do your job, bitches, and your pay will be OK. Oh, and some bad news for you: nobody cares about your fingernails or that you would break them. Or your eyelashes, or lipstick, no one is really giving a shit. So stop wasting your time on fixing your makeup and complaining about low pay, and get to work!

    points and giggles Gotta be a little more subtle with your trolling if you expect anyone to bite.

  • SpockMOnster (unregistered) in reply to Medezark

    You think English is easy??? Read to the end . . a new twist

    1. The bandage was wound around the wound.

    2. The farm was used to produce produce.

    3. The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.

    4. We must polish the Polish furniture.

    5. He could lead if he would get the lead out.

    6. The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

    7. Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present

    8. A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.

    9. When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.

    10. I did not object to the object.

    11. The insurance was invalid for the invalid.

    12. There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row...

    13. They were too close to the door to close it.

    14. The buck does funny things when the does are present.

    15. A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.

    16. To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.

    17. The wind was too strong to wind the sail.

    18. Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.

    19. I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.

    20. How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

    Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France . Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

    You lovers of the English language might enjoy this .

    There is a two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is 'UP'

    It's easy to understand UP, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning, why do we wake UP ? At a meeting, why does a topic come UP ? Why do we speak UP and why are the officers UP for election and why is it UP to the secretary to write UP a report ?

    We call UP our friends. And we use it to brighten UP a room, polish UP the silver; we warm UP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen. We lock UP the house and some guys fix UP the old car. At other times the little word has real special meaning. People stir UP trouble, line UP for tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses.. To be dressed is one thing, but to be dressed UP is special.

    And this UP is confusing: A drain must be opened UP because it is stopped UP. We open UP a store in the morning but we close it UP at night.

    We seem to be pretty mixed UP about UP. To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look the word UP in the dictionary. In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4th of the page and can add UP to about thirty definitions. If you are UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many ways UP is used. It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don't give UP, you may wind UP with a hundred or more. When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding UP .. When the sun comes out we say it is clearingUP ...

    When it rains, it wets the earth and often messes things UP.

    When it doesn't rain for awhile, things dry UP.

    One could go on and on, but I'll wrap it UP , for now my time is UP , so........it is time to shut UP !

    Oh . . . one more thing: What is the first thing you do in the morning & the last thing you do at night? U-P

  • SpockMonster (unregistered) in reply to Medezark

    How come when I reply, it doesn't go in as a reply to Medezark's question, but becomes a post of it's own?

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to DistantSuns
    DistantSuns:
    Finally my time came up and as the previous interviewers handed me off to her, I got a funny look from them. Something like the "you're in for it now." kind of grin. As I turned to introduce myself to her, or should I say "her." The deep voice and other characteristics suggested that our candidate didn't used to be a woman. So I interviewed her for about 45 minutes all the time thinking "wow, what a great Daily WTF Story!" As it turned out he or she was very sharp and probably would have easily picked up the skills that she didn't have. When finally we got together to discuss her, the others suggested that she was to high level for just being a coding jockey, as much more of a systems architect. Being a devout Christian, I surprised the others when I suggested that I could work with her but they were probably right about her being unqualified for just a coding role. So we passed. But it made for a very funny story to tell future generations.
    I work on a team with a transgender woman who happens to be a software developer. In the last year and a half, I've had nothing but positive experiences -- very sharp, polite, detailed knowledge systems she works on, sense of humor, interesting perspective on politics.

    There have been no complaints, no harassment, no sexist or anti-trans remarks made since she's been on the team.

    Including my managers and other teammates, she's a very valuable colleague, wouldn't trade her for anything.

  • (cs) in reply to SpockMOnster
    SpockMOnster:
    There is a two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is 'UP'
    I love phrasal verbs, and I won't argue they make English an interesting language, but I have to disagree with this specific statement. Well, given the relative paucity of two-letter verbs, it's quite possibly still true, but not for the reasons stated - most of those examples are, in fact, examples of phrasal verbs (which are cool). "Wrap up", "dry up", "mess up", "show up", "throw up", "shoot up", "pick up", "open up", "polish up", and so on, are all single verbs, not verbs with attached prepositions ("she threw up her dinner", vs. "she threw the pen up in the air").

    They're mostly fun because different roots can form completely different phrasal verbs. Throw up (your food), throw down (the gauntlet), throw in (the towel, or with an organization), throw out (the trash), throw on (some clothes, or a cd), throw off (the scent, or their game, or with no object, while playing some sort of ball game).

    And I'm surprised, incidentally, that copypasta didn't mention cargo. That one's been making the rounds for forever, but it still amuses me particularly (how you ship items by car (well, by truck), while if you send items by ship, it's cargo.)

  • Re-actor (unregistered) in reply to SpockMonster
    SpockMonster:
    How come when I reply, it doesn't go in as a reply to Medezark's question, but becomes a post of it's own?
    It is linked to the OP. Check the upper right hand corner of the comment.

    Hit "quote" next time if you want to see the quoted text.

  • (cs) in reply to Todd Lewis

    That's why I loved SG:1 - we can't even speak english the same way on our planet, let alone having aliens halfway across the galaxy speak just like typical Americans lol

  • Tomas (unregistered)

    Hotmail and Hotmale is not the same site, just a hint.

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    lucidfox is carefully avoiding any language which may brand her as sexist.

    I have some news for you, lucidfox is just pretending to be a "she," but he's actually wielding a dick, is named Matthew and calls himself a lesbian because he's really straight but too shy to admit that.

    I don't really see how one can be more perverted than that.

Leave a comment on “The Programmiss and Male Services”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article