|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Jokes can be wrong.
At one time, it was common sense that one does not tell "off-color" jokes in front of a "lady."
And, if you have ever been picked on, or if you have ever seen a movie about a person being picked on, you might understand that sometimes people are laughing with you and sometimes they are laughing at you.
Such jokes are a verbal attack on someone; it is designed to assert one's dominance over another person.
It may be verbal but it is still an assault in that manner.
Also, what these men did was not criminal but it was a transgression. They broke the rules just like a crime. We live in a society which punishes all sorts of behavior. We are not interested in helping others; we are interested in cutting others down so we can assert our advantage.
Those men where in a competitive environment and they blew it.
Now, I really am sympathetic. Those are not environments that I like. But, I am not surprised they were fired. It seems pretty common in the competitive work environments we have created.
My guess is that there is more to this situation. These men broke some rule or lost out in some kind of power struggle. They were fired for other reasons than just telling a "joke." But, if they were fired for "merely" telling a joke, I would be as appalled as you are. But, I am guessing its not.
I'm no lawyer but if it were the case, I think they have good grounds for wrongful dismissal, not that that should be any solace to the men. And, if they did not pursue such a case, well, what can I say? And, if a court can't find for them, then there is probably more to this case than just a joke.
People of different sexes, personalities and cultures have to work together. Ones ability to navigate those waters are critical to businesses. People who make work environments, of any sex, personality or culture, who make work environments difficult, even by telling jokes, will not last in that workplace long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
People of different sexes, personalities and cultures have to work together. |
How about women create an organization that adds value to the economy/society and in that organization they can behave like little insecure children with smart phones but in those organizations that men created and that are sustained by the output of males (every single one on earth) women accept that a trade off of wage slavery (I mean empowerment) is hearing jokes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
It is the wrong question, because the real question we should be asking is: "How can we rearrange our society so people like Adria Richards are unable to instigate a chain of events that leads to otherwise productive family men being fired over a joke?" How do we disarm the cultural suicide bomber? |
Any suggestions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/03/dont_hate_her_because_shes_suc.html
^ another outstanding piece from TLP.
| Quote: |
Sheryl Sandberg is the future ex-COO of Facebook, and while that sounds like enough of a resume to speak on women in the workplace, note that her advice on how to get ahead appears in Time Magazine. Oh, you thought that Sandberg's book is news worthy in itself, how could you not do a story on this magnificence? No, this is a setup, the Time Magazine demo is never going to be COO of anything, as evidenced by the fact that they read Time Magazine. Much more importantly, they are not raising daughters who are going to be COO of anything. So why is this here?
The first level breakdown is that this is what Time readers want, they want a warm glow and to be reassured that the reason they're stuck living in Central Time is sexism. This demo likes to see a smart, pretty woman succeed in a man's world, as long as "pretty" isn't too pretty but "wearing a great outfit" and that man's world isn't overly manly, like IBM or General Dynamics, yawn, but an aspirational, Aeron chair "creative" place that doesn't involve calculus or yelling, somewhere they suspect they could have worked had it not been for sexism and biological clocks. We all know Pinterest is for idiots. Hence Facebook.
If you are still suspicious that Sandberg's appearance in Time has nothing to do with her book or with women becoming COOs but is about something else, look through the newsstand for the other magazine in which Sandberg is prominently featured: Cosmo.
This is the mag she felt compelled to guest edit, an issue that also has "The Money, The Man, The Baby: Get What You Want," by future Labor Secretary Kim Kardashian. No one reads Cosmo to become a COO, no one who reads Cosmo could become a COO, because-- and I'm just guessing-- they think the the secret formula for success is Dream Job + The Right Partner + Great Wardrobe = Yes I Can! Well, you can't, not with those priorities. Each of those may be desirable, but when placed together as an equation it is revealed to be nothing but outward branding, and the consequence is that even if you get all three you will still be unsatisfied.
For the past two weeks Sandberg was anywhere nothing useful is happening, and I'm going to include Facebook in that. Some cry-baby over at Jezebel was thrilled that Sandberg was featured all week on Access Hollywood, holy Christ, she thought this was a good thing. "Feminism is back in the mainstream in a big way," she wrote, I assume in between quaaludes, "the women's movement is actually moving." How can you work in media and not understand media? The fact that feminism is in the mainstream means that it doesn't exist, it is no longer real, in the same way that when you hear "gun control debate" it's a lie and "fiscal cliff" is an easy to market, safe distraction from the structural problems that can never be named, here's one: for any heterogeneous population, the expansion of a "welfare class" is logically inseparable from the entrenchment of an aristocracy, can't have one without the other once you get bigger than 20M, ask Bismarck. "Does he write for Time?" No. But keep this in mind every time you hear how great it is Bill Gates is curing malaria after leaving us all with Windows.
You might ask, well, how do we get women who read Cosmo and Jezebel to aspire to something greater? Your question is illogical. It's not because Cosmo and Jezebel attract dumb women, no, not exactly, it's that they teach their readers to want certain things over other things. They teach them how to want. What resists them? Nothing. Then who can unbrainwash them? No one. The person that should have was their mother, and they read Time. |
etc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about stop hating on women and help them to succeed? And, for those women who are succeeding, how about staying out of their way? I think everyone would be happier that way. Sometimes, it is about attitude and perspective.
I wonder what the educational background and the economic status of readers of the last psychiatrist is?
God forbid if women read "fantasy" magazines or poor people spend a dime on entertainment when it could have gone for improving themselves.
Keep punishing people.
We will all go to the guillotine for our mistakes soon enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| How about stop hating on women and help them to succeed? And, for those women who are succeeding, how about staying out of their way? |
A feminist actively and blatantly obstructs a productive male (with a family to provide for, no less) from succeeding: Unposter compares that man to a criminal.
No one of whom I am aware actually obstructs women from succeeding, and no one of whom I am aware actually gets in the way of women currently succeeding: Unposter randomly chides us to stop obstructing women, and even insists that we must serve them.
This is the core essence of feminism, right here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| how about staying out of their way? |
What? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
It is the wrong question, because the real question we should be asking is: "How can we rearrange our society so people like Adria Richards are unable to instigate a chain of events that leads to otherwise productive family men being fired over a joke?" How do we disarm the cultural suicide bomber? |
Any suggestions? |
No practical ones. From a theoretical perspective the Amish model works well. Not necessarily the absolute specifics of the lifestyle, but the general method of building a somewhat culturally isolated, decentralized community founded on effective values and genuine production, and forcing your children to commit to those values upon reaching adulthood if they want to remain members of that community. Even without including technophobia in the model, though, such an approach is going to come with sacrifices, and people don't like sacrificing, so there's no way to translate that into practical efficacy. The Amish themselves only really work because they predate the modern era; they're holdovers, not innovations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
It is the wrong question, because the real question we should be asking is: "How can we rearrange our society so people like Adria Richards are unable to instigate a chain of events that leads to otherwise productive family men being fired over a joke?" How do we disarm the cultural suicide bomber? |
Any suggestions? |
No practical ones. From a theoretical perspective the Amish model works well. Not necessarily the absolute specifics of the lifestyle, but the general method of building a somewhat culturally isolated, decentralized community founded on effective values and genuine production, and forcing your children to commit to those values upon reaching adulthood if they want to remain members of that community. Even without including technophobia in the model, though, such an approach is going to come with sacrifices, and people don't like sacrificing, so there's no way to translate that into practical efficacy. The Amish themselves only really work because they predate the modern era; they're holdovers, not innovations. |
Mormons have scaled that model up and don't shy from technology (or mainstream society). I believe the fertility rate is 3, or in that general area, which isn't spectacular but way above the norm. All social ills are lower in Mormon communities and the females are more traditionally inclined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, one more time:
1. I compared what happened to "those men" to what happens to criminals not because they are criminals but because I am sympathetic to both the men and criminals.
2. The similarity is that both broke rules and they paid a price for breaking them. Personally, I think we should be more sympathetic. It is time we care about people instead of looking for reasons to punish people.
3. I just think there are a lot of hypocrites out there (not necessarily saying you are one Fox just that there are a lot out there): who are sympathetic towards some people, usually people like themselves, but not to the plight of other people (usually people not like themselves). They can look at these people (women, other minorities, foreigners, people of other religions, homosexuals, poor people, rich people and I guess even men) and only see someone who is a threat, someone who needs to be defeated or punished, not lifted up or brought into the community.
4. Titus: you posted about how women are INCAPABLE of being productive and contributing to society - at least no woman has yet - according to you - but lets just say that is incapable.
5. That kind of ideology stands in the way of women succeeding.
6. Let's stop saying "Feminism" or a "silly woman with a cell phone" and say that a business, with its own leadership structure and rules fired two men. Personally, I think it is a more honest interpretation, if that is really what you want in this discussion.
7. I am still of the opinion that these men were fired for reasons other than just mere jokes. They broke other rules or they made themselves vulnerable in a competitive office or they ruined the company's reputation or this was a pattern of behavior or they were warned about this type of behavior, they were otherwise insulting - something - but it wasn't just jokes.
8. If it was "merely" jokes, then yes, they have reason for unfair dismissal and by all means, they should take their firing to court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, one more time:
1. I compared what happened to "those men" to what happens to criminals not because they are criminals but because I am sympathetic to both the men and criminals.
2. The similarity is that both broke rules and they paid a price for breaking them. Personally, I think we should be more sympathetic. It is time we care about people instead of looking for reasons to punish people.
3. I just think there are a lot of hypocrites out there (not necessarily saying you are one Fox just that there are a lot out there): who are sympathetic towards some people, usually people like themselves, but not to the plight of other people (usually people not like themselves). They can look at these people (women, other minorities, foreigners, people of other religions, homosexuals, poor people, rich people and I guess even men) and only see someone who is a threat, someone who needs to be defeated or punished, not lifted up or brought into the community.
4. Titus: you posted about how women are INCAPABLE of being productive and contributing to society - at least no woman has yet - according to you - but lets just say that is incapable.
5. That kind of ideology stands in the way of women succeeding.
6. Let's stop saying "Feminism" or a "silly woman with a cell phone" and say that a business, with its own leadership structure and rules fired two men. Personally, I think it is a more honest interpretation, if that is really what you want in this discussion.
7. I am still of the opinion that these men were fired for reasons other than just mere jokes. They broke other rules or they made themselves vulnerable in a competitive office or they ruined the company's reputation or this was a pattern of behavior or they were warned about this type of behavior, they were otherwise insulting - something - but it wasn't just jokes.
8. If it was "merely" jokes, then yes, they have reason for unfair dismissal and by all means, they should take their firing to court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| that a business, with its own leadership structure and rules fired two men |
Because they thought that if they didn't they might be threatened with a frivolous gender discrimination/harassment lawsuit and ordered to pay out $s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
At the risk of bumping this thread, this article nevertheless belongs here.
The Case for Getting Married While Young
| Quote: |
The research cited here, as well as the example of my marriage and many others, points to a model of marriage that is more than the sum of two selves, and at the same time advances both individual and societal good by transcending procreative, economic, and hedonistic purposes. Such a model of marriage reflects the conclusion Regnerus drew from his research,
| Quote: |
| Marriage actually works best as a formative institution, not an institution you enter once you think you're fully formed. We learn marriage, just as we learn language, and to the teachable, some lessons just come easier earlier in life. |
It's important, of course, that people enter into marriage with some level of maturity and self-possession, for one's own sake and that of the other person. But the greatest gift of marriage�even beyond financial security, children, or career success (because for some, these may never come)�is the formation that occurs through the give and take of living in lifelong communion with another. |
The writer talks a lot about her own marriage, and its boring. But the research is interesting.
| Quote: |
| 35 percent of unmarried men say they are "highly satisfied" with their lives compared to 52 percent of married men; among the women that report being "highly satisfied" with their lives, 29 percent are cohabitating, 33 percent are single, and 47 percent are married. |
Pretty subjective, though.
The first comment:
| Quote: |
| What's funny to me is how quickly we have accepted the inevitability of teen sex but how equally quickly we judge people who marry young. It seems to me that we're sending a very confusing message about the responsibility/privilege dynamic of human relationship. In the current paradigm, we're teaching that relationships are disposable objects designed to fulfill our individual needs instead of places where we nurture each other through love and fidelity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| that a business, with its own leadership structure and rules fired two men |
Because they thought that if they didn't they might be threatened with a frivolous gender discrimination/harassment lawsuit and ordered to pay out $s. |
Even more than that, the elite media uses the Rules for Radicals technique. Isolate, personalize, destroy. If a company did not bend it would be shamed and destroyed. Some firms can withstand this (chick fil et) but most would be ruined.
The Case for Getting Married While Young
Interesting article, though you made me visit the Atlantic, so...
| Quote: |
| Unmarried twenty-somethings are more likely to be depressed, drink excessively, and report lower levels of satisfaction than their married counterparts. For example 35 percent of unmarried men say they are "highly satisfied" with their lives compared to 52 percent of married men; among the women that report being "highly satisfied" with their lives, 29 percent are cohabitating, 33 percent are single, and 47 percent are married. |
I'd like to see this data adjusted for age. As one gets closer to 30 I imagine the satisfaction in being single decreases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.thelocal.se/8168/20070813/#.UXqaHdffu5n
| Quote: |
A well-built man was forced to take a drugs test in Stockholm recently after a police officer assumed that muscles like his could only have been developed with the help of illegal substances.
The female assistant police officer got into a conversation with Tomislav Boduljak and his friend late at night in central Stockholm.
According to Boduljak, 27, the police officer was pleasant at first, but changed her attitude when he said he worked out. Saying his muscles were 'abnormal', she said he must have used drugs.
"I asked if she didn't think it possible that I work out a lot and eat well. She said that if someone looks like me, she assumes they have taken drugs," he told Metro.
Despite Boduljak's assurances that he didn't use steroids, she forced him to go to the police station and give a urine test. In her report, the officer said he had "unusually large muscles, particularly large arm muscles, which are a sign of steroid use."
The test was negative, and Boduljak made an official complaint against the police officer. Prosecutors looked into the case, but decided not to pursue it.
Janne Magnusson, an officer at Stockholm Police's drugs unit, told Metro that he thought that the officer had been "a bit too ambitious". |
Sweden is a crazy place.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2311053/Why-EVERYONE-pregnant-youre-35-desperate-conceive-ASHLEY-PEARSON-pain-wanting-baby.html
| Quote: |
| 'As I see it, the main problem is your age,' said one rather direct OB. Occasionally, some of the insensitivity I encountered from doctors reeling off statistics about how dismal my chances of conception were due to my geriatric status - especially at a time when you feel hugely vulnerable - was shocking. |
Biology is shocking and insensitive! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
