Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Oct 19 09:07:06 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / Seb and wtb hurt women in the workplace
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Feb 06 22:57:37
http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/lean-in-sheryl-sandberg/
Cherub Cow
Member
Tue Feb 06 23:04:55
Don't worry, LeanIn.Org will fix it with a new hash tag ........ :|
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Feb 06 23:07:51
women who are fine w/ being harassed for raises or promotions should develop some kind of sign
hood
Member
Tue Feb 06 23:16:19
I suggest an iteration on this:

http://www...Training/YellowCloth-back3.jpg
Cherub Cow
Member
Tue Feb 06 23:36:49
That could work, but it's really got to be something wearable. And maybe some brand recognition:
http://i.imgur.com/mkdjzoD.png
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 07 10:24:24
There are two possible causes for that:

The men in question don't believe they can mentor a woman without accidentally harassing them.

The men in question are afraid other men will assume they are having an affair with the woman.

Both of those sound more like they are driven by your attitude than mine.

Rugian
Member
Wed Feb 07 10:31:50
Seb,

Are you joking? The problem with the whole MeToo hysteria is that it's now on everyone's mind that a mere accusation can ruin a persons career. Women are equal to men, they're just as capable of lying as we are. When someone has that potential power over you, some men might be inclined to be cautious.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 07 10:40:42
None of the men could possibly fear false accusations tearing down their careers and families. That's never happened before. - Seb
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 07 11:01:05
Rugian, Forwyn:

Anyone can make false accusations about anyone. Are you not going to attend a meeting with a woman? Can you describe how exactly mentoring in a professional setting would increase your exposure to this risk?
And given actual sexual harassment is at least an order of magnitude greater than this "false accusation" stuff and has a much larger impact on women seeking mentorship and hurts them in the workplace; again, I'd suggest you are barking up the wrong tree.



tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Feb 07 11:08:57
the poll format is problematic

'would you hesitate to have dinner/travel w/ a male...'? there's no reason to say 'yes'

for female, recent news gives you a reason to say 'yes'

doesn't mean in practice it'll match... a male boss was probably more likely to want dinner/travel w/ females before in hoping things would happen :p, so now no one gets dinner because eating w/ your employees would not be enjoyable in and of itself

just my opinion :p
Cold Rod
Member
Wed Feb 07 11:38:38
Lol sebrod!
Delude
Member
Wed Feb 07 11:41:41
"Are you joking? The problem with the whole MeToo hysteria is that it's now on everyone's mind that a mere accusation can ruin a persons career. Women are equal to men, they're just as capable of lying as we are. When someone has that potential power over you, some men might be inclined to be cautious."

This is correct.
Delude
Member
Wed Feb 07 11:43:25
" Can you describe how exactly mentoring in a professional setting would increase your exposure to this risk? "

Can you say how it had never been a risk?
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 07 12:22:03
Delude:

You think it's risky meeting a woman for one on one meeting in the office?

Let's flip that around then. If it's risky for you because you might be accused of sexual assault by a psycho, it's also riskier for them because they might be sexually assaulted by a psycho - which is far more common an occurrence.

So net utility is served well by the metoo movement.

Seb
Member
Wed Feb 07 12:29:25
Also, I said "increase you exposure to to risk", so I'm not sure why you are asking if it was never a risk.

I kinda don't get this line of argument.

Men and women have met one to one for business purposes for ages. It's a normal part of the expected duties in an office environment.

Distressingly, sometimes this has resulted in men harassing or even assaulting women because they have become confused and assumed that a colleague seeking to meet them to discuss work wasn't using that as a pretext to bone cc them.

Women have started broadcasting this fact and naming and shaming perpetrators, and right thinking men and women are now shunning perpetrators.

So, in all of this, surely nobody is suggesting the problem is in calling out the behaviour and that we'd be better off if women just shut up about the issue?

If not, what are we saying, exactly?

That some men might be falsely accused and their careers killed? Well, in a planet of 6bn I'm sure that might happen, but many more women (and some men) have their careers and lives damaged by sexual harassment and assault. Which seems a bigger problem in severity and frequency.

Rugian
Member
Wed Feb 07 12:37:16
Seb,

Victims of sexual assault should be going to their employer or law enforcement, not tweeting about it on the internet. So no, net utility is not helped here.

There was always a chance of false accusations, what's different right now is that sexual harassment claims have dominated the news media for the last several months. Kinda puts the topic on people's minds. And the concern for such false claims isn't stemming from actual assault cases, no one is worried about working with women because Harvey Weinstein got caught. It's the ambiguous cases where doubt starts to come into play.

Personally I think the concerns of men not wanting to work with women are overblown, answering a poll question often doesn't lead to actual action. Wouldn't surprise me if at least a few men will have the idea in the back of their mind for at least a little bit though.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 07 13:40:45
Seb has stated time and time again he will give the benefit of the doubt to women accusers. As will most extreme leftists.

So given that political climate, why take the risk of hiring women?
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 07 14:01:39
Rugian:

Do I need to remind you how many employers have been found guilty of falling to investigate such claims?

Do I need to remind you how often police won't investigate?

Yeah, a dam has broken. The shocking thing is not that these are now comming out. The shocking thing is that basically it's been tolerated, excused, ignored or covered up forever until now.

"Wouldn't surprise me if at least a few men will have the idea in the back of their mind for at least a little bit though."

So, basically, a few men have a fraction of the kinds of concerns most women have around interacting with members of the opposite sex in the workplace.

Sam:

Or, flip it around - maybe best for me not to hire men?
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 07 14:07:28
You go right ahead and do that seb. Lol.
obaminated
Member
Wed Feb 07 14:45:56
TBH it goes to an age old attitude that a man shouldn't be alone in an office room with a woman. Leave the door open or have someone else present if possible.

This used to be done because you could be worried about other office members starting rumors. Now you are worried the woman will use it as leverage at a later time whether she is about to get fired, demoted, wants a promotion or is just pissed at you.
Delude
Member
Wed Feb 07 15:03:24
Mt is correct
Delude
Member
Wed Feb 07 15:04:47
Seb will turn this as its man's own fault for bringing this on himself.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 07 15:26:15
And people ripped on Pence for not having private dinners or meetings with women. Seems like a pretty sound strategy from an otherwise mostly retarded individual.
Paramount
Member
Wed Feb 07 15:34:50
”The problem with the whole MeToo hysteria is that it's now on everyone's mind that a mere accusation can ruin a persons career.”

And the problem with some men is that if a woman says no to a man who says he wants to have sex with her, he can/will ruin her career, rape her, or do both.
jergul
large member
Wed Feb 07 16:54:22
So all things being equal, it is best to not hire men to executive positions as they will often be unwilling to mentor or otherwise spend 1:1 time with a significant portion of corporate underlings.

Good to know.
obaminated
Member
Wed Feb 07 16:59:41
No, it is more productive for men to be in more important positions because mean don't get pregnant and disappear from work for a year or more.
obaminated
Member
Wed Feb 07 17:04:34
men don't get pregnant*
jergul
large member
Wed Feb 07 17:18:31
Because top echelong executives cannot hire 4 nannies, 7 house keepers, 4 dog walkers, and a butler?

Fail obam.
jergul
large member
Wed Feb 07 17:18:54
How does madonna do it?
obaminated
Member
Wed Feb 07 17:36:41
Pregnant women go on maternity leave, in fact they often demand it. It is a law in many states, Ivanka wants to make it a federal law. you can throw every strawman argument you want, it doesn't matter, there is a reason why maternity law is a big deal and as such it is simply logical to invest more in the advancement of men over women, because men won't go away from their work for a year due to having children.

obaminated
Member
Wed Feb 07 17:37:36
and yes, jergul, let's compare madonna, a pop singer, to generic women working in an office setting.

wtf? You really thought that was a valid and not a vapid comparison?

Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 07 17:38:52
Jergul the manhating feminist lol
obaminated
Member
Wed Feb 07 17:40:14
The simply fact of the matter is the biggest lie told to women is that "they can have it all". They can't. They either have a career or they have a family. They can't have both. Most choose family over career because being married and having children is a more popular image thing than having a high level job in the eyes of women.

Meanwhile men, unfair or not, can have their family and their career. Because when they have children they don't have to stall their career for 1-5 years before the child is old enough to attend school.
mexicantardnado
Member
Wed Feb 07 17:41:29
I don't even have to "duuur" this because pretty much MT is "duuuring" this with almost every post right now.
mexicantardnado
Member
Wed Feb 07 17:42:41
http://for...lancing-really-isnt-that-hard/

MT equals pretty fucking stupid.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 07 17:50:07
Ladies can have a career and kids but its harder obviously.
jergul
large member
Wed Feb 07 17:53:49
Obam
We are talking of upper level executives who serve as mentors to cultivate new talent in the corporation.

Turns out that many men have made themselves uncompetative.

As opposed to women, who can simply hire help from the vantage of upper level management.

Sammy
Have kids? Why and who exactly is still doing that? Rednecks and white trash?
jergul
large member
Wed Feb 07 17:59:14
Ach. The latinos of course.
obaminated
Member
Wed Feb 07 18:07:55
"Behind these questions is the assumption that if work and kids are hard to balance, lots of work and lots of kids would be even harder, but women with big jobs say that’s not the case. The autonomy and career capital that come with executive roles help you delegate on the job."

Yes, if you have lots of money it is easy to hire nannys to raise your kids for you, assuming you are fine with someone else raising your kids. If you are, you know, the other 99%, that isn't an option.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 08 02:23:08
Just imagine if women employees refused to meet 1-2-1 with male employees incase they got harassed.

obaminated
Member
Thu Feb 08 02:50:21
im sorry that female employees cost more than male employees, mate.
jergul
large member
Thu Feb 08 03:29:12
Obam
They don't bro. They are far, far cheaper (80 cents to the dollar).

In fact, one of the time proven ways of fighting wage inflation is to simply give women access to the sector. Wages will plummet immediately. See teachers and GPs for details.

It is hard to imagine a sector more suited for wage depreciation than upper level corporate management.

Women will end the pretense of pseudo-ownership simply by way of a force in being.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 08 05:22:30
"Seb
Member Wed Feb 07 10:24:24
There are two possible causes.."

There are so many logical fallacies and cognitive biases packed into these 5 words that is is actually quite impressive.

"(80 cents to the dollar)"

^If anyone cites this number it is a sign they are an lying idiot or just simply an idiot. This number does not even factor different occupation, working hours or anything, it just states that on average women earn less in a year than men.

"See teachers and GPs"

Teacher (and GPs) get paid a lot in Sweden, actually teachers salary now rival those of principles so much that the principles salary is now an issue. I know people with MSc that have quit their jobs in tech to go and teach high school (and get paid more).

^These are the effects of 1st order logic thinking and solutions (policy) to "problems" that people like lulzgul do not understand.

^Someone who think his "prediction" of pie chart mechanism vis-a-vis changes in global GDP is signs of his intellect :)

^Keep in mind lulzgul has only daughters and suffers from what a lot of people suffer from, "I can only empathize with things I have experienced-syndrome".

He must have lived life as a shitty male (surrounded by other shitty males), hence him thinking women will save us. Womenfolk will make your company better!

You will be happy (?) to know jergul that "rigorous, peer-reviewed academic research paints a different picture."

http://kno...lly-boost-company-performance/

Besides the bullshit.

Women who are the most equal i.e work full time and share the home with their husbands equally, risk mental problems the most!

Even more than the next group, women who work more than their partners and still take the lion share of responsibility for the home.

^The baseline being women who work part time and take care of the home, there is no elevated risk there.

(Swedish link, a socialist workers paper)
http://arbetet.se/2015/03/06/explosion-i-psykisk-ohalsa/

"but contrary to what one would believe, women in the most equal relationships are not healthier"

"these numbers are difficult to see"

^Because it demolishes another gender theory/feminist prediction.

So maybe the entire getting pregnant (risk death and pay a physical price) and nurturing is psychologically rewarding for women? Almost as if different mating strategies and the investment in offspring are fundamentally (biologically) different! Crazy idea that women would have evolved these traits so to make them risk their own health to spread their genes!

Maybe having a small child makes people around you be more attentive to your needs (at work not so much)? Could having a baby and engaging in typical female nurturing behavior make women more resilient to mental issues? GREAT questions if I may say myself.

Questions people who apply first order logic to problems do not ask when they go about "solving" "social problems".

I am all for breaking oppressive norms, the prevailing norm is to shame women or make them feel like lesser people for "making the wrong choice". Because when given a choice, they pick kids, mental health and home before their careers.

Of course some women want the cake and eat it to and, thankfully for them, idiots like seb and lulzgul are there, willingly falling on their swords.
jergul
large member
Thu Feb 08 06:54:34
Nimi
You are wrong on 80 cents.

What % of principles are now women? Teachers and GPs used to earn far, far more than the median wage. Enter women. Now, not so much (in Norway a teacher's wage is close to the median standard).

I spend a lot of time in this forum surrounded by shitty males. So there is that influence.

Gender diversity does not impact on company performance? Yay. So lets do that gender diversity thing then.

People who worrry overmuch about being overwhelmed by muslim immigrants should perhaps consider that there is no reason to have children in societies' with well-developed pension schemes and huge opportunity costs attached to having kids.

Women who make stupid choices should be made aware of it.

Having kids is a stupid choice for a woman to make.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 08 07:16:30
We can sum that up in, stop having kids, we can solve it with immigration. And by solve I mean apply more first order logic to problems you don’t understand.

Lulzgul with citizens like you, scandinavia needs no external enemies.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 08 07:42:05
note: there is no positive or negative effect on mental health in males who opt for ”career first”.

Will be interesting to see how this pendulum swings in the generational handover. What will the unintended consequences be of first order thinking social engineering programs? I see some of it in educated women around me, they want babies and part time work.

You know when the largest uptick in women getting educated in Sweden came? During the financial crisis of the 90’s. When things got really shitty for a lot families, women needed or felt the need to take a more active roles in providing.

When ^that changes, of course so does the priorities of women. Why would you work full time when you don’t have to and there is something inside you yearning for a baby to take care of? I mean sure for a couple of year some women get hijacked by a small dog (THAT THEY DRESS UP LIKE BABY), but in the end nature prevails and 1-2 babies plop out of most western womens vagina.

Interesting times ahead lulzgul, full of disappointments for people who have invested so much in marxist creationism as the underpinning of their social theory.
jergul
large member
Thu Feb 08 07:58:00
Nimi
We could also sum it up by making having kids not be a stupid choice.

So you suround yourself with stupid women. Colour me suprised.

No surprises in store for me. I will happily sacrifice any number of foreign born on any populist altar required.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 08 08:30:08
It isn't a stupid choice for most women. Just for atypical women who cannot communicate clearly with their partners and/or have swallowed blank slate logic that violates the most primitive aspect of their own nature. For those women everything (their own choices) will always be someone else's fault, society, men, patriarchy or other conspiracy theories.

"with stupid women"

^Typical Scandinavian women.

"I am all for breaking oppressive norms, the prevailing norm is to shame women or make them feel like lesser people for "making the wrong choice". Because when given a choice, they pick kids, mental health and home before their careers."

Waaa your choices are stupid! Which is ok lulzgul, freedom of expression is important to me. The problem starts when you become the leftwing version of a Christian/Islamic moral police. God (marxist ideology) wants women to work/not work!

"I will happily sacrifice any number of foreign born on any populist altar required."

Not even remotely believable. You love foreign born people who are red like you. Despite your recently ravings trying to reconcile "crush capitalism vs crush socialism" you are not an ethno centered racist, you are an ideological puritan. i.e a religious fascist. You have provided ample evidence of this on UP.
jergul
large member
Thu Feb 08 09:00:24
Nimi
Parents of any gender need to be shamed a lot more for making stupid choices. Choosing to have kids at all is mistake number one in many cases.

If you use anectdotal evidence, then I will cite you for what it is: Stupid women that you surround yourself with.

"foreign born" is etno-neutral.

I have nothing against capitalism. It is a remarkably effective economic mechanism.

I have issues with people who mistake it for an ideology.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 08 09:59:43
"If you use anectdotal evidence"

In line with the ups and downs in Swedish fertility statistics (which has been going up since the late 90's), lulzgul. In your socialist dream the trend line goes to actual zero births, reality as always is very different from the socialist's predictions.

Fertility of nordic born women peeked in the beginning of the 90's (having been lower in 80's), bottomed out late 90's (Financial crisis) and has been going up since then. Almost as if there is a yet to be understood cycle behind it.

"I have nothing against capitalism. It is a remarkably effective economic mechanism."

We agree. You should take it up with your brothers and sisters 1st of May. Still don't get it eh :)

"I have issues with people who mistake it for an ideology."

We agree again! Further I have a personal issue is with people who are religious about their ideology, specially the kind that want to foist their religion upon others and start talking about sacrificing people who do not on an alter. Those people (Islamic State, Breivik and Jergul) most likely need to be killed by Hellfire missiles, they leave us with few other options.

^And this is where leftist ID politics seems to shine, as a tribal religion. Not exclusive, I mean we have the rights ID politics gaining momentum, but you do it better!
jergul
large member
Thu Feb 08 13:21:56
Nimi
Of course fertility levels are increasing in step with increased immigration from hell-holes sort of like the place you came from. To levels far below replacement.

Yes, yes. Why not see if your uncle's can round up some buddies from SAVAK to help resolve your with incompatibility issues with social democracy?

Either that...or microdose your way to sanity. That will work!
jergul
large member
Thu Feb 08 13:41:58
(a foreign born woman from some hell-hole arriving in sweden has a fertility rate of about 4).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 08 13:50:58
"Of course fertility levels are increasing in step with increased immigration from hell-holes sort of like the place you came from."

You would like that wouldn't you? Unfortunately for you the statistics is broken down by region of birth, hence "Scandinavian". Women born in Sweden have about the same fertility trend as women born in "Norden" and the "EU". The trends all follow the same pattern, they go up together and down together.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 08 13:52:41
hence Nordic*
jergul
large member
Thu Feb 08 17:05:20
Its almost like you could produce a link or something.

Total Swedish fertility is currently 1.89 (or 7% below replacement rates) when factoring in hell-hole immigrants who typically have a fertility rate of 4%. About 25% of all children born in Sweden are born to mothers from outside the country.

What happens to the gene pool when only stupid women breed, buddy?
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Feb 08 18:30:40
Idiocracy. That or fishermen in science positions. One of the 2.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 02:03:19
Not interested in comparing the difference, something I never disputed, since I know what they look like.

You got sand in your vagina for me using anecdotes, I informed you my anecdote is in line with rise and falls of fertility figures, swedish born/ethnic swedes are having more babies.

You are getting senile and your ability to not lose a train of thought a couple posts, rapidly going to shit.

Don’t punish mothers, do what germany does, allow couples to declare joint income. That way housewives are not punished in their retirement, the household pays less tax has more disposable income. If both work it is basically no different than here.

Many possibilities if one is not retarded and squarly in the camp of one religious tribe, you get to use your brain.
Aeros
Member
Fri Feb 09 02:13:20
No man in a position of authority and in his right mind would accept a female as his "protege" or "mentoree" at this point. Hell, not even as his secretary. All that is required now to ruin a career and family life is a baseless accusation. The smart thing to do would be to not deal with female employees directly.
smart dude
Member
Fri Feb 09 02:35:34
Seb is right that a woman is more likely to be harassed than a man is to suffer a false accusation. That's true among the general population.

On the other hand, men who "know" they aren't going to harrass a woman (more than 50% of men, I would guess) "know" that they are more likely to suffer a false accusation than harrass a woman. Harrassment isn't just some statistically random occurrence. You either are or are not a harrasser.

So for 50% of men (a very conservative estimate), it is statistically more harmful than not to accept a mentor role in a female colleague's career.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 09 02:41:27
Nimi
You have sand in your vagina for using anectdotal evidence. We should care that the women you know are stupid why exactly?

Swedish fertility is down since 2010. And remains far below replacement levels.

Or stop penalizing short hiatus from work. You know. Make it so having a child is a smart choice.

If only women making stupid choices breed, then you end up with a stupid society.

Sweden is not a good country to link couples to benefits as relationships are notoriously unstable.

Sammy
Commerical Fishing is applied physics. Its fucking important to get it right.

Aeros
Then they are not doing their jobs and should be replaced.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 03:18:44
"Seb is right"

All the intellectual yet idiot are "right" if you look at the world (facts) in a low resolution. First order logic says:

"that a woman is more likely to be harassed than a man is to suffer a false accusation. That's true among the general population."

Further thought tells us that, a given workplace is not a representative sample of the general population. Specially not in the higher echelons we are talking about.

I had a similar fail of understanding stats presented to me by a higher upper division chief. He qualified their decision to not serve alcohol at a dinner with "we are almost 100 people now, statistically 4-5 will have alcohol problems". Umm no? Only if our workplace is a representative sample of the country. Which it isn't is it? 100% of the population do not have uni degrees. You didn't go randomly select people, I hope?
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 09 03:25:32
Nimi
Is there any particular reason to believe that rampant substance abuse such as alcoholism or microdosing amphetamin is lower amongst university graduates?

The point here is that if you want to question the stats, then do the research. Document that there is indeed a significant difference in alcohol abuse levels for your select population.

But you are missing the subtext. The division chief is using alcohol problems as a place-holder for sexual abuse.

Supplying alcohol is not a good idea from a risk management perspective.

Though ideally, the division chief should have involved workers in the decision. Manufacturing consent would have been trivial.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 09 03:29:01
You could just poll the people you know too. For anectdotal evidence.

My count gives 100% substance abuse amongst the people I know at your workplace. You can take it from there.
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 03:30:27
Smart dude:

Interesting point. But what do you think mentoring involves? Basically the odd One on one meeting, normally in a public space, occasionally in a meeting room.

So mentoring would represent a miniscule inreased risk compared to normal day to day operation of the business.

So what you are saying to me is that you are letting a hypothetical risk prevent you from filling your normal duties.

If you are a leader and not mentoring, then I want you out my organisation as you are not optimally growing skills within my org.

If you are avoiding normal business relations with female staff for fear of statistically insignificant bogeyman.

So you wind up on a PIP.

So let me put it this way, anyone making such a flawed risk calculation is increasing their risk of being sacked for underperformance greatly.

And if they explain their working on deriving this risk, either they get referred to HR for a tedious course on interpersonal relations because they have some weird idea of what mentoring means (you shouldn't need to be inviting mentees to your house or for dinner etc.); or they get put on a PIP for inummeracy.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 09 03:35:50
Seb
It should actually be a question at interviews when hiring new leadership.

Would you have any issues acting as a mentor for talents in our organization?
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 03:38:39
Nim:

I love it - statistically we are very male as a group. Women present a risk to us, we must keep our group male by refusing to train female leaders. It would be unfair tp us men to do otherwise. By the way, gender inequality reflects the natural order of things.

So ok, let's look at this idea that men in senior positions are less likely to be harassers.

Then let's look at the recent FT expose of the Presidents Club Dinner, an annual men's only fund raising dinner, attended by director and board level members of FTSE100 companies, where 100 plus 20 year old female students were hired, given a dress code specifying the colour of their knickers, plied with booze, many harassed and groped, and to top it off, the after party a bunch of high class prostitutes were added to the mix. Held in the Dorchester in London.

Then let's look at the incidence of this sort of thing in politics.

I think the idea that powerful and successful men are less likely to be sex pests is poorly founded.

Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 03:39:50
Jergul:

It's set in out objectives from junior management upwards.

We want to train and grow our future leaders, not pay a fortune for consultants add seaguls.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 09 03:41:27
Flying rats those consultants.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 03:42:49
"Is there any particular reason to believe that rampant substance abuse such as alcoholism or microdosing amphetamin is lower amongst university graduates?"

The topic was, what can you infer from general population stats in a non randomly selected (or non randomly occurring as with sd's example) work environment. Moving too fast?

There are higher resolution stats of course, dear idiot. The majority of substance abusers are in the bottom of society (without uni degrees and engineering jobs), many of them going in and out of jail, mostly men.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 04:13:52
"I think the idea that powerful and successful men are less likely to be sex pests is poorly founded."

^You should take this up with whatever figment of your broken multiple personality that said this.

Powerful men regularly use their power to get sex. It is one of the main driving forces for men to get status and power. And a lot of women are attracted to power, who is shocked? Shit will inevitably go wrong some of the time.

The dark side of human sexuality is complex problem that has no easy fix/solution, this may be very difficult for someone like you to understand and accept.

Do you understand why the sexes historically have been segregated in almost every culture, interactions chaperoned and written into the cultural code? It was our ancestors attempt of an easy fix to not have their daughters raped, molested get pregnant with some bum. In the end unsustainable and tyrannical. Learn from history.

Interesting fact:
Women are consistently more conservative than men when it comes to sex and no. of children. Because birth control is 50 years old, getting pregnant is... much older? Women act as a natural population level birth control.

But sure seb double down. People saw early on that metoo would be a divisive and unproductive "revolution" and as with all revolutions it has unintended consequences that swoosh past people (you) who can not think beyond the most obvious i.e rape is bad. How profound.

The social problem we face are more difficult that those that were solved by producing vaccines and providing clean water. Solutions for our future are not the subject of what can produced in 6 months or even an election cycle. Women have been part of the work force in earnest for half a century. Obviously we have not solved all the issues and it will take longer still, because human interaction between the sexes is a complicated affair and regulated in large part by innate and to us invisible forces.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 09 04:22:53
Nimi
You are moving too stupid.

You need to have some basis to believe that his statistics are wrong. Simply questioning them is lazy. But then, you are a lazy lad.

After a quick google:

http://for.../04/hoyt-utdannede-drikker-mer

So your anectdotal understanding of the world fails you yet again. What a surprise.

Boy are you dumb.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 04:58:34
And the results of your googling is in line with a moron who makes no distinction between use and abuse (alcoholism).

In case it isn’t clear lulzgul, using drugs to releave stress (or in other ways self medicate) is not the same as abusing or having problems with sunstances, admittedly there a grey area here between the two. You can use drugs without becoming a raging retard or suffering from alcoholism (a medical condition).

lol not even google can help what suffer from.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 04:59:57
And still not relevant to what be infered from general pop no. to a non randomly selected work place. But grasp for what you can.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 05:02:59
Study is done university students.

Bawahahahahha. Jesus you are stupid.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 09 05:23:12
http://www.ntnu.no/ansatte/trond.nordfjarn
http://www.topuniversities.com/universities/norwegian-university-science-technology

There is a strong correlation between volume and abuse. Unsurprisingly.

We could discuss what abuse is. But habitual, illegal self-medication of restricted substances to in an attempt to improve function ticks all the boxes when we include rationalization of abuse in the ways you do.

Sorry bro. But it is what it is.

You have failed to establish there is any grounds to think alcoholism (fuctioning or not, diagnose or not) is less prevalent in your workplace group.

My anectdotal analysis actually gives a 100% abuse rates after I reviewed everyone I know of working there. For what anectdotal evidence is worth.

Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 05:26:43
Nim:

"The topic was, what can you infer from general population stats in a non randomly selected (or non randomly occurring as with sd's example) work environment."

Well, a Baysean approach would be to use the base population as a prior.

"that a woman is more likely to be harassed than a man is to suffer a false accusation. That's true among the general population."

You appear to be disputing this, but it seems that we agree there would be reason to suspect it was more true in a professional environment?

Certainly a simple pass of proven allegations would suggest that a woman is more likely to be harassed than a man is to suffer a false allegation in a professional setting.





Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 07:50:08
lulzgul

use
abuse
habit/../dependency

^different things. This is another Abrahamic faith moment for you. We established years ago that you do not understand "drugs". Nothing has changed.

"Well, a Baysean approach would be to use the base population as a prior."

Very interesting. Yet in the real world every room of 100 people is not representative for the population at large. Things get selected for and against. Difficult (not impossible) to do certain activities (proficiently) while being an alcoholic.

"You appear to be disputing this, but it seems that we agree there would be reason to suspect it was more true in a professional environment?"

In the general population and all the daily activities it is true. Generally in the work place no. I suspect you would have very different figures depending on the type of industry as well.

This is what you wrote:

"fear of statistically insignificant bogeyman."

^An accusation that could ruin your life (absent a fair hearing in the court of social media and news), is not insignificant. I Consider the wide scope of metoo as well.

We have a criminal system favoring the defendant for precisely the reason of not jailing innocent people on frivolous charges. That will quickly erode trust in the system and society.

With social media to a large degree that has been turned upside down. The dynamics shift very quickly and the idea that women (specially status seeking) will not abuse this new mechanics is lunacy and part of the white knight first order thinking that, women will save us, women do not lie etc. They are gods perfect creatures. If just women had ruled the world there would be no wars!

^There is literally zero cost for the accuser, they may do this completely anonymous. Passing around lists compiled in closed circles as has been done now of names of people and their alleged crimes (even things that are not even crimes like jokes). And even if nothing comes of it (verdict), well she is a hero for speaking up. And whoever was accused has most likely been ruined.

You whip up a lynch mob and then double down saying those that are fearful probably have something to fear? It erodes trust in society, between men and women, co-workers, while arguably trying to protect people from sexual predators. The unintended consequences of getting high on emotions and not thinking clearly.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 09 10:15:15
Nimi
Classic addiction behaviour.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 10:26:00
And it is quite rich of you to say that if men are now uncomfortable working with women in the wake of metoo, that is grounds for firing them. Consistently the authoritarian scumbag, I will give you that much :) Thug knight 4 life!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 10:42:11
lulzgul, don’t you have heretics to behead at the alt-er of right?
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 12:05:20
Nim:

Let me explain 101 risk management.

Impact x likelihood.

Severity is high I grant you.

Let's look at likelihood.

How many men are accused of sexual harassment? Of those, how many actually face consequences? Of those how many are falsely accused?

Very few.

Now let's look at how mentoring effects that risk. Senior staff meeting with less junior staff, but usually those of a type they would otherwise be directly working with.

In the course of mentoring, they meet such people say, once a month for an hour.

So that's an additional hour a month 1-2-1 meeting with a woman a month.

Compared to how many other hours of 1-2-1 with female direct reports a month?

But why females? What about men? Are they less likely to make false allegations?

So I'll stick with statistically insignificant risk.

It's unlikely anyway, and the increased likliness is probably on the order 1-5% of that risk.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 12:35:40
”The dynamics shift very quickly and the idea that women (specially status seeking) will not abuse this new mechanics is lunacy...”

Even if a certain fear is irrational, with the likes of you threatening to fire the fearful... My suggestion is you keep doubling down and see where it will bring us. It is not too late for brexit effect of metoo!


Sam Adams
Member
Fri Feb 09 12:40:31
"Of those, how many actually face consequences? Of those how many are falsely accused?"

In the modern world of sebbish which hunts 100% of accused men face consequences and it looks like about 50% are false.
Aeros
Member
Fri Feb 09 13:46:57
Birth control was a serious mistake.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 14:07:12
Yea pulling out or have a gaggle of babies, those were the days, for sure.
Aeros
Member
Fri Feb 09 14:24:55
What I mean was women gaining control of their reproductive destiny seriously upset the social fabric and we have not really figured out how to compensate for it. Before birth control the idea that women even could have careers was absurd since they would invariably end up pregnant during their child bearing years, which incidentally is when careers tend to start. Now women can have careers, but not children.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 15:32:00
I understood what you meant, but that was what we had to deal with, among other things.

These are the unintended consequences of breaking the natural order that was invested in the ways of the old culture. It had a stabilizing role on biological processes. Not sustainable as new truths emerged, tyrannical even. Women can now have careers or/and have babies, that is a good thing. The fact that men didn't get anything in return for losing their primary function as providers, that is a bad thing.

Getting nostalgic over a past that was a product of the brutal necessities of nature and inadequate knowledge is ill advised. Bugs in the software are there to be understood and solved, we are not rolling back the update!
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 15:43:25
Aeros:

I love that you think you are a progressive.
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 15:44:36
Nim:

"The fact that men didn't get anything in return for losing their primary function as providers, that is a bad thing"

This is madness.
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 15:49:51
One might as well say:

"Black men can now have careers and get paid, and that is a good thing. The fact that white men didn't get anything in return for losing their primary function at the helm of political society, that was a bad thing."

Men's role as providers was a consequence of the liberation of women from chance.

Why should that societal privilege be carried forward?

For someone who complains about the supposed unfairness of actions to redress discrimination against minorities to suggest the absence of some kind of intervention to restore unequal status is frankly bizarre.

Are you on drugs again?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 16:14:30
I am drugs seb.

"Why should that societal privilege be carried forward?"

Why should it? Go ask the voices in your head come back to me.

"One might as well say:"

One might say a lot of stupid shit and make false equivalencies, comparing male female socialization with slavery and segregation.

Meanwhile what I said, that men are facing problems that were not solved with the emancipation of women. That needs to be resolved and consider that men's problems are different from women's and they are not solved by making them into women (or women into men).

You could make that argument for disenfranchised whites turning to right wing ID politics when they got screwed for being white and "privileged". Yes that is a societal problem that needs to be resolved and will not be resolved by people like you. See the problem with intellectual cancer is that it eats your ability to empathize.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 16:16:32
seb

I love that you think are not biased.

This article is for you.

http://qui...alitarianism-progressive-bias/
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 16:24:40
"For someone who complains about the supposed unfairness of actions to redress discrimination against minorities to suggest the absence of some kind of intervention to restore unequal status is frankly bizarre."
-intellectual cancer patient seb

"Getting nostalgic over a past that was a product of the brutal necessities of nature and inadequate knowledge is ill advised. Bugs in the software are there to be understood and solved, we are not rolling back the update!"
-woke nimatzo microdosing acid
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 16:32:33
Nim:

"Meanwhile what I said, that men are facing problems that were not solved with the emancipation of women."

No, that is not what you said. What you said was:

"Women can now have careers or/and have babies, that is a good thing. The fact that men didn't get anything in return for losing their primary function as providers, that is a bad thing."

Is it possible that you do not understand the literal meaning of the words you write?

"That needs to be resolved and consider that men's problems are different from women's and they are not solved by making them into women (or women into men)."

In what way do you think men are being made into women or women made into men? This is the kind of circular argument that makes this whole thing ridiculous. If women are quite happy and want to have a career, that doesn't make them into men.

And if the change in economics mean that to be economically sucessful, men need to think about how to build good relationships in collegiate workplaces - that doesn't make them into women.

Frankly, if some men have got a problem where they have decided to reject qualities that are required for success as contrary to their identity - that is a gender problem right there. Men have those skills, can use those skills and display the necessary behaviours to thrive. Conditioning men to think that those skills and behaviours are somehow to be shunned is the problem, not the fact that the economy and society has changed.

Understand, I have plenty of empathy for those left behind.

What I particularly don't have anything other than scorn for is the likes of you and Aeros that are contributing to this problem by telling young white men that they are somehow disadvantaged, should be resentful, and that they cannot thrive in modern society because somehow, its not fit for them.

You and this bizarre ideology are very much the root cause of this problem.

If you want to get Meta, since when has masculinity ever been about rolling around, feigning victimhood and demanding the world be handed on a plate?

What about the traditional values of self reliance, shrewdness, and drive to succeed?

Loki was every bit as male a character as Thor.
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 16:34:40
And look at the point Aeros is making, it basically boils down to "Men can't compete with women, if only biological randomness took them out of the workplace, then we wouldn't have to compete with them and men would have economic power.".

Your response is essentially "no, women being empowered is a good thing, but what is bad is that men are not compensated for their loss in relative economic power".

FFS.
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 16:36:05
And that link, what risible crap.

I'm not a relativist. Yes, I think my values are better than yours. That is literally the issue at debate.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 16:38:40
I am not even gonna bother reading past this,

"No, that is not what you said."

The spirit of what I am saying is obvious to anyone who isn't a retard, specially when reading the last paragraph.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 09 16:40:13
Or the paragraph which you butchered into a sentence you did not understand in the context of the post.
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 16:59:08
Nim:

You cannot blame other people for interpreting your text as it is explicitly written. This is not a question of taking a figure of speech literally. Nor is there any context that would change the meaning of what you said.

God knows what the fuck you meant to say, but "men have problems too" is not what you wrote. What you wrote explicitly was that men's problem was an absence of some form of compensation for loss of privilege".

It's this kind of absurd something-for-nothing bullshit that is at root for the increasing inability of boys and men to develop a positive role in society. Instead they buy into retard shit like yours that says instead, society should adapt to their inflated expectations.

Seb
Member
Fri Feb 09 16:59:38
Bottom line Nim, think clearly and say what you mean, instead of writing bollocks that even you have to back away from.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share