|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 
I've seen probably a dozen woody Allen movies. Of them, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) was sorta funny. I keep trying and it's always a snoozefest.
There's people that have acquired a taste for Woody Allen. . . ? ? ? I believe her name is Soon-Yi
If I were gm I'd let them retrain a spell known at the same time the sorcerer was researching.
But if I'm not performing the Full-Attack action, I wouldn't get Haste bonus attack, Flurry of Blows bonus attacks, or other such sources reliant on making the Full Attack action. Except that making more than one attack EVER is reliant upon making a full-attack action. There is no other way in the rules to make multiple attacks on your turn. You can get cleave attacks (which are essentially a rider on a primary attack) and AoOs, but with an action on your turn, all methods of achieving multiple attacks require you to take the Full Attack action. This includes multiple natural attacks, two-weapon fighting, armor spikes, etc.
Hey, look, a backhanded and completely unnecessary nerf to the Magus class. And a bunch of yahoos eating it up and defending it. This is about as vital a nerf as the Zen Archer nerf was. /yawn
News flash: change takes time.Glad you at least see our point. Change does take time but at least we're acknowledging that there still needs to be change rather then pretending that the pay gap doesn't really exist. You clearly haven't read a single damn one of my posts. Not one. I have REPEATEDLY acknowledged that there is a pay gap, and that furthermore there are other institutional problems that manifest themselves as pay discrepancies. Cooking the books to make it seem like a 23% gap doesn't help your case, because it's MISLEADING AND INACCURATE!
News flash: change takes time.
In my mind, there will always be some deviation from a straight 50/50 split when it comes to choices and gender, if only a statistical abnormality. Not everyone is exactly the same, both nature and nurture play into peoples' behavior. What I'm far more worried about is stamping out institutional prejudice and ensuring that all children regardless of gender get the same quality of education. I think that sort of stuff still exists and we can agree it needs to improve. I'm far more concerned with ensuring that everyone is treated equally under the law, including equal opportunities for employment and advancement. If, after that has been achieved, there are still discrepancies, who will you blame? If there aren't exactly 50% of, say, investment bankers that are female, will you force women who really wanted a nursing degree to instead go into finance, just to shore up the numbers?
No. That's gender sameness. That's like saying that if there was true gender equality 50% of pregnant people would be male.
No, I'm saying that's the only thing you can effectively solve through legislation; enforcement of equal pay laws. It's much more difficult to enforce through legislation the choices that individuals make that track them for higher or lower paying careers. Why should it be fair to compare my friend Zee who just got her Masters in sociology and works for $10/hr as a barista to my friend Roman who got his masters and works as an automotive engineer making $200k/year, even though they ostensibly are the same age and have the same level of education? You're not going to get me to disagree that there is a great discrepancy in the career paths chosen by men and women, by the types of degrees they pursue, and by the way that our culture inculcates gender roles re: men should make more money and pursue work that will earn more. We won't agree that it's necessarily institutional prejudice that makes this so, however.
You do realize what "on average" means don't you? It means that while most menial jobs pay the same to both male and female workers, once you get an education or get advanced into management positions that's where the gap begins to show. Now I'm sure personal choice factors into the situation, why go into nursing or teaching when you could get into banking or business? But when you have a case like Lily Ledbetter was paid less for doing the same job you begin to see what's under the white wash. I do know what average means, do you? The statistics you prefer use a mean average, which means that discrepencies in CEO/executive, where the gap is much higher and people are making, what, 350 times as much, skew the statistics. Which is why, in comparison of income and wealth, economists and statisticians use median not mean. Using a mean average should automatically be suspect. But you seem to agree with me, that for the vast majority of workers the gap is far far less than it is for CEOs, who I can't be arsed to care too much about anyway.
I absolutely agree, but it's just one example of the type of policy that allows for a perceived gender pay gap; due to Act 10 legislation, teachers pay was reduced (a profession dominated by women) and police and fire/rescue pay (professions dominated by men) has continued to climb. Which leads to a wider gap between peers of the same age in the same municipality with the same employer (the city).
the reverse could also be true. Saying the reverse is true is saying that the Obama administration, whose first act was signing the Lily Ledbetter act into law, has somehow cooked the books to make the genuine pay gap smaller...thus undercutting the importance of their own progress and conflicting with their own agenda. It also means that, based on your interpretation, the average woman working a job makes 77% per hour of laborof what her male peers make, which is so outrageous it can't be true. Literally, because it would mean making less than minimum wage. Framing the statistics on a pay period basis as opposed to a per hour basis (where it's at virtual parity) and framing it as people in the same age group as opposed to the same job, is pure sophistry.
You trust the government to tell you the truth? How quaint. Personally I think it was damage control. These things were supposed to have been fixed 20 years ago but there's still a gap and so bring in the number crunchers to make the problem go away. This illustrates the problem. You have chosen to believe something because it jibes with your pre-existing belief structure and allows you to act righteously indignant. Actually examining the numbers, or even listening to how the experts break it down, causes cognitive dissonance to you who already has a true faith belief in the alternative.In fact, evidence to the contrary only galvanizes your belief in what you believe because, hey, you must be on to something if the gubment is willing to obfuscate! It's called a self-reinforcing delusion.
Supposing that Lily started working around the same time as her fellow managers, did the same work, but the difference is that Lily didn't make any noise is that fair? Yes and no. I don't think that seems fair, but we live in a system where the market determines the price of goods and services (for the most part) and the price of labor is determined by the bargaining of demand and supply actors, i.e. employers and employees. From a market perspective it's completely fair; if you believe in the power of markets you believe that this type of bargaining is indeed the only fair way to determine prices. But I also recognize the failure of markets, unlike most. I do find that when I see women are paid on average 77 cents to the dollar a man makes I get upset, and when people use statistics and creative math to suggest that woman actually make 1% more then men I get angry. So you believe the people who skew the statistics to make it seem as if your average woman makes 77% of a man doing the same job which absolutely, positively is not what that number represents rather than actually trying to parse the statistics and see a much smaller gap for the vast majority of people. I'm perfectly happy to attribute a 5% or even 10% genuine pay gap to prejudice and institutional sexism, and work to close that gap with social campaigns and/or legislation. It's just, ya know, important to me to be honest about the problem. A priority you don't seem to have.
Now one way to encourage an industry to be paid more is to encourage them to unionize (I'm sure CA will concur). As an example, here in Wisconsin, basically they've neutered all public sector unions...except police and fire/rescue where men are overrepresented. Which is f*~%ed.
Seems to me she was doing the same job she should have been paid the same wage. I support the Lily Ledbetter act, for the record. But this is an incredibly simplistic view. So, say there's worker 1, and he has been working for the company for 20 years. He has been stuck in middle management for most of that time, has accrued 20 years of length of service raises, has about a month of vacation every year, and a pension.Person 2 comes along, gets a promotion to middle management. They're both, ostensibly, doing the same job; do you think it's fair that person 2 gets all the benefits that person 1 has been slowly accruing for 20 years? If so, you're not incentivizing company loyalty. I'm not saying this is what happened in Ledbetter's case, or any case of gender pay disparity. I'm merely parsing your statement with exactitude and showing you the flaws.
This is basically my position as well. The gender pay gap 1) is far more pronounced in executive positions, and I have a hard time giving two craps about people who are already rolling in filthy lucre and 2) is largely attributable to, as you say, a disparity in pay for "men's jobs" and "women's jobs," which is not likely something that can be fixed or appropriately addressed by legislation. The answer, short of revolution, is to decide, as a society, that positions like teacher and nurse ought to be paid more, not because of the risk they're put at daily (VSL calculations) but because we like what they do and want more of them and of higher quality.
These jobs that pay a king's ransom nationally, they apparently pay less and less the closer they get to you.Still not getting your point. 40k is well above the median income here. So...you're agreeing with me?
These jobs that pay a king's ransom nationally, they apparently pay less and less the closer they get to you. Still not getting your point.
Our median for everything is going to be a bit low, though, because there's lower cost of living, other than Madison and Milwaukee which cost as much as your bigger cities. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
Even with union jobs you have to worry about opportunity gaps, where a woman's resume will less likely result in an interview. You also can have issues with women recieving less positive reviews for the same behavior, resulting in lower rate of promotion. Those are hard to identify and deal with, but studies have found both to be quite common in many fields. I'd be interested to see these studies, have any linkage handy?
I guess you don't think of 40k a year as a lot. As someone getting by on 15-20k a year it's a king's ransom.The actual median wage in my state is about 26k a year, and someone making 40k is several standard deviations above the average. But then, I work in a traditionally "girly" job in an office answering phones (er...sort of). Women do get more college degrees, significantly more actually, but a lot of them go into "frivolous" things (notice scare quotes) like education, social sciences, underwater basketweaving, humanities, etc. Which I can't blame them for because I find that stuff infinitely more interesting than math or science. So if you go to college for 7 years and get a bachelors in womens studies and a masters in social work, come out 100k in debt and are offered a 12 dollar an hour job at a womens shelter, should society compensate you because you're a woman making less than a man with the same amount of education working as an aeronautical engineer? I leave that as an open question, not suggesting an answer at this time.
If it were a class issue then there would be just as many female CEOs, from the same social background, making just as much money as the men, as class isn't gender specific. I just have to unpack this, as well. 1) I'm not saying it's not a gender issue, I'm saying it's not necessarily purely an example of bias or prejudice. It's entirely likely that there are simply less women going to school for business or finance degrees that lead to CEO positions. 2) If it were merely a gender issue you'd expect to see the same pay gap bear out through all income levels. Instead we see the gap widen as pay increases, especially so once you get into the 6 and 7 figure range. So part of the issue to me isn't whether there's a problem with this, because I think it is indicative of a problem (institutional sexism in Wall Street) but whether it's something that social reform and new laws can fix. You can't force women to go into business and finance, and you can't force publicly traded companies to elect on the basis of gender; the trends are either market driven or an aggregate manifestation of individual bias on Wall Street.
The only other place I'm aware of where women earn more then men (besides porn of course) is at Wimbledon where men and women now enjoy the same prize money but women have fewer matches. Go ahead and add my job. The CEO is a woman, over half the executive and administrative staff are women, virtually all of HR/Scheduling and Training departments are women (save one individual, who is a total dbag, but that's neither here nor there). Of the 36 supervisors in 6 zones there are 9 men. So virtually the entire advancement ladder is jammed up with women. This despite the fact that, of the actual rank and file employees (CAs), men account for the same amount of hours worked. The actual proportion of women to men is something likd 60/40 but relatively few of the women work full time (lots of soccer moms, college students, and elderly ladies supplementing their retirement income) whereas virtually all men do. So a significantly disproportionate number of women are selected for advancement, which includes a lighter workload and higher paygrade, than men. I'm not going to try to tell you this is the same everywhere, in fact I suspect the opposite is true in most places, but it is an anomaly in which I live.
Also time and effort aren't the same thing. Doing Laundry or mopping the floor isn't nearly as hard as mowing the lawn. Of my friends and relatives that own homes, none of them consider the stuff they do outside housework because it is recreational. My friend Dennis, for example, fixes cars as a hobby so working for 14+ hours over a weekend to fix his or his wife's car is like an opportunity to work on a project. Same with gardening. My dad is the same way. He elects to do almost all the "yard work" which includes tending multiple gardens and about an acre of prairie because by hobby and by profession he's a botanist/horticulturalist whereas his wife is a financial planner. I don't mean this to disagree with you, IT, just in answer to your question.
They pay more compared to other jobs of the same skill level. You don't even need to have graduated the third grade to tar a roof or mine coal, but most states require a bachelors degree too teach high school.Now, compared to other professions that require a college degree, teaching pays squat, especially for math/science/engineering teachers. It's a matter of comparing apples to apples, not apples to llamas. And some 60%+ of college graduates are women.
For the record, it's past 5AM where I am, so if my grammar is garbled and you can't quite grok what I'm saying, forgive me. And if there's two ways of taking something I said, and one of them pisses you off, I meant the other one, surely. Talk to everyone lazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
That is not an accurate reading. Am I really this obscure in what I'm writing? *boggle* My point is more that it's systemic to the entertainment industry, and that attacking videogames specifically absolutely misses the point, not to mention being (for numerous reasons) especially resistant to change due to social pressure. It's also that, at least in my circle, it is less common because no one plays the s%%#ty obscure games she cites, which are the more egregious examples. I am, however, saying that laziness and misogyny is exclusive. Saying something is misogynist is not just saying it's sexist--it's saying that women are specifically targeted for hateful acts or speech. It denotes intent. I don't think, at least in the vast majority of the cases she cites, that the sexism is intentional at all; it's the product of laziness and bad writing. Specifically, many of the scenes or games she cites are ones in which the main character must kill the heroin/damsel for some contrived reason, or where she is killed to demonstrate the hero's powerlessness and to motivate him. Those scenarios aren't rife with malice towards womankind, shouting "take that!" by the player, they're simply clueless and lame. In short, calling it misogyny is disingenuous and only dilutes claims of genuine misogyny in media. I think her videos do a good job in pointing out problems with female roles in videogames, but she overreaches on claiming intent on the part of the developers or assuming a certain type of receptiveness by the audience.
Actually, this post was so egregious it deserves a live dissection:
it doesn't make front page, it doesn't become a policy priority, etc.Women's issues usually don't. Whereas men's issues literally never do. For precisely the same reasons: our society has trained us to accept that men have more violent deaths, whether on the job or as a soldier in Iraq You didn't read my post, did you? What I'm saying is that it's the same thing. They have the same root causes and the same types of solutions, so separating the two is not a pardonable offense. Many "mens" issues are women's issues...if you're a woman. Such as women on the front lines in the military. Or the vast unlikelihood of men gaining child custody after a divorce is because our society views women as more nurturing, something modern feminists are fighting against. You're arguing that while women not making as much as men is indeed inconvenient it's because of that darned 1% inflating the male wages, women taking frivolous and unimportant jobs like teaching or nursing, or because they're lazy (and not because they can't get the same hours at work). Wrong and wrong and wrong again. The pay gap issue is much exaggerated and, while a genuine issue, is distinctly an issue of the toxic nature of American corporate culture and (Anklebiter ought to love this) a CLASS issue. No struggle but the class struggle! To the rest, I didn't call nursing or teaching frivolous, YOU just did that. Seeing as I'm still entertaining a future in education, it'd be mighty dumb for me to feel that. No, I'm saying those are professions that are undervalued for entirely different reasons than sex or gender, it just so happens that those are fields women dominate. In my experience, and mind you this is just my experience, but women who work time and are single are often in their late teens or early 20s and still living at home. They don't need 40 hours a week because they're not paying rent. Women routinely live at home longer because, among other things, it's socially acceptable for them to do so whereas if you're a guy in the same age range and don't have your own place you're a loser and undateable. And basically you think it's no big deal and you don't understand why women get upset when you're dismissive of their problems. No, I think that there are genuine big deals that face women. The attacks on reproductive rights being the biggest. If I were to make a list of genuine issues holding back the female population from gender parity with males, that would be at the top of the list. Pay discrepency wouldn't be far behind. The size of the t*!$ in the new DOA game wouldn't even make the list.
Not at all! I've been doing it for decades now. Decades.But I'd like to point out how every one of the male protagonist characters in these bad shootemup games is an outrageous steroid-fueled douchenozzle with less brains than a mollusk. As insulting as women must find it to be forced to see female roles be dealt with the way they are, it's no picnic stepping into the shoes of another Unreal engine supersoldier. Door swings both ways. I just like pointing it out. As long as we're making a laundry list about stuff we'd like to see changed in the games industry... I don't know who in the gaming community was saying anything different because her youtube has disabled accounts, the penny arcade report on her videos was purposely locked from comments before comments were even allowed, and the thread here on the board was locked. There absolutely is a problem with misogyny in the gaming community, but I feel it's more with the community than with the games. I also feel that the parts of the community that have been targeted are not ones any developer has hopes of changing: 14 year olds who act real big when given a microphone. The thing that we tend to forget about the internet jerkwad theorum is that those jerkwads are probably perfectly decent folk who misbehave online because it's an outlet for their own personal frustrations.
Right now the tone in your posts feels openly hostile. I can say nothing to speak to how you feel after reading my pixels. I'm trying to have a dialogue about a topic and being told, by you, that you aren't even willing to respond. To me, that feels hostile. If you actually want to have a discussion, please show, don't tell. I'm not shouting, I'm sharing.
No. That's not her argument, that is the evidence she presents. No one can disagree that there are some weird things in games re: gender representation. Her argument, best I can tell, is that it's purposeful misogyny. She sees female characters being killed off in videogames, ostensibly to add/heighten the emotional impact of the gameplay, and cries "misogyny." I see the same thing and I think "lazy!" The tropes she complains about in videogames aren't close to being unique to the form. It doesn't excuse them, but me saying that is already conceding that they need to be excused. They're lazy shortcuts in storytelling that bad writers use and it should be stopped...for the sake of our collective intelligence which is insulted every time I see the same thing on CSI or a bad action movie! Not because the things she points out are somehow causing or aggravating misogyny. The videogame industry is a very weird and incestuous one anyhow. The creative talent rarely have much actual creative control, and in smaller studios the writer is also the programmer or the sound designer, and gameplay usually comes first. Whether true or not any longer, the perception is that young men play videogames more than young women or older men, and specifically that young men tend to play mindlessly violent games much more, which has the ring of truth to it. Luckily, the videogame industry is also one in upheaval at the moment. The big companies are trying to hold onto their marketshare and I genuinely think that making them realize how much of a demographic female gamers are is enough to make them chase the money by way of less lazy gender stereotypes all around. More Drakes and less Kratos, please!
Cancer researchers don't go out of their way to convince everyone AIDS isn't a problem and merely suggesting it might be makes you a rape apologist.I don't want to have an argument. I'm willing to have a discussion though. What's the difference? Is a discussion when I accept all your premises without question, and an argument when I genuinely disagree?
Cancer researchers don't go out of their way to convince everyone AIDS isn't a problem and merely suggesting it might be makes you a rape apologist. More broadly, I think it's incredibly disingenuous to act as if women's gender issues and men's gender issues are entirely separate topics and never the twain shall meet, when the actual question is about gender roles and social expectations and how those infect the legal system and institutional bias...in either direction. My problem with much of the radical left is the inability to actually debate them. You're not allowed to even question assertions or evidence without being called out as misogynist, racist, etc. Someone will bring up the gender pay gap, and that women make 77 cents on the dollar for every man. Now, if I bring up that 1) much of that is the gap of executive pay, the top 1% or top .1% of earners which has long been male dominated and is less an overall social issue than an issue of corporate culture (while still being terrible) that 2) women tend to, all things being equal, take less risky jobs and/or jobs where they can perform a social good (teachers for example) 3) full time women without children tend to work less than full time men without children, i.e. 36 vs. 40+ hours a week, it makes me a misogynist (or so I've been told). There is a gender pay gap, but if you excise the top 5% or so of earners, and normalize for other factors, it's more like a 5-7% gap. I don't see anything wrong with being honest about things; it's clearly something that's still a problem, but if you present it as it actually is it doesn't make front page, it doesn't become a policy priority, etc.
Abdulraman was an unfortunate casualty but ultimately just one kid. I find that preferable to hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that's just me. Of course, the war on terror is b#!$~*#+ anyway, just comparing evils.
Maybe the scandal is the anti-Bush folks that were foaming at the mouth when he was doing it for calls made from inside the US to numbers outside the US, who are now silent or up in arms defending Obama for continuing to do it and including calls inside to the US to inside the US. I know of no one in this hypothetical category. All liberals are incensed. Jon Stewart and Bill Maher have both been slamming this stuff. I just read a statement on the topic by Russ Feingold. It was top story on huffpo.
Perhaps you didn't notice the thread title.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
