While I agree that the change needs to be a systemic one and absolutely needs to come from all sides of the equation (all humans, regardless of gender), I think it's shortsighted to not attack it...
While I agree that the change needs to be a systemic one and absolutely needs to come from all sides of the equation (all humans, regardless of gender), I think it's shortsighted to not attack it from multiple directions.
The reality is that there are "Chads" and some of them won't care or listen to this article and some of those will be in positions of power above women. To tell these women that they shouldn't use every tool at their disposal to deal with these individuals is a disservice to them.
While this article talks about "creative industry", I can affirmatively state that it applies just as much to IT operations. I've recently been privileged to understand exactly how much I've been...
While this article talks about "creative industry", I can affirmatively state that it applies just as much to IT operations. I've recently been privileged to understand exactly how much I've been punished for:
Not leaning in/being too aggressive/abrasive.
Asking for too little salary/asking for too much salary.
Having too many ideas/not presenting solutions.
Doing too much/doing too little.
Showing too much initiative/showing too little initiative.
Being too verbose/not communicating enough.
Not being collaborative enough/not being independent enough.
While I may be ignorant of the unwritten rules for this stuff, all I know is, the spouse and I started at exactly the same place in IT, we're both managers, and I'm making less than 70% of what he does. F*ck this noise.
This doesn't feel like a Misc topic to me. Surely there is something larger to be said for a Society or Culture section? (Not arguing, just that I struggle to find a place to slot things that seem...
This doesn't feel like a Misc topic to me. Surely there is something larger to be said for a Society or Culture section? (Not arguing, just that I struggle to find a place to slot things that seem as though they ought to be obvious.)
Currently, there is only one way to get any of the curatorial abilities: ask @Deimos. He had a "recruitment" thread about 6 months ago, but I haven't seen anything like this since then. Maybe you...
Currently, there is only one way to get any of the curatorial abilities: ask @Deimos. He had a "recruitment" thread about 6 months ago, but I haven't seen anything like this since then. Maybe you could try sending him a PM.
The social sciences are a separate academic discipline to the humanities. As per this Wikipedia article, the top-level disciplines are: Humanities Social sciences Natural sciences Formal sciences...
The social sciences are a separate academic discipline to the humanities. As per this Wikipedia article, the top-level disciplines are:
Humanities
Social sciences
Natural sciences
Formal sciences
Applied sciences
The social sciences are more data-based than the humanities, which are empirical and interpretative. They are a separate discipline, not a subset of the humanities.
In the absence of a separate group for the social sciences (EDIT: even though I suggested one), I've been collecting these posts under a "socialscience" tag in ~science.
As an academic, that article is complete crap. Wikipedia even disagrees with itself, putting politics in the humanities in its article on humanities, but social science in the one on 'top level'....
As per this Wikipedia article
As an academic, that article is complete crap. Wikipedia even disagrees with itself, putting politics in the humanities in its article on humanities, but social science in the one on 'top level'. Even the idea that it's based on uni/college faculties is wrong, because computer science is usually under engineering - the parts that aren't are just maths, not compsci. How on earth you could take human geo, polsci, archeology, psych, anthro, econ, and history and say they aren't under a single umbrella is crazy, they overlap all over the place.
The split is more commonly considered to be between the natural sciences and the humanities. Then, if you're a positivist, you stick social science into natural sciences with an if. If you aren't (which includes pretty much every social scientist for the last century) you stick it in humanities with a but. You need to look at the meanings of the words empirical (which means evidence based) and interpretative (which any social scientist will tell you their field is).
What I suspect you mean in place of humanities is 'arts' - which is the subset of humanities which includes language and creative media.
Skimming the posts in ~humanities right now they are almost all social science, so the ~s community obviously swings the same way as the academic community. I would suggest a ~humanities.arts, and ~humanities.psych, ~humanities.econ etc as demand requires, OR ~arts and ~socialscience. Putting social science topics into ~science is the worst possible option.
If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you create a topic in ~tildes. Let's not derail this thread even more than we have already. Almost all the comments here are about where the article...
If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you create a topic in ~tildes. Let's not derail this thread even more than we have already. Almost all the comments here are about where the article belongs, rather than about the article itself.
Why is that a problem? Organic conversation about whatever happens to crop up should be perfectly fine whenever it happens, so long as everything stays civil.
Why is that a problem? Organic conversation about whatever happens to crop up should be perfectly fine whenever it happens, so long as everything stays civil.
Part of the issue for me (and it might just be me) is that when offtopic threads go for a while, each offtopic comment makes it seem like there's something new to be read about the original topic....
Part of the issue for me (and it might just be me) is that when offtopic threads go for a while, each offtopic comment makes it seem like there's something new to be read about the original topic. So I click through expecting to read more discussion about the article, only to find a meta discussion that I don't have much interest in. It makes the activity sort and the new comment markings less helpful for finding things I'm interested in reading. (I'm not subscribed to the ~tildes group because I only like reading meta stuff in small doses.)
Perhaps a minor thing, but I thought it was worth mentioning. And of course by commenting I replicate the problem, oops~
"I am tired. I am tired of seeing articles titled How women should negotiate better, Tactics for women to be heard, or Women, lean in. I am tired of Chad, that late-twenties white dude in the...
"I am tired. I am tired of seeing articles titled How women should negotiate better, Tactics for women to be heard, or Women, lean in. I am tired of Chad, that late-twenties white dude in the office, telling women to just try harder. I am tired of women being told to fix sexism."
Hey, stop telling me to stop telling women to fix sexist workplaces! I will tell women whatever I please! I will scream it into their faces, not write a meek little web page about it!
Hey, stop telling me to stop telling women to fix sexist workplaces! I will tell women whatever I please! I will scream it into their faces, not write a meek little web page about it!
While I agree that the change needs to be a systemic one and absolutely needs to come from all sides of the equation (all humans, regardless of gender), I think it's shortsighted to not attack it from multiple directions.
The reality is that there are "Chads" and some of them won't care or listen to this article and some of those will be in positions of power above women. To tell these women that they shouldn't use every tool at their disposal to deal with these individuals is a disservice to them.
While this article talks about "creative industry", I can affirmatively state that it applies just as much to IT operations. I've recently been privileged to understand exactly how much I've been punished for:
While I may be ignorant of the unwritten rules for this stuff, all I know is, the spouse and I started at exactly the same place in IT, we're both managers, and I'm making less than 70% of what he does. F*ck this noise.
I've moved this post from ~humanities to ~misc. Coincidentally, I just finished typing this comment which should explain why I moved it.
This doesn't feel like a Misc topic to me. Surely there is something larger to be said for a Society or Culture section? (Not arguing, just that I struggle to find a place to slot things that seem as though they ought to be obvious.)
That could work. I'd be happy to move this post there if @asteroid wants.
I moved it - ~life is definitely the place where I think work-related topics fit right now (and there have been a lot of them posted there).
Sure. I'm not picky.
Well not about THAT. :-)
How did you do that? I have the tag editing privilege, do I get this one too?
Currently, there is only one way to get any of the curatorial abilities: ask @Deimos. He had a "recruitment" thread about 6 months ago, but I haven't seen anything like this since then. Maybe you could try sending him a PM.
Social science is absolutely part of the humanities, and gender studies is part of social science.
The social sciences are a separate academic discipline to the humanities. As per this Wikipedia article, the top-level disciplines are:
The social sciences are more data-based than the humanities, which are empirical and interpretative. They are a separate discipline, not a subset of the humanities.
In the absence of a separate group for the social sciences (EDIT: even though I suggested one), I've been collecting these posts under a "socialscience" tag in ~science.
As an academic, that article is complete crap. Wikipedia even disagrees with itself, putting politics in the humanities in its article on humanities, but social science in the one on 'top level'. Even the idea that it's based on uni/college faculties is wrong, because computer science is usually under engineering - the parts that aren't are just maths, not compsci. How on earth you could take human geo, polsci, archeology, psych, anthro, econ, and history and say they aren't under a single umbrella is crazy, they overlap all over the place.
The split is more commonly considered to be between the natural sciences and the humanities. Then, if you're a positivist, you stick social science into natural sciences with an if. If you aren't (which includes pretty much every social scientist for the last century) you stick it in humanities with a but. You need to look at the meanings of the words empirical (which means evidence based) and interpretative (which any social scientist will tell you their field is).
What I suspect you mean in place of humanities is 'arts' - which is the subset of humanities which includes language and creative media.
Skimming the posts in ~humanities right now they are almost all social science, so the ~s community obviously swings the same way as the academic community. I would suggest a ~humanities.arts, and ~humanities.psych, ~humanities.econ etc as demand requires, OR ~arts and ~socialscience. Putting social science topics into ~science is the worst possible option.
You should fix the article if you have the time.
If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you create a topic in ~tildes. Let's not derail this thread even more than we have already. Almost all the comments here are about where the article belongs, rather than about the article itself.
Why is that a problem? Organic conversation about whatever happens to crop up should be perfectly fine whenever it happens, so long as everything stays civil.
Part of the issue for me (and it might just be me) is that when offtopic threads go for a while, each offtopic comment makes it seem like there's something new to be read about the original topic. So I click through expecting to read more discussion about the article, only to find a meta discussion that I don't have much interest in. It makes the activity sort and the new comment markings less helpful for finding things I'm interested in reading. (I'm not subscribed to the ~tildes group because I only like reading meta stuff in small doses.)
Perhaps a minor thing, but I thought it was worth mentioning. And of course by commenting I replicate the problem, oops~
If you feel this is an issue, tag this comment thread as noise so it collapses automatically
I have already tagged the comments in this discussion as "Offtopic".
"I am tired. I am tired of seeing articles titled How women should negotiate better, Tactics for women to be heard, or Women, lean in. I am tired of Chad, that late-twenties white dude in the office, telling women to just try harder. I am tired of women being told to fix sexism."
Hey, stop telling me to stop telling women to fix sexist workplaces! I will tell women whatever I please! I will scream it into their faces, not write a meek little web page about it!