All power to women but sometimes feminism just seems so desperate.
The fuck is that supposed to mean?
I was commenting on the Inc magazine cover depicting an unsuccessful female entrepreneur who specifically modelled herself on a successful male entrepreneur but had to commit fraud in her attempt to pull it off. The cover isn’t neutral (“8 Women who could own the future”) and the irony of none of the other headlines applying to her isn’t lost.
I would say “do you want me to draw you a picture” but there’s one right there in the article. Interesting that two respondents to mg comment f-bombed.
All power to women but sometimes feminism just seems so desperate.
The fuck is that supposed to mean?
I was commenting on the Inc magazine cover depicting an unsuccessful female entrepreneur who specifically modelled herself on a successful male entrepreneur but had to commit fraud in her attempt to pull it off. The cover isn’t neutral (“8 Women who could own the future”) and the irony of none of the other headlines applying to her isn’t lost.
I would say “do you want me to draw you a picture” but there’s one right there in the article. Interesting that two respondents to mg comment f-bombed.
"f-bombed"? Seriously? I'm always amazed at the mentality of people that have a problem using an arrangement of letters to form a word but have no qualms about about making bigoted statements.
You wrote "WTF" in your previous post. Are you that ignorant to think that using initials somehow indemnifies you from the meaning? Are you really going to argue that you didn't mean "what the fuck" when you wrote that? Even if you wrote "what the fudge" the meaning is still the same. Grow the fridge up.
I see the words ‘equality’ and ‘egalitarianism’ there. You’re wrong, both by definition and by history, and this isn’t the thread for this nonsense.
So you see advocacy for “equality” of the sexes in a definition that was coined in the current sense more than half a century before the 19th Amendment was even ratified in the US yet you still see ”equality“ for women as being unfair? How fucking insecure must you be that you’re threatened by women having equal rights? Shameful.
Nobody sees equality as being unfair, unnatural perhaps but civilisation is specifically unnatural. You’ve instantly assumed I &/or TS is anti-equality.
Whilst feminism claims to be pro-equality tactically it’s anything but; it employs real sexism to fight alleged sexism. I believe the house fire should be put out with a water hose, not a flamethrower. This overreach is causing massive collateral damage everywhere, not just inciting fraud in corporate America by keeping up with the Jobs’
Soli said: ...yet you still see ”equality“ for women as being unfair? How fucking insecure must you be that you’re threatened by women having equal rights? Shameful.
I see the words ‘equality’ and ‘egalitarianism’ there. You’re wrong, both by definition and by history, and this isn’t the thread for this nonsense.
So you see advocacy for “equality” of the sexes in a definition that was coined in the current sense more than half a century before the 19th Amendment was even ratified in the US yet you still see ”equality“ for women as being unfair? How fucking insecure must you be that you’re threatened by women having equal rights? Shameful.
Nobody sees equality as being unfair, unnatural perhaps but civilisation is specifically unnatural. You’ve instantly assumed I &/or TS is anti-equality.
Whilst feminism claims to be pro-equality tactically it’s anything but; it employs real sexism to fight alleged sexism. I believe the house fire should be put out with a water hose, not a flamethrower. This overreach is causing massive collateral damage everywhere, not just inciting fraud in corporate America by keeping up with the Jobs
Feminism is equality for all sexes. If one is using inequality as a tactic then that it isn't equality and therefore isn't feminism. That should be clear. If the 19th century French root femme is still an issue for you think about the term scientific method and science in general. If a scientist falsifies data then that is not science. Would you then claim that the scientific method should be discarded because of some bad actors? How about any religion that warps the doctrine to commit atrocities in the name of their god (which is probably all of them)? Do you then deem that the entire religion, all its followers, and everything it stands for is bad? I certainly don't. But we're not taking about something as complex as religion, but a very simple definition.
feminism| ˈfeməˌnizəm | noun the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. [The issue of rights for women first became prominent during the French and American revolutions in the late 18th century. In Britain it was not until the emergence of the suffragette movement in the late 19th century that there was significant political change. A ‘second wave’ of feminism arose in the 1960s, with an emphasis on unity and sisterhood; seminal figures included Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer. A ‘third wave’ was identified in the late 1980s and 1990s, as a reaction against the perceived lack of focus on class and race issues in earlier movements.]
The only argument I can see against feminism is that the word itself is outmoded and a more general term should be used, but how about we worry about the lexicon once equality is actually a reality. In fact, history shows that we don't have to do anything because these terms will naturally fall away on their own. But it's nothing to get upset over just as it shouldn't upset anyone that we still use a floppy disk drive pictogram to indicate Save on computers. That, too, will go away.
I see the words ‘equality’ and ‘egalitarianism’ there. You’re wrong, both by definition and by history, and this isn’t the thread for this nonsense.
So you see advocacy for “equality” of the sexes in a definition that was coined in the current sense more than half a century before the 19th Amendment was even ratified in the US yet you still see ”equality“ for women as being unfair? How fucking insecure must you be that you’re threatened by women having equal rights? Shameful.
Nobody sees equality as being unfair, unnatural perhaps but civilisation is specifically unnatural. You’ve instantly assumed I &/or TS is anti-equality.
Whilst feminism claims to be pro-equality tactically it’s anything but; it employs real sexism to fight alleged sexism. I believe the house fire should be put out with a water hose, not a flamethrower. This overreach is causing massive collateral damage everywhere, not just inciting fraud in corporate America by keeping up with the Jobs
Feminism is equality for all sexes. If one is using inequality as a tactic then that it isn't equality and therefore isn't feminism. That should be clear. If the 19th century French root femme is still an issue for you think about the term scientific method and science in general. If a scientist falsifies data then that is not science. Would you then claim that the scientific method should be discarded because of some bad actors? How about any religion that warps the doctrine to commit atrocities in the name of their god (which is probably all of them)? Do you then deem that the entire religion, all its followers, and everything it stands for is bad? I certainly don't. But we're not taking about something as complex as religion, but a very simple definition.
Your method needs reviewing. From your quote below “the advocacy of women's rights” is one-sided therefore according to you rationale above Feminism can’t be synonymous with equality. This isn’t a bad actor or an exception in any way, it’s a foundational principle. Feminism is sexist, QED.
feminism | ˈfeməˌnizəm | noun the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.
[The issue of rights for women first became prominent during the French and American revolutions in the late 18th century. In Britain it was not until the emergence of the suffragette movement in the late 19th century that there was significant political change. A ‘second wave’ of feminism arose in the 1960s, with an emphasis on unity and sisterhood; seminal figures included Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer. A ‘third wave’ was identified in the late 1980s and 1990s, as a reaction against the perceived lack of focus on class and race issues in earlier movements.]
I see the words ‘equality’ and ‘egalitarianism’ there. You’re wrong, both by definition and by history, and this isn’t the thread for this nonsense.
So you see advocacy for “equality” of the sexes in a definition that was coined in the current sense more than half a century before the 19th Amendment was even ratified in the US yet you still see ”equality“ for women as being unfair? How fucking insecure must you be that you’re threatened by women having equal rights? Shameful.
Nobody sees equality as being unfair, unnatural perhaps but civilisation is specifically unnatural. You’ve instantly assumed I &/or TS is anti-equality.
Whilst feminism claims to be pro-equality tactically it’s anything but; it employs real sexism to fight alleged sexism. I believe the house fire should be put out with a water hose, not a flamethrower. This overreach is causing massive collateral damage everywhere, not just inciting fraud in corporate America by keeping up with the Jobs
Feminism is equality for all sexes. If one is using inequality as a tactic then that it isn't equality and therefore isn't feminism. That should be clear. If the 19th century French root femme is still an issue for you think about the term scientific method and science in general. If a scientist falsifies data then that is not science. Would you then claim that the scientific method should be discarded because of some bad actors? How about any religion that warps the doctrine to commit atrocities in the name of their god (which is probably all of them)? Do you then deem that the entire religion, all its followers, and everything it stands for is bad? I certainly don't. But we're not taking about something as complex as religion, but a very simple definition.
Your method needs reviewing. From your quote below “the advocacy of women's rights” is one-sided therefore according to you rationale above Feminism can’t be synonymous with equality. This isn’t a bad actor or an exception in any way, it’s a foundational principle. Feminism is sexist, QED.
In conclusion you think women fighting for decades for the right to vote and wanting "equality for all sexes" is sexist. Got it. Makes me wonder if you were one of those people posting "repeal the 19th" on social media during the last election, and I'm afraid to ask your feelings on the 15th when you have such pejorative feelings towards women's rights.
I see the words ‘equality’ and ‘egalitarianism’ there. You’re wrong, both by definition and by history, and this isn’t the thread for this nonsense.
So you see advocacy for “equality” of the sexes in a definition that was coined in the current sense more than half a century before the 19th Amendment was even ratified in the US yet you still see ”equality“ for women as being unfair? How fucking insecure must you be that you’re threatened by women having equal rights? Shameful.
Nobody sees equality as being unfair, unnatural perhaps but civilisation is specifically unnatural. You’ve instantly assumed I &/or TS is anti-equality.
Whilst feminism claims to be pro-equality tactically it’s anything but; it employs real sexism to fight alleged sexism. I believe the house fire should be put out with a water hose, not a flamethrower. This overreach is causing massive collateral damage everywhere, not just inciting fraud in corporate America by keeping up with the Jobs
Feminism is equality for all sexes. If one is using inequality as a tactic then that it isn't equality and therefore isn't feminism. That should be clear. If the 19th century French root femme is still an issue for you think about the term scientific method and science in general. If a scientist falsifies data then that is not science. Would you then claim that the scientific method should be discarded because of some bad actors? How about any religion that warps the doctrine to commit atrocities in the name of their god (which is probably all of them)? Do you then deem that the entire religion, all its followers, and everything it stands for is bad? I certainly don't. But we're not taking about something as complex as religion, but a very simple definition.
Your method needs reviewing. From your quote below “the advocacy of women's rights” is one-sided therefore according to you rationale above Feminism can’t be synonymous with equality. This isn’t a bad actor or an exception in any way, it’s a foundational principle. Feminism is sexist, QED.
In conclusion you think women fighting for decades for the right to vote and wanting "equality for all sexes" is sexist. Got it. Makes me wonder if you were one of those people posting "repeal the 19th" on social media during the last election, and I'm afraid to ask your feelings on the 15th when you have such pejorative feelings towards women's rights.
Given I’m not American, not likely. Don’t get me wrong Soli, I have no issue with equality, I’ve employed women & men, different races, religions, sexual orientations. To me any a lack of workplace diversity means poor work culture and weak market strategy. I just don’t believe sexism is the solution to itself, that just keeps the pendulum swinging.
I live in New Zealand so no stranger to women fighting for rights & democracy though I think people should be careful what they wish for; exploitation of imposed cognisant limitations is not the solution to defiance either.
Odd etymology, then. Is “masculism” sexual inequality?
If one is using inequality as a tactic then that it isn't equality and therefore isn't feminism.
I’m reminded of a Dr. Seuss book.
That should be clear. If the 19th century French root femme is still an issue for you think about the term scientific method and science in general. If a scientist falsifies data then that is not science. Would you then claim that the scientific method should be discarded because of some bad actors?
And yet, the etymology of “science” is scientia, which means knowledge. Should it not instead be called the “femellenic method” if your analogy is to actually hold?
But we're not taking about something as complex as religion, but a very simple definition.
All the stranger that you don’t see the disconnect here.
The only argument I can see against feminism is that the word itself is outmoded and a more general term should be used
Yes, such as “equality” or “egalitarianism,” if the goal is truly equality of the sexes.
…how about we worry about the lexicon once equality is actually a reality.
So never, then.
There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. – Friedrich Hayek The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. – Aristotle Equality is related to the direct interests of individuals who are bent on escaping certain inequalities not in their favor and setting up new inequalities that will be in their favor–the latter being their chief concern. – Vilfredo Pareto Democratic nations are so enamored of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. – Alexis De Tocqueville People differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. – Pope Leo XIII Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they will not be equal, and if they are equal, then they are not free. – Alexander Solzhenitsyn
…a floppy disk drive pictogram to indicate Save on computers. That, too, will go away.
We’ll probably have to wait for Windows 10 (or “Windows: The Service” as Microsoft wants to consider it now) to get autosave functionality for that to happen. And since Lion got it in 2011, I suppose Microsoft will roll theirs out sometime around 2025 or later.
Too often feminism has to overlook differences in the genders to succeed.
I think back to 70's when women wanted to be cops and firemen.
Frankly, if were in a street battle I would want the biggest, ugliest, strongest goon I could find on my side. But neither would I want that goon babysitting my kid. If that sounds "sexist" that's fine. I'll take pragmatic reality over ideology every time.
I have known many very capable and productive women in business and in tech. But not one of them was trying to be something that they weren't. Instead, they used their talents to be the best that they could be and, in the process, became valuable & productive members of the team.
In America we guarantee equality of opportunity and treatment but we don't guarantee that people are equal. Some horses are faster than other horses. Deal with it.
But, at the same time, people have different mixes of talents and abilities. Einstein and Picasso were both geniuses but had very different talents -- but both contributed to society. Deal with it.
Throughout my working life I was blessed to be a part of organizations that didn't see color and neither did they see gender. Instead, they saw ability, loyalty, commitment and dedication.
You'd be surprised what the iKnockoff executives do too. I've seen them use Steve's words and phrases. Google does this also. Not even the current Apple CEO who was a best friend of Jobs' tries to be like him.
Well that would be a waste of time, because Tim doesn't have that kind of charisma. The RDF is still on at Apple, but the beam has been pointed inward. Maybe the big new building is amplifying the self-centric love. The top brass still thinks they are making amazing stuff, like the butterfly keyboard, and Animojis, and the AppleWatch, and the HomePod, and the black iMacPro. For a long, long time, I used to line up to buy Apple's latest thing. I just don't feel it anymore.
Odd etymology, then. Is “masculism” sexual inequality?
Masculism would absolutely be an acceptable term if this was some parallel universe built on a matriarchy where men had no rights and the term was coined in the 1800s in a multi-century effort to try to get males to have the same rights as women in society. But, hey, go ahead and be upset that there's a word for women wanting equal rights long before they even had the right to vote, just as I'm sure you whine that it's not fair that there's not a straight pride day or white history month.
Odd etymology, then. Is “masculism” sexual inequality?
Masculism would absolutely be an acceptable term if this was some parallel universe built on a matriarchy where men had no rights and the term was coined in the 1800s in a multi-century effort to try to get males to have the same rights as women in society. But, hey, go ahead and be upset that there's a word for women wanting equal rights long before they even had the right to vote, just as I'm sure you whine that it's not fair that there's not a straight pride day or white history month.
Nailed it.
Straight white guys just hate hearing that straight white male privilege is the default and that’s why there are causes to subvert this and that this is OK.
Handmaid’s Tale portraits their fantasy MAGA utopia perfectly.
Odd etymology, then. Is “masculism” sexual inequality?
Masculism would absolutely be an acceptable term if this was some parallel universe built on a matriarchy where men had no rights and the term was coined in the 1800s in a multi-century effort to try to get males to have the same rights as women in society. But, hey, go ahead and be upset that there's a word for women wanting equal rights long before they even had the right to vote, just as I'm sure you whine that it's not fair that there's not a straight pride day or white history month.
Thanks for refusing to answer my question. Is “masculism” sexual inequality?
But but but but but but PC users tell me that Apple’s only success is MARKETING!
Still! Today! IN TWENTY-EIGHTEEN.
Exactly, as do many of the fanboys here.
Jobs added what he did to an exceptional product. Lose the exceptional product and you just have a dog and pony show (which fools some), and worst case, you have a scam.
Odd etymology, then. Is “masculism” sexual inequality?
Masculism would absolutely be an acceptable term if this was some parallel universe built on a matriarchy where men had no rights and the term was coined in the 1800s in a multi-century effort to try to get males to have the same rights as women in society. But, hey, go ahead and be upset that there's a word for women wanting equal rights long before they even had the right to vote, just as I'm sure you whine that it's not fair that there's not a straight pride day or white history month.
Nailed it.
Straight white guys just hate hearing that straight white male privilege is the default and that’s why there are causes to subvert this and that this is OK.
Handmaid’s Tale portraits their fantasy MAGA utopia perfectly.
And yet I know of no “straight white guys” who want this “fantasy” - perhaps it’s more accurately a victim fantasy which validated the struggle. Like beauty, oppression is mostly in the eye of the beholder.
mcdave said: And yet I know of no “straight white guys” who want this “fantasy” - perhaps it’s more accurately a victim fantasy which validated the struggle. Like beauty, oppression is mostly in the eye of the beholder.
No, it's essentially Marxim applied to other categories, like critical race theory, feminism, LGBT, trans, etc. Us vs them w/ power being the excuse for 'anything goes.' So, if you identify 'straight white male' as the oppressor, then non-straight, non-white, non-male can get away with anything (under this ideology).
But honestly, all of the previous is so far afield from the OP that it deserves its own… well, congressional hearings and executions for sedition against many countries. And as such doesn’t really belong here. Can we all agree to cut it? This time, that is?
Let’s talk specifically about the cult of personality that was ascribed to Elizabeth Holmes. I say ascribed for a reason, because words have definitions. Her rise to fame was not, let’s say, “organic.” At the very least, it can be agreed that her rise to fame was in no way at all like that of Steve Jobs’, despite her claimed mirroring. The questions that arise, then, are probably something like:
What drew her to emulate Jobs in practice and presentation?
Was she genuinely successful in this emulation–not the results, but the simple act thereof?
What drove the media frenzy to label her as “the next Steve Jobs”? Was it simply her self-proclaimed emulation? Did/why did they accept her claims without question?
What about Theranos, as a company, would lend itself to emulation of Steve Jobs’ style?
If nothing about the company would lend itself to said emulation, what caused the belief that the emulation would help? Additionally, if this is the case, why was the emulation not tempered by others’ input?
Were there any conspiratorial motives, of any breadth, in any of the aforementioned parties (media, corporate, or individual)?
These are questions that matter to the thread topic. If we find out, through answers to these and others, that the root of the problem then falls back into “the media,” THEN we can revisit such concepts as cultural marxism, hegelian dialectic, and the definition of words themselves. But until then, let’s try to salvage the thread, because it touches on important topics in Silicon Valley that will be directly related to the next crash thereof. We’re talking Dot Com Bubble-level crash.
I was going to end with an analogy. Something along the lines of “Handwaving such-and-such attributes of the involved parties because the topics they involve are politically charged would be like handwaving [different, somewhat opposing attribute] of [insert other type of scandal in an unrelated field here] for the same reason.” I was going to, but all of the really good examples I can come up with are genuinely politically charged. And I both don’t want to deal in fantasies when we have so much fodder in the real world and don’t want to derail further.
Comments
I would say “do you want me to draw you a picture” but there’s one right there in the article. Interesting that two respondents to mg comment f-bombed.
You wrote "WTF" in your previous post. Are you that ignorant to think that using initials somehow indemnifies you from the meaning? Are you really going to argue that you didn't mean "what the fuck" when you wrote that? Even if you wrote "what the fudge" the meaning is still the same. Grow the fridge up.
Nobody sees equality as being unfair, unnatural perhaps but civilisation is specifically unnatural. You’ve instantly assumed I &/or TS is anti-equality.
Whilst feminism claims to be pro-equality tactically it’s anything but; it employs real sexism to fight alleged sexism. I believe the house fire should be put out with a water hose, not a flamethrower. This overreach is causing massive collateral damage everywhere, not just inciting fraud in corporate America by keeping up with the Jobs’
The only argument I can see against feminism is that the word itself is outmoded and a more general term should be used, but how about we worry about the lexicon once equality is actually a reality. In fact, history shows that we don't have to do anything because these terms will naturally fall away on their own. But it's nothing to get upset over just as it shouldn't upset anyone that we still use a floppy disk drive pictogram to indicate Save on computers. That, too, will go away.
So historically, gender-communism repeatedly fails to work by employing this method - I wonder why?
I live in New Zealand so no stranger to women fighting for rights & democracy though I think people should be careful what they wish for; exploitation of imposed cognisant limitations is not the solution to defiance either.
I’m reminded of a Dr. Seuss book.
And yet, the etymology of “science” is scientia, which means knowledge. Should it not instead be called the “femellenic method” if your analogy is to actually hold?
All the stranger that you don’t see the disconnect here.
Yes, such as “equality” or “egalitarianism,” if the goal is truly equality of the sexes.
So never, then.
There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. – Friedrich Hayek
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. – Aristotle
Equality is related to the direct interests of individuals who are bent on escaping certain inequalities not in their favor and setting up new inequalities that will be in their favor–the latter being their chief concern. – Vilfredo Pareto
Democratic nations are so enamored of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. – Alexis De Tocqueville
People differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. – Pope Leo XIII
Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they will not be equal, and if they are equal, then they are not free. – Alexander Solzhenitsyn
We’ll probably have to wait for Windows 10 (or “Windows: The Service” as Microsoft wants to consider it now) to get autosave functionality for that to happen. And since Lion got it in 2011, I suppose Microsoft will roll theirs out sometime around 2025 or later.
I think back to 70's when women wanted to be cops and firemen.
In America we guarantee equality of opportunity and treatment but we don't guarantee that people are equal. Some horses are faster than other horses. Deal with it.
Straight white guys just hate hearing that straight white male privilege is the default and that’s why there are causes to subvert this and that this is OK.
Handmaid’s Tale portraits their fantasy MAGA utopia perfectly.
Commies sure have it made in the shade until they realize there’s no shade, and also no food.
Didn’t even remotely answer the question. I’ll ask you now. Is “masculism” sexual inequality?
Jobs added what he did to an exceptional product. Lose the exceptional product and you just have a dog and pony show (which fools some), and worst case, you have a scam.
So, if you identify 'straight white male' as the oppressor, then non-straight, non-white, non-male can get away with anything (under this ideology).
Let’s talk specifically about the cult of personality that was ascribed to Elizabeth Holmes. I say ascribed for a reason, because words have definitions. Her rise to fame was not, let’s say, “organic.” At the very least, it can be agreed that her rise to fame was in no way at all like that of Steve Jobs’, despite her claimed mirroring. The questions that arise, then, are probably something like:
- What drew her to emulate Jobs in practice and presentation?
- Was she genuinely successful in this emulation–not the results, but the simple act thereof?
- What drove the media frenzy to label her as “the next Steve Jobs”? Was it simply her self-proclaimed emulation? Did/why did they accept her claims without question?
- What about Theranos, as a company, would lend itself to emulation of Steve Jobs’ style?
- If nothing about the company would lend itself to said emulation, what caused the belief that the emulation would help? Additionally, if this is the case, why was the emulation not tempered by others’ input?
- Were there any conspiratorial motives, of any breadth, in any of the aforementioned parties (media, corporate, or individual)?
These are questions that matter to the thread topic. If we find out, through answers to these and others, that the root of the problem then falls back into “the media,” THEN we can revisit such concepts as cultural marxism, hegelian dialectic, and the definition of words themselves. But until then, let’s try to salvage the thread, because it touches on important topics in Silicon Valley that will be directly related to the next crash thereof. We’re talking Dot Com Bubble-level crash.I was going to end with an analogy. Something along the lines of “Handwaving such-and-such attributes of the involved parties because the topics they involve are politically charged would be like handwaving [different, somewhat opposing attribute] of [insert other type of scandal in an unrelated field here] for the same reason.” I was going to, but all of the really good examples I can come up with are genuinely politically charged. And I both don’t want to deal in fantasies when we have so much fodder in the real world and don’t want to derail further.