Jump to content

In The News – Amid Sexual-Misconduct Scandal, A New Code Of Conduct For Drum Corps


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Sarcasm or not? Scary and sickening if not as sounds like other groups who claim persecution if anyone gets to their level or above

Jim, please restate.  Your syntax is unfocused enough that I can't tell what you're saying here. 

Sorry, it's probably me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, garfield said:

Jim, please restate.  Your syntax is unfocused enough that I can't tell what you're saying here. 

Sorry, it's probably me.

 

Is hockey dad saying the metoo movement is an attack on men and boys. He made it a statement so I can’t tell if serious or not. 

Edited by JimF-LowBari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put this part in a separate post in case it gets deleted. Used to work with a segregationist who would complain when he would see a minority face in a new place. Said it was war on whites as “they” were taking something away like job or house. Just sounds like the war on men and boys line.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Minimaster said:

That’s a gross misrepresentation of my comment.

If girls are given many many many signals to not be leaders when they grow up, then why are there disproportionately more women going to and graduating from higher ed programs(Leaders).

You can’t really say it’s a hiring issue either, because 76% of all HR managers are women.

https://www.visier.com/clarity/gender-divide-part-1/

You can’t just say whatever you want without backing it up.

As a matter of fact, are you concerned that there are 25% of HR manager jobs that should be going to men? That would be equal outcome according to you, right?

What about the 90% of nurses that are women? Do you want a large influx of male nursing students to make sure it’s closer to 50/50?

1. Check back in 2068, repost your words then, and see how the future responds.  2. Times are changing, thank goodness.  3. Because women would be magically impervious to cultural bias? (See my response to garfield forthcoming in a moment.)  4. Sure I can--this isn't a courtroom--but the facts are on my side.  5. Yes and yes.  6. Yes.

In short, nothing you write here undercuts my argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeD said:

Since 76% of teachers are female, are you suggesting that the long-term bias has been promulgated in large part by women?

Hopefully everything continues to change in a positive way, not only here in the US, but also world-wide. Not only for women, but in every sub-group. People should be judged on skill-sets, not their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. 

National Education Statistics

I'm saying that as jobs slowly opened up to women over the course of more than a century, teaching came to be seen as a job of less importance ("Those who can't do, teach", and all that) and thus an acceptable role for women. Since other roles were blocked to them, that's where they went.

It's not right, of course. And there wasn't any sort of grand conspiracy driving it. Just a lot of largely unconscious bias. Everything I've been saying is a mainstream position, and it's a bit bizarre to me to see it taken as such. Although it occurs to me that far more men than women post here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, garfield said:

To your first sentence, you know my standard answer:  Can you tell me where the stock market will close tomorrow?  Next week?  Next year?  Presuming the future is one thing.  Stating your presumption with total conviction in its actuality is a fool's game.  

To your second sentence, sorry, I absolutely disagree.  There are enough stats here on this thread to discredit your clam of unequal opportunity TODAY and in the future.

A. I don't actually make very many predictions (except of the lighthearted "who will win DCI" type). Privately I made two more serious predictions to you to in late January, which we can't talk about here, except that I can note one came true (less than three weeks later) and one did not (but still could at some point in the next six months: watch your back, J.K.). One of the very few previous serious predictions I made publicly in this forum, when some fans here wished to pressure DCI to respond to some Indiana laws, was that almost everyone posting at DCP would, in fifty years' time or less, think that gay marriage was perfectly normal, and that, looking back on the idea of bakers refusing to sell a wedding cake to such a couple, they'd find that to be as ridiculous as we now think of the idea of a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple. Let's check back on that in 2066. (But this isn't the thread to continue that discussion: it's just an example of a prediction.)

B. All of the stats others have presented here have actually supported my position. For centuries, the idea that women, especially a majority of women, could or should work outside the home was seen as wrong. (You know this. To take one tiny cultural example, you know, for instance, that well into your adulthood there was a film called Mr. Mom, a comedy about how a man who lost his job became his family's homemaker and primary caregiver. A film called Mrs. Mom, about a woman who has to give up her job to take care of the kids and house, would never have sold in 1983, right? These biases continued after that, but more and more often were recognized. Just yesterday I saw a 2015 video of a speech given by the new Duchess of Sussex talking about how, at age 11 in 1993, she was bothered enough by a Proctor & Gamble commerical that said "Women all over America are fighting greasy pots and pans" that she wrote asking the company to change the first word to "People"--which they did. You can read more about that here at Business Insider.)

That began to change slowly starting in the 1800s, and more rapidly in the last century, and during that period of adjustment, as it came to be commonplace for women to work outside the home, they were shunted into certain jobs, like teaching and nursing. Accordingly those jobs became dominated by women.

It's not because women were naturally better at teaching and nursing than men, or because women are naturally drawn to those occupations. Just as women are not naturally inferior to men as leaders and are not naturally less interested than men in leadership positions. That just ain't so.

One last example: my female 6th grade history teacher in 1983-84 told her class that for the most part--she admitted that Margaret Thatcher seemed to be an exception--she felt that women just weren't cut out for leadership roles, especially to be heads of government. I was appalled even then (but not outspoken like 11-year-old Meghan Markle a decade later), but her attitude was typical. Think of how many girls heard that message! Again and again and again. And internalized it. As she herself must have done at an earlier age.

Edited by N.E. Brigand
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mingusmonk said:

He guys. Take your MRA chats to someplace more appropriate. Maybe a PM. 

Sorry, just seeing your post now. I will refrain from further (anti-MRA) comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

The new rules are worthless with no justifiable penalty and totally transparent and independent reporting process.

Bringing this point to the fore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I'm saying that as jobs slowly opened up to women over the course of more than a century, teaching came to be seen as a job of less importance ("Those who can't do, teach", and all that) and thus an acceptable role for women. Since other roles were blocked to them, that's where they went.

It's not right, of course. And there wasn't any sort of grand conspiracy driving it. Just a lot of largely unconscious bias. Everything I've been saying is a mainstream position, and it's a bit bizarre to me to see it taken as such. Although it occurs to me that far more men than women post here.

 

I'm not even saying you are wrong in some of your thoughts BUT the part you aren't listening to from those who make many offers to females is that many do not want these jobs. I can say from 1st hand experience besides the many dozens of staff people ( female ) who will not commit to what might be needed, won't take the job period. There have also been a few women asked to head a board ( and said no ) I even know of 2 that were asked to either be director and asst. director, both laughed and said ( exact words ) are you kidding?.....no thank you!

Are there people out there feeling just as you say BIAS toward a woman? Of course but a lot less than ever Women have for quite sometime offered positions and as I have stated in the past IMO they are smart and say no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...