BruceVC

My company is 60% women (most are programmers or in marketing). I didn't notice any difference in how everyone is treated or paid or anything. Heck, half the women in my company have a better salary than me. As to how you are percieved. Various studies have shown that women are far more easily offended than men. they are quicker to take offense and generally have a thinner skin. Which is why as more women come to the internet and join social media, they start feeling as if people are unnecessarily crucial, condesending or whatever because they are women. Nah. It's just that women really haven't gotten used to being treated exactly like men (and many don't want to, despite all the cries for equality). This is a good example where in your experience you don't see any gender bias in your workplace. Of course this will vary but your feedback is important when we look at the overall degree of how pervasive gender bias is or isn't. At which point does gender bias becomes justified, do we accept that both gender are equal despite clear cultural and biological differences? and why do we assume bias when it could be a bad workplace that bears down on both men and women? If women have it worse in such workplace then it should be able to be measured and demonstrated, yet all I've seen are confessionals and anecdotes from a personal perspective that could be eschewed by perspective. For all we know there is a man blending into the background that has had it ten times worse, while these women speak about their tribulations. It just seems to me that exposure to these issues will just becomes self reinforcing as women become convinced that they are being harassed or exploited over what could just be the workplace culture. I question the necessity of making this a gendered issue when harassment and abuse on the workplace are not. These issues are distorted by politics and political correctness which bring a whole other set of dynamics and problems to them. It becomes hard or near impossible to resolve them in a fair manner or without any backlash. You have raised some thought provoking points. How do we know that gender bias exists in the workplace? Well IMO it definitely doesn't exist in all workplaces and I firmly believe that most corporations are committed to addressing any perceptions or institutionalized cases of gender bias But if we want to have this discussion in a reasonable way we can't say " gender bias doesn't exist ". The question I would think is how prevalent or real it really is? For example as mentioned by others maybe mainstream large corporations are just harsh places where personal feelings don't matter and maybe people are over sensitive around how they are treated. For example when I went on this training in the UK at the end of every session there were 120 of us in a room and we were encouraged to ask questions to the developers. It was generally the same people, myself and 6-8 others, who asked questions in the public forum. There were maybe 8-10 ladies in the room and not once did they ask questions but neither did the majority of men. So I fail to see how this is an example of how women are being marginalised because in this case most people were happy with other people asking questions and raising complaints around the functionality of the product But if we take that link I provided there are clear cases of women raising issues or suggestions and their comments being dismissed or seen in a critical light instead of being constructive. So I would also argue that this type of gender bias does still exist in business. Personally I haven't been exposed to it, except for my work in the Middle East but thats a symptom of the culture and religious dogma, but thats not to say I don't believe it exists. And as for self-enforcing, maybe. But I would like to think that people would raise concerns on real personal exposure to gender bias and not on others peoples views. So for example lady x working at company y is not going to say she feels she is being treated unfairly just because of her gender unless she feels there is real evidence of this ?

Don't confuse someone who knows what they are talking about with a know-it-all. There's plenty I don't know. Unlike many others though, I generally don't converse or opine about things I don't know (on rare occasion I will make this mistake, but if I do, I'll openly acknowledge it). Rather, I listen (or read), and/or go research whatever it is if it's something I think is worthy of spending time learning about (note this doesn't mean just reading a wiki entry, which seems to be the extent what oh so many consider research around here). Of the things I do know about, I tend to know more than most as I generally spend a lot more time than most learning about whatever. There is no persona here. I don't ever pretend to be someone or something I am not, unless the very purpose of the conversation is to pretend. While it's hard to know for certain with any given individual you meet on an internet forum, I like to think that most of the people here are not as deluded as Gromnir (the only person in my history of interwebbing that I've ever found cause enough to set to ignore). If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't spend time on this forum. Vals both you and Gromnir offer good insights on topics. My advice is don't ignore\block his comments because he often has pertinent things to say, that doesn't mean you have to agree with him. So you may be denying yourself an interesting and valid perspective if you ignore\block his views?

My company is 60% women (most are programmers or in marketing). I didn't notice any difference in how everyone is treated or paid or anything. Heck, half the women in my company have a better salary than me. As to how you are percieved. Various studies have shown that women are far more easily offended than men. they are quicker to take offense and generally have a thinner skin. Which is why as more women come to the internet and join social media, they start feeling as if people are unnecessarily crucial, condesending or whatever because they are women. Nah. It's just that women really haven't gotten used to being treated exactly like men (and many don't want to, despite all the cries for equality). This is a good example where in your experience you don't see any gender bias in your workplace. Of course this will vary but your feedback is important when we look at the overall degree of how pervasive gender bias is or isn't.

I posted that link to my family and friends to get their feedback, my dad responded. He made some good points, see below "I agree with the argument – that there is a degree of gender bias. I think it stems from the fact that since humans evolved the world has been organised by men to cope with male dynamics – not just physically but mentally. I’m actually surprised that there are no books on the subject. Men originally set up the social systems to cope with male needs and wants, understandably in a time when physical survival was everything, and as society evolved they set up business systems following the same lines. And I also think that, fundamentally, men achieve their goals by fulfilling objectives whilst women achieve their goals through relationship building. So, I can understand women’s frustration. But I often think they approach equality the wrong way; they do it within the male paradigm instead of through a female paradigm. Easier said that done I suppose"

Men are competitive and that drives them to be aggressive against each other and that drives many industries. Unless you're capable of directing aggression and beating someone on an interpersonal level you're not going to do well in a competitive environment. It seems that the women on your article chose to submit rather than to challenge and fight, and now they passive aggressively vent their failure to excel. Yes, when you don't speak up for yourself because you're afraid of the backlash that is your failure. But as usual, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the roles were reversed. Does feminism gets tired of coddling women and telling them all their failings are men's fault? Interesting points raised, yes I agree men tend to be more aggressive in a competitive environment and that probably applies to how we treat other men as well. But I wonder if there is an additional bias around how we can treat women in the workplace? Women tend to be more conciliatory so this may work against them in certain environments But I don't want to bring the feminists element into this discussion, lets keep focus on just how women are perceived to be treated in the workplace. And there is no judgement here, if for example in your experience men and women are given the same "airtime " in the workplace then I want to hear about it In my experience whenever we have large meetings where we have to ask questions its generally the men who provide the most feedback in the public arena, and its normally the same people, but this just may be about the fact some people don't mind asking questions in a public space. So in other words there are also some men who never ask questions or add new ideas because they prefer to give ideas through emails or one on one meetings?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/speaking-while-female.html?_r=0 Guys here is a good read that highlights the gender bias at many companies and how women are not allowed the same time to speak as men or are not given the same respect or recognition when it comes to ideas and creativity. I suppose we should all ask ourselves some important questions, how are you personally with women at your work? Do you see them and their contribution in the same way as men, sometimes we subconsciously may be a little dismissive? Also how are you with any female acquaintances in your life, so for example your mom, sister, g-friend, wife or any other women. Do you consider their feedback in the same way as for example a male friend may give you advice I tend to talk a lot and like to say my piece so I have been accused of being a little condescending at times by my lady friends. So its something I personally feel the need to work on but I do like to think I have a good relationship with all the women in my life?

Thats some impressive commitment my friend, well played

This is an relevant post Gromnir but I am concerned with your comment " we bet they lie all the time", do you really believe that or are you just being diplomatic? yeah, we bet they do lie all the time, but is largely petty and irrelevant stuff that they is most frequent gonna lie about. some journalist says he saw "bodies" floating in the water outside the hotel. lie? probably. he knows bodies is floating around all over new orleans. at night he happens to see something float by in the shallow flooding in the french quarter where his hotel is at. how does he know it is a body? did he check? he don't know for certain it is a body, but the detail make his story better, and it could possibly have been a body. is a lie, but a small one and one that ain't gonna get him in trouble. *shrug* is not the story that is gonna be fabricated, but stuff such as williams claims that he could personally see dead bodies from his hotel in new orleans? how many reporters is lax 'bout checking their sources? these guys is under great pressure to get news out First. so, they get a story that sounds dramatic and they do what checking they can in the time they got and they get story on internet or on tv asap. is a lie to present a story as factual when all you got is crappy eye-witness account from an admitted biased israeli soldier or hamas member? probable. all the time? yeah, but not in the way you is worried 'bout? HA! Good Fun! That makes perfect sense, good post

This is an relevant post Gromnir but I am concerned with your comment " we bet they lie all the time", do you really believe that or are you just being diplomatic? Have you ever watched the The Newsroom on HBO? Now before people say " thats just a TV series, you can't believe thats accurate ", its based on how a real newsroom operates and the producer spent time in a newsroom getting real exposure. Anyway that is exactly how I imagine a media house operates. Highly intelligent people who have a real desire to break the news and keep people informed. But the veracity of stories is important and so is the importance of journalistic integrity. Do cover ups happen...sure, do reporters sometimes lie .....yes they do. But end of the day they try to give the public stories that are real and breaking news that is confirmed by multiple sources. And they don't lie all the time, I would say mendaciousness is the exception.. not the norm

And just like the U.S the state that "sponsors" this propaganda is commanded by and serves the interests of its own ruling oligarchy. And just like the U.S the state that "sponsors" this propaganda is commanded by and serves the interests of its own ruling oligarchy. This is my view as well. They are bought and paid for. I wouldn't trust them much (if any) more than state media. I really like both of you because we do agree on many things and both of you have taught me things but you can't seriously be saying that you think the objectivity of the RT is the same as CNN or Sky or AL-Jazeera.....or any other Western media house ? I don't think you guys understand just how restrictive life is in Russia under Putins new order...and RT is the mouthpiece of his ideological crusade. Its much more biased than any other media house...you must realize this ?

: lol: Seriously that must be one of the most funniest and brilliant interviews I have ever seen, epic win He really put those crossfire guys on the spot, you can see how annoyed they got...especially the younger one Was he ever invited on crossfire again..was he ever friends again with those 2 guys?

Yeah the arrival of PoE is imminent, its been an amazing rollercoaster ride being part of the KS and seeing the progress. I'm confident that the game will deliver

It's a bit like the old idea of letter of the law and spirit of the law (or business statistics, which may an even better allegory). You can have facts represented "creatively" to further an agenda. It's entirely possible that a piece of fact gets out from some area and all news agencies jump at it, reporting it in each their own way, confirming their own bias. Hypothetical example, Ukraine: Ukrainian leaders claim Russian troops are operating in the east. Russians deny russian troops are operating in those areas. Most likely scenario, Russian troops have been encouraged to "volunteer", leaving their official trappings behind and support the rebels where they. Both sides are right, none of the are lying. The full truth just being something that neither side has told, because both sides have an interest in also pursuing the media/PR war. Most news media, I would expect to act in the same way. They may have access to facts, but sometimes how those facts gets delivered and in what context can make it a completely different story. Honestly? None. I read BBC for general coverage, Al Jazeera to get a second opinion, CNN for the "Poular Science Magazine" approach to the news and on rare occasion Fox News if I'm bored and need a good laugh. The trick in my opinion is to know what the presenters bias is, then see if you can filter out the noise. Even better when getting alternate versions of a story and see where they overlap/differ. Thats a good example about Ukraine but I do feel that Russia has been extremely disingenuous and cavalier around the truth about their active involvement in Ukraine. What makes it worst in regards to media houses is that they control, not influence, the narrative of RT. So even though Western media houses may not always present a story as accurately as it should be presented they are not as selective as RT in portrayal of the facts and what is really going on. And there are large numbers of people who only have RT as a reference, they don't have access to other sources

This is a reasonable post about the integrity of media houses The one thing that people seem to ignore or not to be aware of is that there has a huge push in almost all media houses to make news more interactive and multi dimensional . The days of the classic news presenter telling us the news are only part of the spectrum when it comes to how stories get told. Nowadays you have guests and live interviews with people on the ground and then you get panels of people who represent different angles of the news. Shows like Dateline London on BBC and the superlative Fareed Zakaria show on CNN are examples of how media houses are changing with how they convey information

Gorthfucius !!!! It worries when you represent the soothsayer of doom and gloom around the integrity of media houses Two questions What should concern all of us are not the board of directors that control the various media houses but rather can media houses present us with objective and accurate news stories. If CNN, Sky, Al-Jazeera and BBC all have the same story, and they often do, does this not mean that the story is credible ? If you don't believe media houses can be trusted who do you personally trust for accurate news stories?

Yes he is actually He has a show called Larry King Now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_King_Now And RT broadcasts his show, I have never watched it so I'm not sure how good it is

And Jon Stewart Vals, are you sad to see him going?

Sure, I'm not suggesting that Western Media is perfect but I am trying to raise the point that most Western media houses are independent of governments and do try to present news in an objective way. That does not mean there aren't ideological loyalties, like Fox News and there support for the Republicans. But we constantly hear accusations around how all Western media houses are biased and no worse than RT. In other words they cannot be trusted, I obviously don't support this view. The fact that Williams was suspended confirms this and I don't believe its just because the story couldn't be swept under the rug. I believe its because he mislead the viewing public in several cases and NBC needed to take punitive steps

Thats cool, I like it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/jon-stewart-leaving-daily-show-quits_n_6656996.html So.....its a sad day. Jon Stewart is leaving the Daily Show after 15 years of providing us with hilarious, accurate and sobering news updates presented through parody . I think the guys is a legend and will be sorely missed Then we have the opposite side of the coin where Brian Williams is being suspended for 6 months without pay for misrepresenting certain news articles from his personal coverage in various military events like Iraq http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nbc-news-anchor-brian-williams-suspended-6-months-without-pay/ But why the Williams story is significant is it shows us the that Western media does indeed regulate itself and is concerned with the veracity of its stories and the integrity of its news presenters. Despite what some people on these forums will tell us where they compare Western Media with the propaganda of RT which is state sponsored

The game does sound compelling on a number of levels, I would like to see what people think about it after playing it for 20 + hours If its still enjoyable after that then its well worth the money

You right, that could have worked. Her light ball could have in fact reversed the Vampirism in Bill. That would have been a better ending because they both would have ended up living there lives as human but been together

Why does this become a value judgement? Do you criticize people if they don't cry enough at funerals? Wow, talk about a strawman. I am not talking about how people should behave or show emotion at funerals. No, you aren't. But you are telling people how they should behavie and show emotion (because you complained they didn't show enough emotion to a story you felt they should be emotional about. I'd argue you can't expect people to show empathy the same way you (or I) do. I'll take a quote from the Doctor Who, "The Tenth Planet" here: Polly: But don't you care? Krail: Care? No, why should I care? Polly: Because they're people and they're going to die! Krail: I do not understand you, there are people dying all over your world, yet you do not care about them. This dialogue is actually acutely aware of human nature, and that is that we can't really undersand the scope of very large numbers. Polly represents human compassion - the desire to help the hurt that you know of while the Cyberman correctly points out that as you help that one person there are dozens more in the same situation. The truth of this ladies situation is that it isn't unique but while I read that article there were other people being bullied. And not by just by random people, but by peers, by collegues, by parents or children. I empathise, but there's only so many fights one person can fight at a time. (a) because it is always selective (b) because this thread is about Gamergate and anti-Gamergate and not the larger problem of non-Gamergate related bullying. Which is enormous, particularly with anonymous, disposable identities on the internet. © because the anti-Gamergate group seems to condemn harrasment by Gamergaters but support harrasment of Gamergaters It may be to the larger issue of cyberbullying. It seems relatively unrelated to Gamergate, however, and you made no effort to make a connection. Are you saying the #NotYourShield guy who lost his job because people harrassed his work after he was doxxed and an organized harrassment campaign was created should forgive those who got him fired? Are you saying that, say, Anita Sarkeesian and Briana Wu should forgive the people who harrassed them rather than continuing to use this harrassment as a way to tar anyone who disagrees with them by lumping them into the same group? Are you saying that anti-Gamergaters and Gamergaters should forgive each other for the harrassment that people who may not even be affiliated with their movements have done? Should Gamers everywhere forgive those who lept to say they were worse than ISIS and needed to all die (or worse be killed actively)? I tried to add some details about a place I went to school (particularly, some of the famous people who went there before, during and after I was there) but because I don't have a way to refrence it, its not credible. But if I did an internet article "The Famous People Who Went to [school]" then I could quote that as a source in the wikipedia article. 'Tis silly. Amentep thanks for the detailed response, you have raised some good points as usual. But we will have to agree to disagree on several things. But I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion that clearly isn't important to most people. So I will just leave you with the last word. Until our debate then

Yeah it did seem like a "quick end " to the various characters stories in the last season, I suppose they just wanted to show that some characters did indeed end up having a good life without explaining. Personally I wanted Sookie to end up being a Vampire and marrying Bill and living happily ever after..but I guess it wasn't meant to be

I loved True Blood, its use to be my favorite series of all time but I think the overall quality of the series got less impressive as it went on. I still enjoyed it though, I want to buy the whole series as a collectors item I don't think I have ever seen a sadder moment from a TV series when Godric killed himself, very emotional. The reasons he wanted to die and Eric begging him not to end his life, very evocative