Article of the Moment

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postby aceasarsalad » 3 November 2014, 20:14

Image

omg that article again. It lives to haunt me! LOL
One. Haile Selassie I. JAH! Rastafari
User avatar
aceasarsalad
 
Posts: 267
Joined: 23 October 2014, 20:04

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postby Muspelli » 22 January 2015, 21:21

Image
User avatar
Muspelli
 
Posts: 1731
+1s received: 1
Joined: 27 February 2013, 21:04

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postby Brenden » 10 April 2018, 10:55

Incivility at Work: Is 'Queen Bee Syndrome' Getting Worse?
Women report more incivility experiences at work than men, but who is at fault for instigating these mildly deviant behaviors? One UA researcher set out to answer that question, with surprising results.
Participants also were asked to complete trait inventories of their personalities and behaviors to determine if there were any factors that contributed to women being treated uncivilly. The research showed that women who defied gender norms by being more assertive and dominant at work were more likely to be targeted by their female counterparts, compared to women who exhibited fewer of those traits.

The researchers also found that when men acted assertive and warm — in general, not considered the norm for male behavior — they reported lower incivility from their male counterparts. This suggests men actually get a social credit for partially deviating from their gender stereotypes, a benefit that women are not afforded.


Repeat it with me: Women police gender roles.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 6491
+1s received: 1400
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postby PopTart » 10 April 2018, 11:43

Brenden wrote:Incivility at Work: Is 'Queen Bee Syndrome' Getting Worse?
Women report more incivility experiences at work than men, but who is at fault for instigating these mildly deviant behaviors? One UA researcher set out to answer that question, with surprising results.
Participants also were asked to complete trait inventories of their personalities and behaviors to determine if there were any factors that contributed to women being treated uncivilly. The research showed that women who defied gender norms by being more assertive and dominant at work were more likely to be targeted by their female counterparts, compared to women who exhibited fewer of those traits.

The researchers also found that when men acted assertive and warm — in general, not considered the norm for male behavior — they reported lower incivility from their male counterparts. This suggests men actually get a social credit for partially deviating from their gender stereotypes, a benefit that women are not afforded.


Repeat it with me: Women police gender roles.

This doesn't surprise me, I listened to a conversation at the coffee shop the other day, betweena group of women, one of whom expressed that she wanted to quit work and be a stay at home wife and mother when her baby was born. The other women had nothing kind to say on the matter and honestly, were brutally judgemental and horrible towards her, because, as they put it, she was re-inforcing a negative sterotype of women as domsticated house wives, a choice they felt was invalid and didn't support the narrative of women being empowered and equal or better than men (one woman actually stated her belief that this was true) They called her names and pretty much bullied her.

The irony being, that true feminists, who went on marches and burned bra's to give women the right to choose their direction in life, would likely be appaled to hear that other women now dictate what choices other women make with that hard won liberty.

I'd commend the woman if she stuck to her desire to be a stay at home mum, regardless of what her peers said. It is the right to make ones own choices that women of hte past fought for, modern day feminists believe that women, all women, should make the same choices they would and any other is invalid or unacceptable :confused: I've watched women at work pour hatred on other women who dare to succeed or have better figures or make choices they wouldn't or couldn't, it can often come out of nowhere and it puts to shame the same kind of sentiment some men feel towards other men or even women.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 2516
+1s received: 2114
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postby Mod » 25 June 2018, 11:45

Stop Trying to Sell the Humanities
Arguments that they’re useful are wrong, anti-humanistic, and sure to backfire


Extremely long link to dodge a paywall.

Now I'd say that this article buries it's major points but two things stand out.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but there is no generalizable benefit to having led a life centered on great texts. It is sometimes thought that those whose careers are spent engaging with beautiful and stringent works of literature and philosophy will become, perhaps by osmosis, better persons than they otherwise would have been. Anyone who believes that hasn’t spent much time in English and philosophy departments.


A less suspect version of the "democracy needs us" argument involves the claim that students who spend four years engaging with complex, nuanced texts will emerge as potentially better citizens than those who have not had that experience. This is really the same specious argument, made less obviously silly by the fact that it is students and not arrogant faculty members who are at its center. But good citizenship and the knowledge required both to achieve and implement it are not taught exclusively by colleges and universities; those who end their formal education at the 12th grade can still manage to acquire and act on an understanding of civic duty. Moreover, and this is the central point, good citizenship is an occasional byproduct of what happens in a college classroom; it is not — or should not be — the chief aim of those who preside over that classroom, and it is at least curious to defend an enterprise by pointing to one of its unintentional effects.

So is there anything left once the justifications I have surveyed prove to be at best partial and at worse delusional? Well, what’s left is the position articulated by Oakeshott, a position I have always held, a position Small names the "intrinsic value" or "for its own sake" position. This position has the great advantage not of providing a justification but of making a virtue of the unavailability of one. Justification is always a mug’s game, for it involves a surrender to some measure or criterion external to the humanities. The person or persons who ask us as academic humanists to justify what we do is asking us to justify what we do in his terms, not ours. Once we pick up that challenge, we have lost the game, because we are playing on the other guy’s court, where all the advantage and all of the relevant arguments and standards of evidence are his. The justification of the humanities is not only an impossible task but an unworthy one, because to engage in it is to acknowledge, if only implicitly, that the humanities cannot stand on their own and do not on their own have an independent value. Of course the assertion of an independent value and the refusal to attach that value to any external good bring us back to the public-relations question: How are we going to sell this? The answer is. again, that we can’t.
Money can't buy happiness; but we'll sell it to you anyway.
Mod
 
Posts: 3157
+1s received: 149
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:26

Re: Article of the Moment

Unread postby René » 10 April 2019, 20:47

NewsThump wrote:Scientists release first ever image of Brexit

A clear-ish image of Brexit has been captured for the first time – and the massive shit storm, measuring 40 billion km across (three million times bigger than Earth), has been described by scientists as “a monster”.

The picture shows a halo of hot air and lost jobs and traces the outline of a massive financial black hole.

Brexit itself – a toxic hell from which neither truth nor the Conservative party can escape – is itself, unseeable. But the newly released picture at least takes us to its insane threshold for the first time, showing the cosmic cliff edge beyond which all known political, economic and social rules break down.

Said professor Simon Williams: “Brexit is one the most mysterious objects in the known universe. We have now seen what we thought was unthinkable. And frankly, I am now crapping myself.”

The picture gives us the first direct look at Brexit’s ‘accretion disk’ – a fuzzy doughnut-shaped ring of gas and crap from the ERG that “feeds” the lurking monster.

At Brexit’s event horizon, light bends in a perfect loop, meaning if you stood there you would literally be able to see the back of your head – and the back of the whole country.

Time is also said to move differently around it, which may explain why so many Brexiters are fixated on a war that ended over seventy years ago. To them, it might seem like only yesterday.

When asked why the image of Brexit looked so fuzzy, Professor Williams said: “I’m baffled frankly. It’s not what we were told to expect at all.”
ImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 4464
+1s received: 1010
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 7 guests