And The Men What?

Reading this piece on Indian dating (marriage) sites I found the following:

What those factors are, exactly, has changed as the country has, but the crux of the matter remains constant: if you’re an Indian woman, it’s statistically likely that your parents will choose the man with whom you spend the rest of your life.

Think about that statement there.

Done?

See the problem?

No?

OK. Marriage is a union of two (or more) persons. So if in India a marriage is arranged then not only is the Indian woman going to spend the rest of her life with a man that was arranged for her, but HE is going to spend the rest of his life with her.

Since that is the case why focus on the "Indian woman" rather than the arranged couple? Oh right, no need to consider what men are thinking or doing because all they are doing is oppressing.

Of course then there is the color matter.

Sure, I’d have my points of appeal, namely in the sections reserved for Education (Bachelor’s) and Complexion (Very Fair).

But we'll leave that for another blog and another blog entry.

Lack of female leadership in Silicon Valley “just as bad” as Wall Street (?)

Question for Salon.com: Is it possible for them to post a piece about women that does not include sexist and unsupported commentary about men?

Take the commentary found in this piece from Salon:

Twitter Inc.’s lack of women on its board is “a joke,” showing that Silicon Valley is no better than Wall Street when it comes to female representation, said Sallie Krawcheck, a former executive at Bank of America Corp.

A "joke" to whom? Why? Oh because there are no women on the board. Well there are no black people either. Will Salon allot space for someone to write about that too? Anyway. Why is it such a joke? Read on.

Twitter, the microblogging site that raised $2.09 billion in a initial public offering this month, has an all-male, seven- member board.

Does the above sound like "a joke" to you? a company is making 2.09 billion. Offers a free service that is used worldwide. That's a joke?

Twitter has said it’s in discussions to diversify its board.

Why? It just gathered 2.09 billion dollars as is. Why should it do anything different? No, really? WHY? And if it is a matter of "representation" then I think we should force Twitter to hire black and Hispanic board members, Well I don't know about the latter, but I know about the former. But here's the sexist kicker:

Women think differently than men and “can see problems they don’t see,” said Browner, who was an adviser to President Barack Obama and administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 1993 to 2001.

Really? Women, by virtue of having ovaries and titties "can see problems they [men] don't see." No really. That's some sexist shit. Don't see it. Well let's just change up the sentence:

"Men think differently from women and "can see problems they don't see."

Do you even THINK such a statement would be tolerated? How about this:

"Whites think differently than blacks and "can see problems they don't see".

No really. Do you even THINK such a sentence would see the light of day in Salon? Of course not but you can get a woman to make a blatantly sexist comment and it goes unchallenged by anyone on the editorial staff. How the fuck does this happen? Back to Twitter though.

I repeat. Twitter had an IPO that netted 2.09 billion bucks. Exactly WHAT problems does Twitter need to see that the board isn't seeing that this woman knows about? It seems to me that the board of Twitter is doing a bang up job.

Here's how you get onto a board or become CEO: Start your own business. Create your own product and work damn hard. Then instead of attempting to shame people into bringing you on board, people will come to you. Take it from the black guy, people HATE when they are forced to deal with you because of some physical attribute rather than because your fucking good at what you do.

So back to the question:

Can Salon.com write an article about women in [enter business here] that does not include sexist comments about men or at least challenges them when they appear in quoted material?

Microsoft Publishes Sexist Form Letter To Help Dudes Convince Women To Let Them Buy An Xbox One

So Alex Wilhelm (among others I suppose) is upset at Microsoft's letter than men can give to their alleged female partner in order to get them to agree to an XBox One purchase. Among the sexist things listed by the author:

1) Women don't own consoles.

2) It's Hetero-normative. (and all this time you thought the majority of humans, as in the vast majority are heterosexual and that heterosexuality is how the species [naturally] reproduces).

3) Women are the only ones with families they want to talk to.

But what the author fails to notice, how I do not know, is the very idea that a grown ass man has to ask ANYONE for permission to spend his money as he see's fit.

That's called Misandry. Thank you very much. And I find that quite offensive.

Note to Microsoft and Alex Wilhelm. I'm a grown ass man. If I want an XBox One (or any other item for that matter) I will simply purchase it and bring it home. I will consider its impact on the home I share with my wife/girlfriend, but she doesn't get veto power over the use of my money because THAT is sexist.

Thank you.

Lesson From NY Police Officer Beatdown

1) I have a hard time believing that a NYPD sergeant did not know the cardinal rule of conflict: Never turn your back on someone menacing you. Seriously folks: Do not turn your back on someone who is threatening you.

2) Why does the camera man think the entire event is funny? And that whole "World Star" comment? Yeah we know what this is about. You wanna know why there is so much violent crime in black communities (even though the perp here was not black)? It is because too many of us think the violence is funny until we (or someone we care about) are the victims. That's why the camera man shouted "World Star" because the world star audience will undoubtedly find it highly entertaining.

Sexism [again] At 60 Minutes

So there I was enjoying a 60 minutes piece on Lamborghinis I was accosted by some sexist commentary that went unchallenged.

Say's a floor manager as to why the coach building is all men and the interior workers are all women:

I can tell you this. We really need women on material because the precision that the women have, unfortunately we ah as men we don't have....not the precision tha [can't make out] to create a masterpiece like our interiors

No seriously. He said that.

Never mind that right before that piece of shit was said, there was narration and video of men putting together pieces of the vehicles with exacting standards (according to the narration). Placing and aligning glass. torquing bolts and nuts to standards that anyone who works on cars knows is important. Why the hell would this man insult these workers by saying they lacked "precision"?

I don't know Lambo's history but I wonder how long they have been making cars with male interior makers before women came in? And if there was such a time, are they saying that work was inferior (taking into account changes in tech)?

How about this: Since Lambo does not use robotics to make cars and many of the parts are heavy, it makes sense that the men, who are generally stronger than women, do the heavy work and the women do the light work. Why not just say that? It's the most likely truth and it doesn't disrespect either sex. Each according to their ability.

Think about it. If the women were so superior in their "precision" wouldn't the manager want them doing both the interior and exterior? Who volunteers to put sloppy workers on the line when one could have better, more precise workers on it?

So yet another example of sexism directed against men that gets the media pass and a chuckle.

The Dangers of Being To “Informed” To See

On Oct 10, Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry penned a piece in the NY Times Opinionator in regards to the Dangers of Pseudosience in which they took a hard swipe at Chinese traditional medicine:

Asma’s example of Chinese medicine’s claims about the existence of “Qi” energy, channeled through the human body by way of “meridians,” though, is a different matter. This sounds scientific, because it uses arcane jargon that gives the impression of articulating explanatory principles. But there is no way to test the existence of Qi and associated meridians, or to establish a viable research program based on those concepts, for the simple reason that talk of Qi and meridians only looks substantive, but it isn’t even in the ballpark of an empirically verifiable theory.

In terms of empirical results, there are strong indications that acupuncture is effective for reducing chronic pain and nausea, but sham therapy, where needles are applied at random places, or are not even pierced through the skin, turn out to be equally effective (see for instance this recent study on the effect of acupuncture on post-chemotherapy chronic fatigue), thus seriously undermining talk of meridians and Qi lines. In other words, the notion of Qi only mimics scientific notions such as enzyme actions on lipid compounds. This is a standard modus operandi of pseudoscience: it adopts the external trappings of science, but without the substance.

While I am by no means even close to a professional amateur in the concepts of Qi, I find the authors of this piece quite incorrect in their discussion of it. So let me explain why Qi is in fact scientific and can in fact be tested.

In physics we know that whenever a charge travels down a wire (or other conductor) a magnetic field results.

Now out nerve cells operate in a similar fashion through a chemical process way to long to discuss here without losing a lot of people. Nerve impulses travel along the axon via a process called the Sodium Potassium pump which via an exchange of ions keeps a voltage gradient in an axon. If course where there are moving currents there are changes in magnetic fields. Which definitely means there is energy moving throughout the body and that energy can be “felt”. The science proves it.

Furthermore when discussing Qi and the energy centers of the body, one will note that the basic Chakras happen to be points in the body where there are a lot of nerves. The groin, abdomen. Head, spine, etc. We already know that one can put a device on someone's head to “read” the changes in EM radiation coming from the brain as people think. How is this not a confirmation of Qi? How would knowing that we can “read” the energy being given off by the brain would we not think that the rest of the body also has “tell tale” signals?

In the martial art of Wing Chun, practitioners are taught to develop sensitivity. When we come into contact with an opponent we feel for the slightest change in movement, muscle tension, etc. that for most people go unnoticed. How is it so unfathomable that there are people who have trained to become especially tuned to the various energies that are emanating from the human body?

Lets discuss the merits of acupuncture or pressure. We already know that if we knock someone in the knee we can elicit a reflex action. We also know that if we block a nerve from being able to send a message we can prevent that same reflex action. So then, how is it that we can call acupuncture pseudoscience, simply because a placebo effect can be seen when random points are used?

That people show, or believe they have improved symptoms simply because they have undergone some pin pricking that they believe in is no different from the mental effects of wearing a new outfit for a marathon or wearing lucky socks. It is also no different than a person who responds to a phobia. There is no actual threat yet the person still reacts physiologically to the stimulus as though there was. The belief in the effectiveness of a treatment is, in non-western cultures a part of the healing process. In Chinese medicine in particular a relaxed body (and mind) is part of the process. If one's mind is not relaxed, then it is impossible to control and manipulate Qi (Chi)

I think the good writers ought to take seriously the words of Yoda in Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back: It is their disbelief why they cannot metaphorically raise the star ship.

Underreported or Didn't Happen?

So the LA Times is reporting that Occidental College and USC “underreported' the number of cases of sexual assaults” on their campuses. Certainly we would very concerned if such a thing was going on.

At USC, officials indicated that they had not reported 13 accounts of sexual assaults to federal officials for 2010 and 2011, bringing the total for those years to 39. Occidental acknowledged that it had failed to include 24 reports during that period, bringing the total to 36.

Sounds like something to be concerned with. 13 accounts at USC and 24 from Occidental. But further in the article we find:

USC and Occidental attributed their restated numbers to the mishandling of cases involving those who reported incidents anonymously. Such cases are subject to federal reporting requirements.

Why are annonymous reports of incidents subject to federal reporting requirements? In fact why are reports rather than actual established cases the standard? Anybody can make a claim. And as we know from the internet, anonymous claims are often the most unreliable of claims.

Occidental officials say they discovered 49 anonymous reports of sexual assaults spanning several years in a 2010 survey conducted by Project SAFE, a campus group that seeks to raise awareness about sexual assaults.

So a group that has a vested interest in “reporting” conducted a survey that found 49 cases of anonymous reports spanning several years? Not established reports, but someone who said something happened. And Occidental can be fined for that?

Nineteen of those incidents should have been disclosed under federal rules, which require the reporting of all sexual assaults on campus or in the immediate vicinity.

But there was not a sexual assault. There was an anonymous claim of sexual assault. Not a proven one, not an adjucated one. Only a claim. That would be like adding a column to the murder statistics that included anonymous claims of homicide, as if that number actually matters.

At USC, the problem arose because the administration has since 2008 told students, parents and the federal government that crimes that came to light at its student counseling center would be included in official crime statistics. But they were not, the university acknowledged last week.

Campus administrators said they didn't disclose those numbers in an effort to protect the students' confidentiality. They were concerned, they said, that reporting those statistics to the Department of Education could trigger investigations by the Los Angeles Police Department, which might pressure counselors to identify the anonymous victims.

Wait. So USC didn't want to report the claims of a sexual assault on their campus because it may trigger an investigation by the relevant authorities?

What the fuck?

Sexual assault is a serious crime. Why would USC not want the LAPD to investigate and find out who committed such a crime and have that person removed from the public? Why wouldn't a victim of sexual assualt not want the perpetrator found and prosecuted? Because the alleged victim doesn't want to be identified?

What the fuck?

So then a person who is identified as a potential perp can have their name and face plastered across multiple media outlets regardless of whether he or she is actually guilty, yet the alleged victim can sit behind a curtain and make any claim they wish? That's justice?

What the fuck?

LAPD Deputy Chief Bob Green said those concerns were misplaced. "I can tell you flat out no, we're not going to do that," Green said. "We're never going to try to compel anybody to make that [crime] report.”

why not? If one is going to make a serious charge against someone, shouldn't one then own up and make the criminal complaint? So we get cases where people can make claims about other students which are not substantiated in any impartial court that can affect the target for the rest of their lives AND institutions are under Federal blackmail (fines) if they don't go along with this?

At USC, the campus will no longer list the counseling center as a source of crime statistics. From now on, students who want their sexual assaults included in crime statistics will have to inform designated campus safety officials who are required to report under federal rules, LaCorte said.

Francesca Bessey, a USC junior who said she was sexually assaulted, said making students take additional steps to have their assaults counted shifts "responsibility away from the university and toward students who have been assaulted."

Why are students, or anyone else for that matter, of the opinion that they should not have to take responsibility for reporting their alleged victimization to the proper authorities? What kind of special snowflake sentiments are these people operating under? If you are a victim of a serious crime, it is your duty to report it to those who can find out who did it and remove them from society (if need be). Anyone who has a problem with that cannot be serious about sexual assault.