GreyEyedGhost

joined 2 years ago
[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

There is generally a greater range in the physical capabilities of either sex than there are between the sexes, and in our modern world the number of jobs that require brute strength, those traditionally done by men, are progressively fewer simply due to the benefits of advanced machinery.

As for mental tasks, there are almost none that men or women are better at for any other reason than social programming and, again, in those the variability within the sexes are very nearly as great as those between the sexes.

So, at this point, the biggest reason for gendered tasks is tradition, which is generally the stupidest reason to do anything. So it's just as ridiculous to bring gender into the task in the first place.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

While this is true, there is a considerable amount of overlap between men and women, and a great deal of skills and tasks can be done by either gender.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are absolutely jobs where hiring the most qualified person for the job is critical. There are a lot of jobs where the threshold for good enough is far below that, and most companies are at least as concerned at getting the cheapest labor that can fulfill the position as they are at getting the best person (at that lower rate). Adding additional constraints like diversity isn't going to affect those jobs any more than the company's desire to save a buck.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

So if a company traditionally had 10 men employees and now has committed to having gender equality, you see this as 5 jobs where men are no longer considered, rather than it historically being 10 jobs where women weren't considered?

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But your statement implies it's some impossible feat, and not simply a lack of funding, and maybe it is impossible, but how would we know if we never properly fund it? Moreover, you associated it with a propaganda reference, and I'm not even sure what you're getting at there.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

Sure. I can shit in a pot in the living room of my house if I want, but just because it's my house doesn't mean I'm not being a filthy pig. Likewise with abuse of power. More importantly, this is VS's place that he created as a place for people to hang out. At that point he invited criticism for how he cleans his house.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Amazing warriors when you consider they didn't have legs.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"It's not an abuse of power because he bestowed the power upon himself, and therefore only he can declare it as abuse."

The king can break no laws.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I like The Orville. I don't mind Discovery. I definitely need to watch more newer Trek. And I'm okay with everything you said because they're just fucking TV shows! We're allowed to have opinions about them, just like we have opinions about clothing. It doesn't make either of us wrong, just different.

Keep up the amazing meme generation.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

You're leaning into this, so here's a chart.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 months ago

"I'm going to hide in the forest and attack the Sheriff's people. Now what should I wear?" Spots red hood."Perfect!"

spoilerNow, granted, robins aren't really red, more a reddish brown that would absolutely blend into the trees, not unlike the birds.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Buying prerelease is always a big gamble. Buying before there are reviews from trusted sources is also a bit of a gamble.

Buying games 7 or 8 years after release is generally a pretty safe bet.

view more: ‹ prev next ›