Dutch Science Academy Plans A Women-Only Election (sciencemag.org) 266
greg65535 writes: In order to reduce its gender imbalance, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam will hold special election rounds, one in 2017 and one in 2018, for which only women can be nominated.
The plan "does not come at men's expense," argues the academy's president, Jose van Dijck, because all the regular election rounds for membership will also still continue as planned. Currently 13% of the academy's 556 members are women, a slightly higher percentage than the 10% at Germany's national science academy and the 6% in the U.K. The plan was proposed by two male board members and approved by a 73% majority, though ironically, the first female president of the U.S. National Academy of Science says "I don't think we would do that. Other people might feel that women elected this way somehow did not meet the same standards as their male counterparts, or even other women elected through the regular process."
The plan "does not come at men's expense," argues the academy's president, Jose van Dijck, because all the regular election rounds for membership will also still continue as planned. Currently 13% of the academy's 556 members are women, a slightly higher percentage than the 10% at Germany's national science academy and the 6% in the U.K. The plan was proposed by two male board members and approved by a 73% majority, though ironically, the first female president of the U.S. National Academy of Science says "I don't think we would do that. Other people might feel that women elected this way somehow did not meet the same standards as their male counterparts, or even other women elected through the regular process."
Separate election? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not nominate someone based on their achievements?
The nomination would be pointless if it is not.
Re:Separate election? (Score:4, Funny)
Not Ironic. (Score:5, Insightful)
first female president of the U.S. National Academy of Science says "I don't think we would do that. Other people might feel that women elected this way somehow did not meet the same standards as their male counterparts, or even other women elected through the regular process.
If you want people to stop using the "You only got _____ because of _____" you need to stop giving people ______ because of __________.
XX-chromosomes dept.
This is fucking slashdot. Not Reddit. I'm perfectly content with www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes existing. I have no qualms about them. However I don't read it because that's not what I want to read. Consequently I read slashdot for none of this shit.
Damn it new owners. You were doing good. And I'll admit that it's been better than the Dice years but Make Slashdot Great Again by cutting out this crap. There's enough in tech to not even ever have to bring up gender and politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... her quote was that you shouldn't do it because it will be perceived badly. She very much didn't say that the quality of applicants is being lowered.
Come to think of it neither did you.
How about we let good people be appointed and not give two flying fucks about what a bunch of randos on the internet thing?
Re: Not Ironic. (Score:2)
She said it the best way possible, because the perception would be founded, and because even if you don't care how you got there, it will never be respected because everyone will know it was rigged. So she speaks to women that care for equal opportunity and those that wan't equal outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn it new owners. You were doing good.
When was that?
There's enough in tech to not even ever have to bring up gender and politics.
And yet, they give us a new gender in politics story almost every day.
When you couple that with the fact that the new "editors" are just as shit at editing (and reading comprehension!) as the old "editors" I really don't think anything has improved outside of slashvertisements actually finally being labeled as such.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually agree with you on this one. I find stories about gender in tech interesting, but this is just rage-bait rubbish.
"Not at men's expense" (Score:5, Interesting)
Rrrriight...
So, with the equality of opportunity achieved long ago, the inequality of results is telling us something... Instead of admitting, that maybe, just maybe, there is something inherently different about the genders, these people double and triple on their dogmas.
We already have Women Grandmasters [wikipedia.org] in chess — because appallingly few ladies could rise to the real GM. The Dutch will now have Women Academics. Though they wouldn't be as good as the real Academics, their titles and privileges will, no doubt, be made equally acceptable (and, perhaps, financially-rewarding) as the real thing. Not at men's expense? Indeed. At the expense of all the Dutch...
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Way to destroy quality in science, if merely having a different genetic makeup suddenly means you can be less competent. This is beyond stupid.
There are less exceptional female scientists. That is a fact and it does not stem from females having to work harder. It stems from fewer of them being willing to work hard in this area. That the ones that do are on-par simply means this is not a discrimination issue. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:3)
I am aware that this has been going on in history. The thing is that most of Science has moved beyond that. What angers me is that they want to take Science back to the dark ages where the characteristics of the person of the scientist were deemed more important then the quality of the work performed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see whoever modded your post explain why it's flamebait.
Anyone who considers facts to be flamebait needs to examine their value system.
Re: (Score:3)
So, with the equality of opportunity achieved long ago
Did we achieve that? Got any evidence?
Re:"Not at men's expense" (Score:5, Informative)
So, with the equality of opportunity achieved long ago
Did we achieve that? Got any evidence?
You are demanding, I prove a negative... Simply put, there is no law, that bars women from any pursuit whatsoever. What few sex-based restrictions there are, are anti-men, not anti-women.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea. Fortunately, the burden of proof is not on me...
As far as women go, to stay on topic of TFA, my only speculation is that the burdens of reproduction is what prevents females from a better showing in science and other pursuits. But we can't say with any higher degree of certainty, because to even pose the question is enough to be thrown out of today's "scientific" circles [thecrimson.com].
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, you don't know what the problem is but you do know it had better not be anything that implies it could be fixed by reducing men's dominance a little.
Re: (Score:2)
But you do want to "reduce men's dominance" for some reason and look for excuses to justify your actions — even if that means lowering the overall quality (and prestige) of Science.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, you don't know what the problem is but you do know it had better not be anything that implies it could be fixed by reducing men's dominance a little.
Oh dear. Let me get this correct. Unless you can /prove/ that men /aren't/ the cause of a problem, then the absence of proof is ipso facto, evidence of guilt.
Meanwhile, in non-science denying parts of academia [ted.com], we have already firmly established that the genders differ in significant ways, esp. when it comes to preferences. And we don't discount cultural explanations for disparate racial outcomes, simply because we're showing off how virtuously non-racist we are -- while simultaneously judging white peop
Re: (Score:3)
You're assuming that we achieved equality of opportunity. I believe the entire point of an election like this goes something like "inherit bias among men to selecting men means opportunity is not equal, and will remain unequal until the voting block is significantly gender mixed."
Created a long t
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I used the term "dogma". A more polite word would've been axiom. That is, if your initial assumption (dogma or axiom) is that women are equally capable of and interested, on average, as men, then, indeed, the disparity in result can only mean one thing: sexism. Whose sexism — that of parents, or teachers, or colleagues, or even internaliz
Re: (Score:2)
Being a high ranking chess player is probably not helping the men procreate either.
Anyway, even in physical sports many top ranked women have children. Ennis-Hill took some time out to have a child and still won back to back Olympic medals. Seems like it would matter even less with chess.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it does — winners are attractive. Man's participation in the actual reproduction is measured in minutes, so he can dedicate much more time and effort to becoming — and remaining — a winner. Though both parents take part in rearing children, the main burden, especially in the first couple of years, remains on the mother.
When you have children of your own, recall this conversation...
That women are
Re: (Score:2)
Is it though? I mean, those ratios of scores seem comprable to men. That is, among men, I would assume that approx 7.5x as many men would qualify for WGM alone as GM
WGMs and GMs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is all too easy to dismiss inequality when you are yourself on the side that enjoys the benefits of that inequality - that is what he establishment has always done throughout history; the consequences are well documented, I think: revolutions, among other things. If you are one of those that voted for Trump, you should at least in principle have some sympathy - I say in principle, because I don't think his supporters have much understanding, in practice, for the inequality that women face.
That women aren
Re: (Score:2)
So, with the equality of opportunity achieved long ago, the inequality of results is telling us something... Instead of admitting, that maybe, just maybe, there is something inherently different about the genders, these people double and triple on their dogmas.
In chess perhaps, because nobody can stop you from playing like a world champion. But in almost every other walk of life where you depend on recognition from your peers or your potential or actual employers there can be a lot of non-legal barriers. Not to mention the social acceptance from everyone around you from colleagues, friends and family to society at large could disproportionally discourage one sex over the other.
For example, I really doubt that a porn actress is treated the same way as a porn actor
Re: Watch the USA (Score:2)
Yeah because the system we use to choose Presidents is brand new, right?!?
Go read the Constitution and STFU!!
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be super clear here, Hillary Clinton did not "win the popular vote". She didn't win it because there was no competition around the popular vote measure.
The competition wasn't about the most votes in total across the nation. The competition was about winning the most electoral college votes. That is the metric by which the winner was measured. The metric was announced several hundred years beforehand.
Complaining about losing the competition because you have some other totally unofficial metric by whi
What happened to merit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Black, white, yellow, green, male, female..... whatever happened to simple merit?
Re:What happened to merit? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was rated ET-10: CONDEMNED by special snowflakes who never grew out of their childlike understanding of fairness.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Reality has never nor will ever be a meritocracy. Sorry buddy. You are where you are in part because of your merit, and in part because of things you have no control over. Join us in reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Granted, but why 'strive' for such double standards? Answer that, and you've got the real motivations for this brand of 'social justice.'
Re:What happened to merit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because it prevents some A-group individuals from earning their selections on merit in order to select some members from B-group just because they're B-group, whether they've truly earned their selections or not. This demonizes A-group in the eyes of B-group and infantilizes B-group in the eyes of A-group, keeping the prejudice between them inflamed. This is hypocritical since the stated goal is to eliminate this prejudice. The best way to do this is to judge on relevant attributes, ie merit. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcome, especially in diverse populations.
You got it backwards. It's the people who (consciously or not) realize they don't measure up, so they muddy the waters with appeals of oppression in order to cover it up and/or get a leg up on their betters. If you're holding back better employees in order to favor other less represented groups on the basis of supposedly irrelevant attributes (like race, sex etc), you're doing your organization a disservice. You're likely leaking talent out to your competitors and creating resentment among the ones who choose to remain.
Re: (Score:2)
This is worse because effectively the Duct Science Academy is saying the only way poor ineffectual women can have any impact in science is with the protection of men. If they want it they individual will seek to get it. Want more women in science they drop physics and chemistry and take up the science of fashion and gossip science talk. Reality is those females who want to make it and are capable will likely do so.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No one takes these things seriously, as the real world doesn't care about the Dutch Academy. The country [pamelageller.com] will soon be overrun by Muslims anyway [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
No one takes these things seriously, as the real world doesn't care about the Dutch Academy. The country [pamelageller.com] will soon be overrun by Muslims anyway [wikipedia.org].
It's not often you get a troll trolling about entirely the wrong country, using a link that additionally entirely disproves their point (5% of the Danish a Muslims, fear them for they are mighty!)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't interrupt a good rant just because of facts!
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon, you don't seriously expect us to believe that, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Political correctness is in large part discrimination in favor of the historically powerless.
What a repulsively sexist thing to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, unworthy of any institution claiming to respect science. Correcting the result of an application of a metric is about the most stupid and unscientific thing possible. Any halfway competent scientist knows that.
Gotta say it (Score:4, Funny)
The plan "does not come at men's expense," argues the academy's president, Jose van Dijck, because all the regular election rounds for membership will also still continue as planned.
This guy is being a total Dijck.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a sticking a finger in a dijk joke there somewhere but I can't for the life of me find it.
This needs some serious (Score:4, Interesting)
Mansplaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide a citation? What do you mean by "improves"? In particular, please provide some sort of quantitative measure of "improvement", and argue why I might want to use that measure. After you've done that, the conversation can continue. For example, I might propose an alternate measure of improvement...
Happens to be MHO. I can expand a little. Given that male/female are divided in 50/50, both should mostly be represented in equal ratios in most activities. Through that both the male and the female POVs are taken into consideration. In the longer term that should be beneficial to all because both sides will be represented and hence the activities in question will have more authority and be able to achieve targets more effectively. That's what I mean by improving.
As a rational person, have you ever trie
Re: (Score:2)
Given that male/female are divided in 50/50, both should mostly be represented in equal ratios in most activities
That doesn't follow at all. Men and women have, on average, completely different interests. For instance, when I go for a walk or bike ride in the weekend, I see plenty of people fishing along the canals. Over the years, I must have seen hundreds of them. I don't recall ever seeing a woman among them. Fishing is a very low barrier kind of activity. All you need is a cheap license and some starter gear for less than $100, and then find a free spot along the water. The fact that so few women are fishing can
"does not come at men's expense" (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem I have with all that is simple , I think this is the wrong approach. What we should strive for , is equality of opportunity, not equality out of outcome. Equality out of outcome is artificial and forcefully place people with lesser capacities, take the place of people of better capacity , to have a certain goal non related to their work capacity. E.g. you want a 50/50 women/men no matter how good people are, you will most probably forgoe better hire just to have a quota filled. What we should strive for is an equality of opportunity, e.g. striving to make sure your gender or race do not matter, what is your work quality should. That is an equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome are never good, they have by definition enforce a sexist selection, to get that outcome.
Madam Curie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Madam Curie (Score:4, Insightful)
Madam Curie won two nobel prizes, one in chemistry (1911), one in physics.(1903). She didn't need "women's privilege" to do it. She did it the old fashioned way, she earned it. All women's privilege does in any area is debase it. But if the Dutch wish to debase their science for reasons of gender pandering and political correctness, that is their right. Too bad. They can kiss goodbye to respect for Dutch scientific achievement.
You're doing it wrong. Science is when you respect it for its theories, their significance, their correctness. If your respect is being swayed by anything else then you're doing politics not science.
This is not a good idea. For more than one reason (Score:2)
First, the obvious one: Rigging an election to give a group of people an advantage is not going to result in it being fair or the outcome being the best possible. But the problem is much bigger than that. Because it will accomplish exactly the opposite of its stated goal. Instead of improving the status of female scientists, it will deteriorate it. Because, well, why did they get that job? On merit? Nah. Because of the lack of dangling bits between their legs.
Scientists are a merit-crazy bunch. Status is no
Ah. Sexism at its finest. (Score:2)
In order to reduce its gender imbalance, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam will hold special election rounds, one in 2017 and one in 2018, for which only men can be nominated.
The plan "does not come at women's expense," argues the academy's president, Jose van Dijck, because all the regular election rounds for membership will also still continue as planned. Currently 13% of the academy's 556 members are men, a slightly higher percentage than the 10% at Germany's national science academy and the 6% in the U.K. The plan was proposed by two female board members and approved by a 73% majority, though ironically, the first male president of the U.S. National Academy of Science says "I don't think we would do that. Other people might feel that men elected this way somehow did not meet the same standards as their female counterparts, or even other men elected through the regular process."
If it had read as edited here, feminists would be shitting blocks of osmium.
Basically this has nothing to do with equality. This is all about "special" treatment because some selfish individuals simply can't understand that equal representation doesn't always happen, and even if it does, it takes TIME for it to percolate through every layer of society and profession.
This hurts EVERYONE. Because it's telling people that if you can claim to be in a suitably "oppressed" segment of society, that it's perfectl
Work on faculty (Score:2)
If we want more women in science academia, the obvious solution is to enlarge the hiring pool, which is faculty. If tenured position could be reached before menopause, it would be more attractive.
Not so certain (Score:2)
This
A bit like the Paralympics ... but for science ? (Score:2)
The Paralympics make sense to me. I don't think I need to get into detail about this (Including the mandatory note of an amputee running faster than a fully organic champion).
Is that what they are saying for women in science ?
I'm not enough of a misogynistic bastard to think it makes sense, and that's saying a lot.
Contemplating this silly idea disqualifies the Dutch science academy from ever being taken seriously again.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going for "sarcasm", but I don't blame you. The tone of voice doesn't translate well into text.
And women elected in these (Score:3)
And women elected in these will forever be branded as "diversity hires" and never given credit for anything, even if they deserve it. The only thing that "affirmative action" shit like this accomplishes is it creates deeply seated prejudice. It may be hidden, but it's there, and people don't forget. The only way to avoid this is by promoting strict, unyielding meritocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to avoid this is by promoting strict, unyielding meritocracy.
Which will never happen as the academic world is a men's only world, You would be surprised if you knew the abundence of sexism, racism and paternalism in the academic world. It's appalling and we need to stop it. Read Critical Mass Theory and Women’s Political Representation [mlkrook.org] to understand why males (myself included) are the cause of this.
Re: (Score:2)
I work in a computer science research lab, and about 30% of our researchers are women. What was your point again?
Discrimination (Score:2)
Re:Seems fair to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you'd label men complaining about this misogynists, but when women complain, it's a-ok. You fail to grasp that by selecting people based on sex in either direction, you're making sexism acceptable as long as it favors women. If the goal is to eradicate it, you've failed before you started.
Re: (Score:3)
Very much this. And it is pretty clear that in science there are no gender-based barriers to entry or advancement. These votes are about scientists. Gender is immaterial. As long as equal opportunity is a given, any "gender imbalance" is at best a thing to study, but most decidedly not something to correct. What they do is basically in the same moral level of faking statistical results in a scientific publication and entirely despicable.
Re: (Score:2)
What if i wouldnt label men complaining about this "misogynist" but more "you have too much time on your hands"? The Alt-Right's crusade to save white males from the horrible persecution we are apparently experiencing feels like Fox News' classic "War on Christmas". Most of the news stories feeding it are a clear case of "if you look hard enough you can find dumb people doing dumb things that verify whatever conspiracy you want to believe". Christmas is still around and us white men are still doing just fin
Re:Seems fair to me (Score:4, Insightful)
us white men are still doing just fine.
We are? If I believe what I hear from the left, we (white men) are a couple of grades lower than dirt.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's not my experience at all. I feel like you get too much of your news from news sources that want you to feel like a victim.
Re:Seems fair to me (Score:5, Insightful)
They wouldn't be called feminists if they wanted equality. Slavery abolitionists didn't want an equal number of free people to slaves. This isn't a "civil rights" or "women's rights" movement, it's a feminist as there are communists or rationalists, it's not an equality of opposing views or people they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems fair to me (Score:5, Insightful)
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
That complete skips over the crux of the issue: Is it equality of opportunities, or equality of outcomes?
98% of chess tournaments are won by men. Is that a result of sexism? Or are men inherently superior? Or is it because most women think chess is a pointless waste of time? Is this a problem that our society needs to fix, and if so, what is the solution?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What amounts to equality can be messy as real life is shades of grey rather than black and white. Just because messiness is involved in regards to what needs to be "fixed" and what doesnt, doesnt mean the overall goal is not noble or not worth pursuing.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't answer the question. Do you want equality of opportunity or of outcomes? Because it not noble or worth pursuing if you end up being sexist in order to overcome sexism. And that's why there's a big discrepancy between people who are for equal rights versus what actually occurs under the label of "feminism".
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, you completely glossed over my "the world is shades of grey not black and white" comment didn't you? That was pretty much the answer but here goes number 2.
Do we want more role models in a given category of person in order to inspire more participation by that category? Maybe we need to fudge the numbers a bit then in the name of a good goal. Maybe not. I'm not peddling easy answers so there is no easy answer to your question because that's just not how the world works. The real world requires compromi
Re:Seems fair to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, you completely glossed over my "the world is shades of grey not black and white" comment didn't you?
Because it's a dodge. Yes, the world is shades of gray, but there are poles too.
Do we want more role models in a given category of person in order to inspire more participation by that category? Maybe we need to fudge the numbers a bit then in the name of a good goal.
And this is where you have to define the "goal". Are you not going to stop until you see equality of outcome? Why is it a "good goal" to have more women in STEM if that's not where their interests lie? There are differences between the sexes, statistically, when it comes to interests and abilities.
Debate over what compromises need to be made is right and proper but demonizing a term like "feminism" because you want to eliminate the language of the opposition is Orwellian in the worst way.
What's Orwellian is politically clubbing people over the head with the noble idea of equal rights and then using it to excuse all kinds of abominations of unequal treatment. That's why modern feminism has such a bad name.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you perceive it that way. If the "world" is a toroid, there are no poles.
Blah blah. There's a clear distinction between equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.
And this is where your presumption comes in, as you are asserting in your argument that their interests do not lie there, a claim of a nature that has a long history of being invalid, with a variety of manifestations.
It's not a presumption, it's a reflection of reality. The arrogantly presumptuous are the ones who want to deny reality and force-fit the world into their presumed idea of what should be.
What if the goal is to remove the impediments that create the false impression that their interests do not lie there?
You presume the impression is false. Women can make up their own mind. Gender studies reveal that differences between interests in the sexes are innate that go beyond any kind of social construct.
Npoe, modern feminism has a bad name because of the aforementioned desire to get it conceptualized as harmful.
It has a bad name because of th
Re: (Score:2)
You're picking quotes to make it sound like I'm pushing an agenda
No, I'm just trying to peg down where you stand on what you insist is a "noble goal" when what I see is the opposite in modern feminism. I don't consider equality of outcome, in and of itself, to be a "noble goal". Do you?
You've got a real victim's mentality going here.
That's feminism in a nutshell.
Maybe stop reading alt-right news sources that tell you, you are and live in the real world.
Maybe you should look at the ctl-left without your rose-colored glasses on.
Re: (Score:2)
You really don't have to think of them as having poles.
They are a fairly direct correspondence to free markets versus communism. We see equal opportunity being quashed in the name of equal outcomes.
Numerous studies reveal the existence of a multitude of factors that influence life choices, even irrespective of gender.
And numerous studies also reveal the inherent differences between the sexes, so force-fitting equality of outcome is an active step in sexism instead of letting people make their own choices.
Really, no matter how many times you rant about it as if it were some intent to foster those attitudes, the whole point is to get the refugees into a position where they can be influenced for the better.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. You're seriously claiming that Western societies should import rape culture to teach them not to commit sexual assaults and rape? I guess tho
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going to try to argue this, there's a lot to be said about it, but just stating that "feminism is about promoting equality" or "feminism is inherently sexist" is not a complete description.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I think the second part is strictly just pointing to the advocacy movement seeking the first. That's why it's the secondary definition.
Should a group that feels disadvantaged not advocate for positive change? That notion seems completely contrary to what a Republic should be about.
Re: (Score:2)
As for why it's the secondary definition: definitions in the dictionary are listed in order of usage, they don't have anything to do with one another. The first definition is the most common usage of the word, the second definition is the next most common, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
*roll my eyes*
Fine captain language, how about "Should a group that feels disadvantaged not advocate for change towards their goal of equity?"
Means the exact same thing in common parlance but satisfies your linguistic issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would positive for the group i was discussing which I feel most people would have gotten given that English, like most human language, is contextual sometimes. If you want to nit pick and be overly literally that's fine, I'll play your silly game but you've done nothing to refute my points.
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds terrible. Competition is by no means part and parcel of representative government, we still operate u
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose most activist feminists these days fall right into the "organized activity on behalf of women's interests", not equality. It's definitely not the academic/scientific theory they subscribe to.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem exactly, who would want equality between the sexes? Neither men nor women want it, everybody wants to be 'on top'. If it was truly equality you wanted, you would've stopped arguing some time in the 1950-70s.
Women's rights have been overcompensated for and are now infringing on men's (and as a result male gay and human) rights, it's very clear in court cases regarding alleged sexual assaults, domestic or custody disputes and it's becoming ever clearer in work places.
Re: (Score:2)
When people complain when things are unfair, that's good. When people complain because trying to make things slightly more fair constitutes being unfair, that's dumb.
I'm confused. Are you saying the DAS is making things more fair, or are you saying they are making things unfair by caving into the complainers?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming you forgot the tag
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You need to get over the fact that some people booed you at a Broadway show, sir.
Re:Why not select a president this way? (Score:5, Insightful)
You ended with a crappy president because you selected the democrat candidate this way, even with it being incredibly corrupt and hated by the general populace.
Any other candidate that was competing would win against the annoying orange.
Re: (Score:2)
You ended with a crappy president because you selected the democrat candidate this way, even with it being incredibly corrupt and hated by the general populace.
You ended up with an even more corrupt president. He just had to settle a farud lawsuit for a substantial fraction of the value of the lawsuit.
And if you have to use the excuse that he was never convicted, then remember neither was Hillary.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, indeed.
But the point is that if dems did voted on the one that public was more in favor of than choosing the female in sake of being the female, they would had won this election.
This is what happens when you let anything go over actual qualification.
Re:Why not select a president this way? (Score:4, Funny)
They didn't choose her because she is a woman, they chose her because she is Hillary Clinton. It was her fucking turn, and you deplorable scum ruined it for her!!
Re: (Score:2)
Your sarcasm meter. It's broken.
Re: (Score:2)
He may be corrupt, but he's inexperienced as a politician, making it more difficult for him to exercise his corruption.
Re:Why not select a president this way? (Score:4, Insightful)
They didn't, so now we have Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, she won the primaries by being the Heir Apparent to the Clinton Dynasty, while nobody in the DNC recognized that America doesn't want or need a political dynasty.
Also, the DNC was so busy appealing to everybody except mainstream America that they completely lost mainstream America.
That said, yes, there was a lot of 'lets make history by electing me as the first woman president!' which is regretful.
Re: (Score:2)
The 85 year old men who joined the department in 1960 before the school was even reputable all sign off on it saying that they had unfair advantages that got them into their professorships. The move doesn't effect them, but fucks all of the men my age over.
Sounds like the typical Baby Boomer shenanigans.
Re: (Score:2)