If you replace 'sexy' with 'viable', this could make sense for pure sciences. Given the size of a student loan it can take to pay for a degree (especially if you need more than just a Bachelor's), pure sciences could be losing some kids to engineering over potential salary. Those kids would still fall within the scope of this article though (STEM in general).
> hipster is the standard mainstream culture today. Just look around.
This is what bothers me so much about the term. Nobody calls themselves a hipster, and in my area at least, nobody who could be accused of being a hipster goes around thinking of themselves as some counterculture special snowflake. I ride a fixie because they're cheap and our city is flat, and I live downtown because I like to be able to walk to work, and so on. These are just normal things that young people do, generally without any pretention. Hearing people making ridiculous sweeping generalizations about how pedantic they think young hipsters are is just the same shit as complaining about Elvis and his dancing.
This is how I feel about the term. Just read through these comments - everyone has a completely different definition, most of which boil down to a few aspects of some subculture that they personally find annoying.
Specifically, this part from the bottom of the article:
Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.
Ok, this article needs some dismantling. Huge amount of straight propaganda.
1. Or it was other way around. Women in workforce => Feminism.
3. And installed laws such as VOWA, installed Diluth Model etc etc.
5,6. More half-truths and lies. The only contraceptive that gives men power to control their reproduction is condom, which was invented long before Feminism. Pill and other forms of contraception are empowering ONLY women. "Men get abortions too" is beyond manipulation. Idea that by helping small group of LGBTQ folk Feminism is saving ALL the males is repeated few more times in this article. Ridiculous.
7. Beautiful manipulation. Indeed, this change of definition allowed persecution in cases where male is a victim. Still, it is not possible to persecute "envelopment" as rape.
10-17. Feminism also cured AIDS, send humans to the Moon and granted eternal salvation in afterlife.
18. Clearly, before Feminism women never left kitchen. /s
20. Imagine that? A Movie! Damn, Feminism is literally anti Hitler!
21. Hey, I fought against Putin's second, third and fourth term. And I failed miserably, just as Feminism in this particular case.
21. "Feminism teaches us that nothing is objective, not even science." Enough said.
Oh good, you replied to factual statistics with a bunch of feel good nonsense from Jezebel, which we all know is a respected journal in the social sciences.
I'm curious how this works for people with long hair. To a certain extent, shampooing less can be great for your hair, for a lot of the reasons discussed in the article about skin care. Sulphates strip out your natural hair oils and do a bunch of bad things, so sulphate-free shampoos are a lot better. Additionally, once you get your scalp accustomed to less frequent shampooing and it stops producing tons of oil to compensate, life for your hair can be pretty good.
That said, I can never seem to get onto a cycle of more than just a couple days without shampooing before my hair is just too oily. Washing with just water isn't super sufficient either when you have long, thick hair.
It's not pleasant, but if you gradually wash your hair less and less frequently the oils in your hair eventually find an equilibrium.
At least this is how it's turned out for me. I generally only wash my hair about once a week or less. At first it was crazy oily and frustrating, but gradually the amount of oil my head produced lessened.
Same...I used to shampoo my hair EVERY time I showered (everyday) and was confused why it was always so dry and frizzy. Now I just rinse it daily when I'm in the shower and shampoo it once every 5 days or so and my hair is much less frizzy.
Except for the long hair, I was in a similar boat.
I found that Johnson's "No More Tears" baby shampoo is very effective and gentle and CHEAP. I don't have long hair but I just use that once or twice a week.
There are a lot of expensive shampoos that are equally gentle, but with those I think you're mostly paying for the brand name and the fragrances.
Anyone who was ever a teenaged girl at any point in their life can confirm that the people who complain the most about drama are generally the people who create the most drama.
There's a piece of info in that article that I think might be a part of the problem:
For men, the results were as expected. Hunks were more likely to be called for an interview if they included a photo. Ugly men were better off not including one. However, for women this was reversed. Attractive females were less likely to be offered an interview if they included a mugshot.
Without knowing much about the person who wrote the article (as it's an anonymous guest post), I know a lot of women, myself included at points in the past, can be very harsh and judgemental towards other women. There's an attitude among a lot of women, especially in youth, that other women are too emotional, gossips, obsessed with looks, and so on. Many grow out of this, and some don't. If there is any real psychological difference between women and men, I think this sort of unnecessary competition, jealousy, or general discomfort towards other people of our same gender is where it lies. I'm sure there's some interesting studies on this kind of thing out there somewhere.
I reckon sexual competition is at play here. Guys generally fare better in the mating game by associating with other good looking men. Assuming heterosexuality here for simplicity's sake, being a good looking guy in a group of good looking guys increases the chance that one or more good looking women will hang out with the group. Anecdotally men succeed in the mating game when mating as a group to group. Dunno why that is the case. Maybe a larger group communicates presence of a powerful male that females may try to vie for.
For attractive women, there generally is no benefit from being part of a group of attractive women, since it doesn't materially increase propinquity with attractive men as far as I can tell, but it does materially increase competition for the alpha male.
Basically, mating-wise, men win more often when they cooperate and women win more often when they compete. Anyone know of any science to support this observation or am I way out on a limb here?
Looks like just hypothesizing, even when admitting as much is downvote worthy.
Another hypothesis worth considering is that intrasexual selection tactics of women are tolerated in the workplace but those of men are not.
Across many species and many societies, male intrasexual selection takes places as overt direct competition (hand-to-hand combat, sports, male elephant seals). With females (again across species and across societies), intrasexual selection is more often indirect due to female choice.
Direct competition is observable and easily addressed. Indirect competition is not by virtue of being indirect. This means that the modern workplace does not afford the conditions for men to compete much if at all except via promotion for doing good work. There are not the same mechanisms and norms in place in many modern workplaces to direct energy spent on indirect competition to more productive outlets.
I expect another downvote here too because acknowledging the existence of differences between genders is only frowned upon when talking about humans, but whatever.
I've lived in North America, South America and Asia. In my experience, these observations span at least those three places I've lived in. The behavior of men in the workplace in Asia and to a lesser degree South America is worse than the major counterparts in the US, but only because those societies are more patriarchal and that behavior is not as frowned upon.
After far as the workplace behavior of women, I've found that it's approximately the same, but perhaps more muted in Asian cultures.
Again, all anecdotal here. So take it with a grain of salt. What has been your experience?
I think that last sentence is the key point here - it doesn't sound like somewhere that would be a very friendly environment in general. This kind of thing wouldn't happen where I work, but either way, the technical interview isn't really at fault.
This is incredibly false. Any feminist will tell you that most rape does not fit the "large stranger overpowers a woman in the streets" scenario. This is what people are talking about when they talk about rape culture.
If that is truly the case, then why do many feminists believe that every man on the street must be treated as a potential rapist?
Let's be clear - the phrase "many feminists believe" is a weasel phrase worthy of being placed alongside Fox News and their infamous "some people say" thing.
You've demonstrated that one woman is so concerned she's going to be attacked that she assumes every man is a rapist. That's a terrible state of affairs, but not for the reasons you think.
Because it's a passive statement meant to cast aspersions on feminism as a whole by associating the movement with these hypothetical feminists you speak of, while at the same time citing no evidence whatsoever to back up the statement. It's a typical tactic used for demagoguery and yellow journalism, allowing the author (you, in this case) to make an inflammatory statement without having to take credit for originating a ridiculous idea that most of the time can only charitably be considered anything but an outright fabrication.
>citing no evidence whatsoever to back up the statement
>outright fabrication
I provided a link to the source. I recommend you review both it and the hundreds of comments agreeing with it. Most major feminist sites picked up on it at the time as well, and it is also listed as a source on the "geek feminism" wiki.
That's not a source demonstrating that many feminists are afraid of being raped. Its a piece of evidence that a woman fears this, and a lot of women agree with her. By conflating their gender with the feminist movement, you're intentionally conflating the two, and implying that non-feminist women are not afraid of being raped, and further that feminism is itself at the root of their fear.
