That's not someone going away, that's a piece of shit black coward like you hiding like the pussy you are.
Maine Democrats Laugh About Rising Suicide Rates Among White Males
- Thread starter Granule
- Start date
That's not someone going away, that's a piece of shit black coward like you hiding like the pussy you are.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I have much respect for your thoughts brother, but my argument is not that democrats are perfect and no sexism there exists. My argument is not that neither sexism nor racism exists among those who call themselves democrats.
My argument is which side is fighting against both? Here, there is absolutely zero argument.
Have democrats made tremendous gains in fighting against the ills of hate and exclusion? Absolutely .. and again, on this point, there is no argument. If perfection is ever to be achieved, it will come from democrats, not republicans.
Truth is, there are far too many social miscreants that your side tolerates and even coddles. You're no racist, but you tolerate them because without them, you have no army. In order to tolerate them, you seek to claim that the other side is no better.
Yes, they are.
cawacko
Well-known member
Depending on how deep into the weeds you want to get what type of legislation do you see as helping to end sexism?
Easy, baby killer. Right now we're talking about the democrat party's love for racism, not about its thirst for death.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I'm not sure that ending sexism is any more achievable than ending racism .. but that being said, many of the tools to fight racism can be applied to fighting sexism. The courts are the battleground.
Title IX is an example of how and where the battle should be fought.
Unbeknownst to Clinton haters, they have enshrined her as a glorious example of the need to fight against sexism.
I expect there may be legislation proposed one day called the Clinton Bill .. designed to fight against the sexism that brought us the disaster of Donald Trump. :0)
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Maybe at some point the country will get around to addressing this ..
US suicide rate surges, particularly among white people
The suicide rate in the US has surged to its highest level in almost three decades
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36116166
70% of all suicides are committed by white men.
It's the least talked about epidemic in this country.
US suicide rate surges, particularly among white people
The suicide rate in the US has surged to its highest level in almost three decades
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36116166
70% of all suicides are committed by white men.
It's the least talked about epidemic in this country.
cawacko
Well-known member
Hillary did get 3 million more votes than Trump and I don't know if sexism prevented her from campaigning even once in the very important state of Wisconsin and spending the last days of the campaign in Arizona instead of the Midwest.
I believe i heard white woman voted 52% for Trump. Maybe white women need to go to sensitivity training class.
Easy, baby killer. Right now we're talking about the democrat party's love for racism, not about its thirst for death.
You're not offering shit, dimwit. Just the typical ramblings of the Forum Dumbfuck.
It's hilarious that he thinks ignoring you mean you went away. That's the mindset of a 1 year old paying peek a boo.
I could move to any of the other 49 states and your cowardly ass still wouldn't show up like you claimed you would.
So Democrats fight against sexism and racism by being sexists and racists? Interesting.
cawacko
Well-known member
The Economist must read JPP. One of their feature articles this week:
Women in technology
Silicon Valley’s sexism problem
Venture capitalists are bright, clannish and almost exclusively male
“BOOBER” is the nickname Travis Kalanick, the boss of Uber, used to describe the effect that the ride-hailing startup had on his attractiveness to the opposite sex. Mr Kalanick’s wisecrack seems to have been emblematic of a deeply macho culture. An investigation is under way into allegations from a former employee that Uber refuses to promote capable women or to take complaints about harassment seriously. The results are due to be released in the coming weeks.
Uber is not the only technology star in the spotlight for its treatment of women. Google has been accused by America’s Department of Labour of paying female employees significantly less than male ones (see article). Google flatly denies the charge. But that technology in general, and Silicon Valley in particular, has a gender problem is not in doubt.
A survey of 210 women in the valley found that 60% had experienced unwanted sexual advances and that two-thirds felt excluded from important social and networking
opportunities. PayScale, a research firm, has found that only 21% of American tech executives are female (the figure in other industries is 36%). Women in tech are paid less than men, even after controlling for experience, education and responsibilities.
Not all these problems can be laid at the door of Silicon Valley. Plenty of people are worried about the small number of girls taking science, technology, engineering and mathematics courses. Only 18% of bachelor’s degrees in computer science in America were awarded to women in 2013, down from 37% in 1985. Pay gaps are pervasive, too.
But that shouldn’t let the valley off the hook. It prides itself on solving difficult problems and on being a meritocracy. Being as bad as everywhere else in its treatment of women falls disappointingly short. More to the point, the valley suffers from a distinctive form of sexism which is in its power to fix.
Venture capitalists are the technology industry’s demigods. Through their cheques, connections and advice, they determine which startups succeed and which languish. They are bright, clannish and almost exclusively male. Only around 6% of partners at venture-capital firms are women, down from 10% in 1999. Less than 40% of the top 100 venture-capital firms have a female partner charged with investing. Many of the most highly regarded funds, including Benchmark and Andreessen Horowitz, have none.
For a set of people who finance disruptive firms, venture capitalists are surprisingly averse to disrupting their own tried-and-tested way of doing things. They sit in small groups, meet entrepreneurs and repeat a single formula for investing whenever possible. John Doerr, who backed companies like Google, summed up his philosophy thus: “Invest in white male nerds who’ve dropped out of Harvard or Stanford.”
Defenders of the valley have two retorts. One is that throwing stones at the most successful business cluster on Earth makes no sense. Market forces ensure that the best ideas win funding, irrespective of gender. The data suggest a different story. Only 7% of the founders of tech startups in America that raised $20m or more are women, according to recent research by Bloomberg. Yet nobody would argue that men make the best founders nine times out of ten. On average, firms founded by women obtain less funding ($77m) than those founded by men ($100m). The VC industry has been successful enough to ward off the pressure to change. That does not make it perfect.
A second defence is that VCs rely on tight-knit relationships, in which trust is essential. Call this the “dinner with Mike Pence” gambit, after the American vice-president’s reported refusal to eat alone with a woman other than his wife. On this argument, any outsider, particularly one lacking a Y chromosome, is liable to upset the club’s precious dynamic. Venture capital is indeed a strange mix of capital and contacts, and peculiarly hard to industrialise as a result. But as a justification for sexism, clubbiness is an argument that is as old as it is thin.
Y combinator, X chromosomes
Plenty of studies show that diverse teams are more productive. Hiring more women in venture capital seems to increase the odds of finding and funding those elusive female entrepreneurs. Venture capitalists play a vital role in shaping the culture of startups: investors who value diversity are likelier to guide them away from the reputational and legal risks that beset offices full of “brogrammers”. Silicon Valley is a remarkable place. But it is time for the boy’s club to grow up.
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...lmost-exclusively-male-silicon-valleys-sexism
Women in technology
Silicon Valley’s sexism problem
Venture capitalists are bright, clannish and almost exclusively male
“BOOBER” is the nickname Travis Kalanick, the boss of Uber, used to describe the effect that the ride-hailing startup had on his attractiveness to the opposite sex. Mr Kalanick’s wisecrack seems to have been emblematic of a deeply macho culture. An investigation is under way into allegations from a former employee that Uber refuses to promote capable women or to take complaints about harassment seriously. The results are due to be released in the coming weeks.
Uber is not the only technology star in the spotlight for its treatment of women. Google has been accused by America’s Department of Labour of paying female employees significantly less than male ones (see article). Google flatly denies the charge. But that technology in general, and Silicon Valley in particular, has a gender problem is not in doubt.
A survey of 210 women in the valley found that 60% had experienced unwanted sexual advances and that two-thirds felt excluded from important social and networking
opportunities. PayScale, a research firm, has found that only 21% of American tech executives are female (the figure in other industries is 36%). Women in tech are paid less than men, even after controlling for experience, education and responsibilities.
Not all these problems can be laid at the door of Silicon Valley. Plenty of people are worried about the small number of girls taking science, technology, engineering and mathematics courses. Only 18% of bachelor’s degrees in computer science in America were awarded to women in 2013, down from 37% in 1985. Pay gaps are pervasive, too.
But that shouldn’t let the valley off the hook. It prides itself on solving difficult problems and on being a meritocracy. Being as bad as everywhere else in its treatment of women falls disappointingly short. More to the point, the valley suffers from a distinctive form of sexism which is in its power to fix.
Venture capitalists are the technology industry’s demigods. Through their cheques, connections and advice, they determine which startups succeed and which languish. They are bright, clannish and almost exclusively male. Only around 6% of partners at venture-capital firms are women, down from 10% in 1999. Less than 40% of the top 100 venture-capital firms have a female partner charged with investing. Many of the most highly regarded funds, including Benchmark and Andreessen Horowitz, have none.
For a set of people who finance disruptive firms, venture capitalists are surprisingly averse to disrupting their own tried-and-tested way of doing things. They sit in small groups, meet entrepreneurs and repeat a single formula for investing whenever possible. John Doerr, who backed companies like Google, summed up his philosophy thus: “Invest in white male nerds who’ve dropped out of Harvard or Stanford.”
Defenders of the valley have two retorts. One is that throwing stones at the most successful business cluster on Earth makes no sense. Market forces ensure that the best ideas win funding, irrespective of gender. The data suggest a different story. Only 7% of the founders of tech startups in America that raised $20m or more are women, according to recent research by Bloomberg. Yet nobody would argue that men make the best founders nine times out of ten. On average, firms founded by women obtain less funding ($77m) than those founded by men ($100m). The VC industry has been successful enough to ward off the pressure to change. That does not make it perfect.
A second defence is that VCs rely on tight-knit relationships, in which trust is essential. Call this the “dinner with Mike Pence” gambit, after the American vice-president’s reported refusal to eat alone with a woman other than his wife. On this argument, any outsider, particularly one lacking a Y chromosome, is liable to upset the club’s precious dynamic. Venture capital is indeed a strange mix of capital and contacts, and peculiarly hard to industrialise as a result. But as a justification for sexism, clubbiness is an argument that is as old as it is thin.
Y combinator, X chromosomes
Plenty of studies show that diverse teams are more productive. Hiring more women in venture capital seems to increase the odds of finding and funding those elusive female entrepreneurs. Venture capitalists play a vital role in shaping the culture of startups: investors who value diversity are likelier to guide them away from the reputational and legal risks that beset offices full of “brogrammers”. Silicon Valley is a remarkable place. But it is time for the boy’s club to grow up.
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...lmost-exclusively-male-silicon-valleys-sexism
cawacko
Well-known member
Title IX has done some excellent things for women. It's also caused men's sports to be dropped to comply. It's also now allowed boys on college campus to be charged with rape and basically not allowed to defend themselves and to me at the mercy of school administrators and not judges.
If that's what women's rights is all about then no wonder so many people, including women, aren't on board. And if arguing not allowing men equal rights is equality and that's what Democrats are fighting for then no wonder so many males vote Republican.
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
That's right, domer's wife squeals and oinks like a pig when I stick it to her.
You act as if there are no racist white wing republicans living, working or socializing in Liberal states.
To suggest there are no racist wing nuts in Hollywood and Silicon valley as CEO's, Presidents and owners of these large "corporations" located in CA is absurd.
Racist white men and their paper, power and privilege, are everywhere, in every state and around every corner.
cawacko
Well-known member
Ok, if it makes you feel better no liberal (white) males are sexist. It's amazing how little power liberal (white) men have in this country.