Why so slow?
Because it is too difficult to speak about this in the first person (although, today, I definitely think I COULD), I would like to point you to a truly amazing talk by Dr. Virginia Valian, a psychology professor at Hunter College, most well known for her work on gender inequality in the workplace. The title of her talk is: Why so slow? The Advancement of women and looks at the following questions:
1. How come so few women occupy positions of power and prestige both in the professions and in Academia?
2. How come even when women and men start off equal in the workplace (both in terms of qualifications and pay), they tend to grow more and more unequal in time?
3. How come professional women tend to benefit less from their qualifications than their male counterparts? Why the same qualifications seem to help men more than they seem to help women?
Here's the presentation abstract:
Why do so few women occupy positions of power and prestige in every field? To achieve parity we have to know what the problems are as well as what the problems are not. The data show that there has been progress but that a stubborn problem remains: advancement is slower for women than for men in every profession. That stubborn problem is not (or not solely) due to too few women in the pipeline, inequitable childcare arrangements, or women's "choosing" to leave the professions. Rather, the ubiquity of women's slow advancement requires a general explanation through the concepts of gender schemas and the accumulation of advantage. Gender schemas lead both men and women to see men as more competent and able than women, to respond more favorably to male than female leaders, and to attend and defer more to men than to women. Many of the cases in which a woman is disadvantaged are of small scale. The notion of the accumulation of advantage demonstrates how even small-scale disadvantages can mount up over time. The gender schemas analysis allows us to devise appropriate remedies at the institutional level and at more individual levels.
The presentation was sponsonsored by The MIT School of Engineering.
The lecture is about an hour and 30 minutes long. You would also need to download RealPlayer to view it.
1. How come so few women occupy positions of power and prestige both in the professions and in Academia?
2. How come even when women and men start off equal in the workplace (both in terms of qualifications and pay), they tend to grow more and more unequal in time?
3. How come professional women tend to benefit less from their qualifications than their male counterparts? Why the same qualifications seem to help men more than they seem to help women?
Here's the presentation abstract:
Why do so few women occupy positions of power and prestige in every field? To achieve parity we have to know what the problems are as well as what the problems are not. The data show that there has been progress but that a stubborn problem remains: advancement is slower for women than for men in every profession. That stubborn problem is not (or not solely) due to too few women in the pipeline, inequitable childcare arrangements, or women's "choosing" to leave the professions. Rather, the ubiquity of women's slow advancement requires a general explanation through the concepts of gender schemas and the accumulation of advantage. Gender schemas lead both men and women to see men as more competent and able than women, to respond more favorably to male than female leaders, and to attend and defer more to men than to women. Many of the cases in which a woman is disadvantaged are of small scale. The notion of the accumulation of advantage demonstrates how even small-scale disadvantages can mount up over time. The gender schemas analysis allows us to devise appropriate remedies at the institutional level and at more individual levels.
The presentation was sponsonsored by The MIT School of Engineering.
The lecture is about an hour and 30 minutes long. You would also need to download RealPlayer to view it.
posted by petya at 10/28/2006 04:29:00 PM
45 Comments:
The problem, it seems to me, is clear. What we can do to fix it is a more difficult question. I'm willing to hear suggestions, but will admit that I have few of my own. The difficulty, it seems, is that there's no way to address inequality but through further forms of inequality, though some will always insist on seeing a contradiction in this. Gods help us.
Oh, God, there we go again... And we all let out a big sigh of relief when ol' Susan Oaken finally kicked the bucket, thinking femino-fascism would be cremated with her.
A SHORT HISTORY OF FEMINISM
ACT 1: At first it went like this: Women are 50% of the world population and yet have a much lesser share in most "prestigious" occupations: business, law, academia (go figure the prestige here), and so on. Hue and cry, fire and brimstone, feminist conventions, radical protests, hysterical books. End result: women's share in all those occupations went up.
ACT 2: Aha! But now that women are a little more equal with men, it's even harder to hide the dirty little mysogenist conspiracy behind the bushel: You see, it's all a lowly trick to get women to work as much as men so that they have no time for family, kids, sick relatives, Saturday shopping, beauty salons, in short, "happiness" outside the workplace. Even more radical conventions, academic hysteria, mimeographed pamphlets ("Momma, why didn't you tell me it was gonna be like this? or Why women are unhappy at the workplace"). End result: women now get extra time off the tenure clock in academia, additional chances to pass the bar exams in law and "family" leaves in business. All in the name of gender equality, of course, let those mysoginist male bastards pick up the work slack.
ACT 3: Oh, but wait, wait! Things aren't going anywhere. Even with all the affirmative action, gentle nudges forward and even overt reverse discrimination (against males), women are sill not in total control. Hmmm... Aha, yes! It must be the racism... er, ahem, ahem, sexism of little things, you know a little sexism here and there, the occasional dirty look from the boss, the degrading thought in that male schovinist pig colleague in the other cube, and that mysoginist the boss, we all know he secretly wants all female employees barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
End result: Kill, kill, KEEEEEEEL!
Jesus, grow up already. That and get laid!
I think patbuchanan just demonstrated exactly what I was talking about ;)
Is there anything more cowardly than turning a real issue into an ad hominem attack and then hiding behind the anonymity that the internet allows? Unless, of course, you really are Pat Buchanan, in which case, it's a pleasure to meet you, you asshole.
off-topic: I saw Pat Buchanan in a debate with ACLU's Nadine Strosser here at Penn State in September. And Heather and I had our pictures taken with him at the reception afterwards. Ha, he was a real hero at Penn State, had quite an ardent conservative audience - I got seriously scared for the future of this university.
I do not know if KGrady ever made it out of high school, but here is a lesson in formal logic:
"ad hominem" means, literally, "at the person," and is a type of critique which seeks to undermine an argument not by challenging the argument's logical structure, but by assailing the character of its author.
Bringing an ill-conceived bundle of preposterous "arguments" (such as feminist "theory") to its own absurd conclusions by tracing the ridiculous story of its "development" (or, rather, degeneration) to the point of becoming a sacred cow of political correctness is NOT a case of "ad hominem" critique.
Get your methodological repertoire straight, KGrady. Go back to school!
Very interesting. There's a girl in my office who did her MA on women who have not only found positions, but positions of power, and the interesting thing? They tend to mimic the male model of running things, which means that where you would think having a female boss would make it easier for women, it really doesn't.
hah,this reminds me of that ancient story about the monkeys and how that they are much more clever than they appear to be,but don't show it,because they are afraid that humans would make them work if they knew.
women are much more clever and equal to men than they appear to be,but they...we hide it because it feels better and cutely feminine to be brainwashed and to whine about inequality all the time.
strangely why my grandmothers,living in the cruel mid 20th century bulgarian communist society did not have to choose between their careers and families-they just had it all.
modern capitalist society is shauvinistic just because it needs victims and consumers,and depressed pesudo feminist women,lacking common sense,are both.
patbuchanan: Thanks for the Latin lesson, chief, I always wondered what "ad hominem" really meant. If you could control your own belligerence long enough to actually consider the possibility that someone besides you might have a point, you probably would have realized that what I was referring to was not the portion of your comment that you generously describe as "bringing an ill-conceived bundle of preposterous 'arguments' (such as feminist 'theory') to its own absurd conclusions," but rather the portion that is unambiguously ad hominem: "Jesus, grow up already. That and get laid!"
But even if I had been guilty of the mistake you accuse me of, that would be a failing of vocabulary, and not of "formal logic."
Still, all of that is beside the issue, which you demonstrate a remarkable knack for confusing. Toss out all the rhetoric you want, there's simply nothing "fascist" about asking why an unjustified inequality exists, and the fact that you seem to think otherwise is as disturbing as your neat little history of feminism is facile. What exactly are you so angry about, anyway?
KGrady: You still don't get my point, do you?
Let me give you a hint: "Inequality" and "unjust" are two words you, being a typical clove-smoking, Birkenstock-wearing, sloganeering leftie, assume truly describe the position of women in many areas of society. I disagree completely: I challenge you to PROVE there is inequality that is unjust (in other words, the veracity of the joint statement). There may be inequality that is perfectly justified, for example because women are not as smart as men or because they have a proclivity to spend more time at home, etc. Are you familiar with the argument of Harvard's former president Larry Summers to that effect? Well, he got shoved out by mindless slaves of political correctness, just because he spoke his mind. And ironically enough, the woman (if you can call her that) who led the charge to oust him, Theda Skocpol, was one of the first proponents of reverse discrimination: She SUED to get tenured at Harvard, when the faculty there did not vote her in (hint: maybe because they didn't think she was smart enough? God forbid!).
I would actually expect little more from a prime specimen of the abject failure of our country's third-rate educational institutions such as yourself. Now THIS is "ad hominem" and damn it feels good!
patbuchanan: Instead of accusing everyone else of failing to understand, maybe you should slow down long enough to think about what they are actually saying. I did not call the workplace inequality between men and women "unjust," I called it "unjustified," which is to say that no rationale or justification is offered for this inequality by the very same institutions that are responsible for it. You assume that I mean that the inequality must be eradicated, but I never suggest anything like that. My point is simply that there is a problem with an institution that pays its employees differently while not offering any explanation for this difference.
Is that "leftie"? "Sloganeering"? Does this point need, as you demand, while conveniently ignoring the question of what you would count as proof, to be proven?
Let me put it this way. If you operated a business that paid men twice what it pays women, and justified this inequality by pointing out that "women are not as smart as men," or that "they have a proclivity to spend more time at home," this would not be, and I would not refer to it as, an unjustified inequality. But let me ask you, do you really believe that either of these claims is true? Where is your evidence, Mr. Buchanan? Since you wanted to make this ad hominem, I must point out that your example offers little evidence of the allegedly superior intelligence of the male.
Oh, and by the way, suing for tenure is actually a fairly common thing, and people are denied tenure for all sorts of reasons, many of them quite petty, that have nothing to do with how "smart" they are. I guess I know that from all the time I've spent kicking around third-rate educational institutions, wearing Birkenstocks and smoking cloves.
Yes, KGrady, I can tell you'd know all about suing to get tenured. In the absence of original intellect and quality work, suing is pretty much the only way to ever get tenured at the kind of university where you are getting your Ph.D. I personally think part of the problem is just that, that second- and third-rate universities ARE allowed to grant Ph.D.s. A slap across the face of the few real Ph.D.s out there... But I digress.
Once again I have to correct the logical inadequacies of your reasoning (I sincerely hope you are not teaching anyone above grade school, though on the other hand teaching and not research is what you guys are really good for).
Quote: "no rationale or justification is offered for this inequality by the very same institutions that are responsible for it."
Comment: Why oh WHY are we back to square one, structural Marxism, the oppresive social structure, the nasty institutions of capitalism that institute and perpetuate inequality? Others have made this ridiculous claim about class inequalities, you are making it about gender. It's equally unconvincing, unless of course you believe in structural determinism (in which case you ARE a leftie nut). Let me say this again: NO institutions are responsible for the inequality. In a capitalist society with free market competition, economic agents do what's rational for them. The inequalities you observe are NOT deliberate, but the rational outcome of the choices made by welfare-maximizing free-willed agents. There is no grand conspiracy against women. If they do get paid less in a free market, then they ARE worth less. And no more explanation is needed for that than for the wage differential between CEOs and custodial workers. It exists because the market deems it rational, and noone can argue with the market!
Quote: "My point is simply that there is a problem with an institution that pays its employees differently while not offering any explanation for this difference."
Truth: See above. Why should economic agents have to justify the actions they take? In a free and competitive market they will ALWAYS do what's rational. If the inequality you speak of is irrational, then agents who practice it will perish. Well, they haven't -- hence, it IS rational for whatever reason.
patbuchanan: Once again, your propensity for completely misconstruing arguments is astounding. And you really need to learn to tell the difference between a "logical inadequacy" and a difference of belief or of values. There is nothing logically problematic with anything I said, only with the absurd conclusions that you try to draw from it. Did I say anything that justifies an association of my comments with either structuralism or Marxism? Even if I had, did you say anything to argue against either of these positions other than calling them "leftie," as if that somehow discredits them? I am neither a Marxist nor a structuralist, but I do believe that institutions are responsible for their practices in precisely the same way that individuals are, and that their responsibility is not reducible to the mechanics of free market economics.
Did I ever say, or suggest, that there is anything like a "grand conspiracy against women"? No. But the fact that women are consistently paid less for the same work than men is incontrovertible, and there is nothing leftist, Marxist, fascist, or logically fallacious about asking why.
"Why should economic agents have to justify the actions they take?" Because they aren't SIMPLY economic agents, and economics can't be neatly separated from a much broader set of social and political concerns, except in the minds of people who think that capitalism is the only value worth defending.
By the way, do you realize that in arguing that institutions are not responsible for their own practices, but that they are overdetermined by market factors, YOU are the one making a structuralist argument? Don't argue with me until you learn how to make sense. You throw sand in the eyes of people who disagree with you and then accuse them of being blind.
And I will repeat my challenge: stop hiding behind your anonymity or withdraw from the conversation.
Thanks to all for posting. And, please, excuse me for first addressing our dear Pat Buchanan here. He is the one who seemed most hurt by the post, so I feel it's my responsibility to talk to him first.
So, Pat, did you bother to hear Dr. Valian's talk? You did not, did you? Because if you did, you would have noticed that there was nothing particularly feminist about it. See, unjustified inequality is not an issue reserved for feminists. I completely agree with you that undeserving people should not be as successful (however you want to measure that) as those who work/try/know better. But that's not really the issue here, is it?
Neither was the history of feminism that you so creatively laid out for us. Now, I don't know where you got YOUR education, but if your comments here are any indication of the state of mind of first-rate institutions, I am in no way surprised that Skocpol would sue the beejeezus out of Harvard.
Also, I respect your effort in trying to sound consistently libertarian. That mission failed, however, when you tried to reduce social and political relations to purely economic/capitalist principles. If that's not sloganeering, I don't know what is.
As far as all the personal attacks on Kyle go...that's seriously beyond me. I am happy that he had the patience to try and have a conversation with you. Yet, you dogde the real issues and accuse him of wearing Birkinstocks. Because, let's face it, that's much easier to do than actually try and answer some pretty difficult questions. For the record, Kyle does not wear Birkenstocks and is actually shockingly non-Marxist. But for someone like you, who's obviously never read Marx, that's hard to tell, isn't it?
Finally, I find it pretty cowardly of you to get all viscious and personal on someone and at the same time remain anonymous. But hey, what do I know?! I am just a femino-fascist who wants to kill, kill, keeeeell my male readers.
How about YOU grow up? And get laid? But then again, with that attitude, I am guessing that might be easier said than done. Ah well.
KGrady: Let me once again correct the deficiencies of what your second-rate professors have taught you and give you a free lesson in argumentative reasoning and the fundamentals of positivist science. To make it more interesting and fun, I'll answer your questions with your own words, so you can see where you engage in circularity, tautology and non-sequitors.
Question: "Did I say anything that justifies an association of my comments with either structuralism or Marxism?"
Answer: "I do believe that institutions are responsible for their practices in precisely the same way that individuals are, and that their responsibility is not reducible to the mechanics of free market economics."
Comment: You said it eloquently enough yourself. I hate to have to break this to you but with a statement like this you DO qualify as a Marxist. May I suggest you familiarize yourself with a piece of timeless political theory classic, Das Kapital? For a more recent read (though I do not know if that won't be a tad too dense for your level), I'd recommend Immanuel Wallerstein. John Rawls is also an option, although he might be a little too soft on institutional teleology.
Statement: "[T]he fact that women are consistently paid less for the same work than men is incontrovertible, and there is nothing leftist, Marxist, fascist, or logically fallacious about asking why."
Contrast this with: "If you operated a business that paid men twice what it pays women, and justified this inequality by pointing out that "women are not as smart as men," or that "they have a proclivity to spend more time at home," this would not be, and I would not refer to it as, an unjustified inequality."
Comment: So which way is it, KGrady? Is it a case of unjustified inequality if a free private agent in a competitive market economy chooses to pay its women employees less than its male ones, in the same way it discriminates between its highly-skilled executives and low-skilled custodial workers? And since you keep pounding at the "why, why, why...", let me tell you that our hypothetical market agent does not have to justify its economic decisions, nor can be normatively judged for the things it does (because the normative basis is itself derived from "whatever maximizes its welfare the way it perceives it"). Again, if the market pays custodial workers less than CEOs, then the market agents value CEOs MORE than janitors. By analogy, if the market pays women less than men, then the market values women less. Now, noone can judge this discrimination "right" or "wrong", noone who calls himself a positivist scientist (and not a normative ideologue) that is. You want to pose as a positivist, so I dare you to drop your mask and show your normative true self.
The only real line you offer against this ironclad argument is:"Because they aren't SIMPLY economic agents, and economics can't be neatly separated from a much broader set of social and political concerns, except in the minds of people who think that capitalism is the only value worth defending."
This is absurd as it is completely unsupported from a positivist point of view. Why aren't firms "simply" economic agents? Hm? A whole science, economics, studies them as just that, utility maximizers. Why can't I separate economic activity from political decisions? Isn't the whole idea about utility maximization for economic agents value and trait neutral? The management of a company, when hiring or promoting, will only base its decisions on economic efficiency considerations. To claim otherwise, i.e. that for example women always get the short shrift FOR REASONS OTHER THAN SIMPLE CONSIDERATIONS OF EFFICIENCY (e.g. women have less stamina, can take less stress, are more fragile, have less analytical capacity, etc.), is to indeed espouse an irrational theory of discrimination. But if you claim a market agent discriminates against women, EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT RATIONAL for it to do so, you have to show why it does it and how it survives in a competitive market. If, on the other hand, you grant that there might be rational reasons to prefer men to women, then your only fall-back line is a normative slogan: "gender equality is desirable for its own sake".
What, pray tell, is your field of expertise, KGrady? I sincerely hope you are not in the political or philosophy field. We are already having a good laugh at the half-baked social scientists produced by the likes of Penn State, don't make my opinion sink even lower.
And there is nothing wrong in anonymity. It is the quality of the argument that counts, not who makes it. It shouldn't matter to you if I'm a hill-billy high school student from Alabama or a sophisticated Ph.D. candidate at a top 3 school. Some of the most interesting arguments in history have been exchanges of anonymous letters. The only real question is, do you have the balls--and brains--to argue with me?
patbuchanan: I could continue to take the time to point out the ways that you are manifestly cowardly, confused, hpocritical, and just plain wrong. But you don't seem to understand the spirit of conversation, and I won't stoop to your level anymore. This is not the place for it, but if you'd like to take this conversation up in private, I'd be more than happy to do so.
At this point I suggest we let others decide which of us has made a more convincing case here. Do you have the balls for that?
Very interesting. Word on the internet is you seem to make your point in class by throwing objects around. Does this make a bad argument more convincing? What are you gonna throw at me, KGrady? *LOL*
Dude, relax! It's all in good fun, nothing more invigorating than a heated debate that makes you Angry with a capital "A". Doesn't the adrenaline rush make you feel good?...
ANONYMOUS: i was in the middle of posting a response to your previous comment when i read the latest one you've posted.
what you have done here has gone way too far:
1. you have consistently avoided becoming involved in the arguments of this conversions. all you have done is ignore the efforts of people to engage in a conversation with you and have thrown unrelated points back at them. that is not how people talk. actually, i am in a bit of a shock that you seem to think that you're winning this argument. i mean, for real?!
2. you have continued to make personal attacks on people that you don't know. saying offensive (and wrong) things about the person you are talking to does not make their argument wrong. your attacks remind me of 5th grade conversations where kids tell Yo Mama jokes and then run in opposite directions. it's so childish.
3. your latest comment makes it obvious that you're getting all psycho on us and doing 'research' on people involved in this conversation. that's INSANE. please get a grip.
For everyone's sake, please leave this conversation and don't come back. You scare me.
Booo! Happy Halloween! That's the whole point. Why else do you think I perpetuated this thread? Research? Please, I get enough of that Monday through Friday. I was looking for a good laugh and a little psycho scare Halloween tactics...
Did you not say in your blog you wanted to get people excited about All Hallows Eve? Be careful what you wish for -- you may just get that psycho virtual stalker :)
I don't think it's funny to take a real issue like the one brought up in this blog-entry and make a big joke out of it. This is like telling racist jokes and then blaming people for not laughing. Also, attacking Kyle in a public forum like this was absolutely unnecessary and uncalled for.
I am sorry, but your whole intervention here has been just plain tacky.
patbuchanan:
I cannot resist asking you this one question: Why is Penn State a second- or third-tier institution?
tacky, scandalous, outrageous, that's the fun stuff in life :) don't you people never watch Borat/Ali G? KGrady is a big boy, he'll live over his public shaming, maybe even increase his testosterone levels and grow some balls in the process. Elena will finally take control of her life, lose some weight and transfer to a real graduate school. and you, petya, you will learn to be less judgemental of others, lest others should judge you too ;)
Nice to meet y'all, friends :)
Hehe, this is great :) I think I am going to graduate before I transfer though and then I will have a fake degree. You are a retard.
Oh jeez.... people like this patbuchanan chap are the reason why I no longer blog nearly as much about feminism as I used to. I simply got tired of the constant attacks and barrages of faulty logic. Apparently I too want to kill, kill, keeeeell my male readers. And I'm obese (obviously, since I'm an American Feminist). Sheesh. I'm getting ready to head off for work, but I'll definitely download the talk and watch it when I get back.
Pat: I am glad you got a kick out of this conversation. However, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you are seriously overestimating by comparing yourself to Borat.
There's nothing particularly "scandelous" or "fun" about offending people who have been nothing but gracious with you. Kyle was kind enought to continue to talk to you even after it was obvious to everyone here that not only do you not make sense but also that you are terribly obnoxious. Elena asked a simple question. I mostly just pity you.
For the record, I will delete your future comments. If democracy means 'allowing stupid people to offend well-meaning individuals', well, to hell with you. I do hope that my other readers will understand.
Sally, Elena and Jane: Thank you for attempting to contribute to this conversation. I apologize for allowing psychologically disturbed individuals to kidnap the conversation. I hope we can all actually talk about this issue, which has basically remained undealt with due to already mentioned psycho-stalker.
Prof. Grady: THANK YOU, yet again. We all have a lot to learn from you. :)))
I'm a little late to the party, but this is hilarious. (Sorry Petya, it really is a serious issue, but the absurdity of this guy's anonymous comments is just bizarre.)
Reading it here with Elena, I commented about halfway through, "What is this guy, from Michigan or something?" After his comment specifically about a top three school, I looked up US News and World Report's political science rankings. ("Three" is a very precise number to mention by random. In our base-ten society, you'd think he'd say "top ten" or "top tier," not "top three.") Guess which school comes in third? Michigan. Shocker.
Also, I love that he thinks he's better than Theda Skocpol, yet won't even tell us who he really is. She may have had to sue to get tenure, but no one that I know doubts her abilities as a scholar. (Not that I should defend her. I fell asleep trying to read her book last week. :-p)
Heheheh. Yeah, maybe he IS at Michigan. Even if that is the case, though, he won't be getting any jobs given how incapable he is of participating in a civil conversation.
Hillarious! I particularly loved that half-intuitive reasoning about the ten-based society and "top 3". Where is the logic, one wonders, of having gold, silver and bronze (3) medals and not, for example, 10 distinctions?
No, I'm not from Michigan. That leaves you with 2 other options, Boston or Palo Alto? :)
I do have a job already in a top tier school where most of you will only set foot on academic conferences. Maybe it's because of shameless elitist inbreeding, or maybe it's related to my peer reviewed publications.
I now know why we never hire anyone outside the top 5 schools in the nation, the mediocrity is just... too much.
Oh and one final word... on Theda. The fact that you "don't know anyone who doubts her abilities" simply means that you don't know anyone who knows their political science methodology.
FYI, Theda Skocpol and her "grand" theory of social revolutions is something of a dinner table joke among serious comparativists. Let me let you in on a little secret, when you do hit the job market, saying Theda has any scholarly abilities is not gonna make you very popular. Hint: Why do you think she has completely ditched research for administration, after she went through 5 editions of her laughable book and STILL couldn't get the damned research design right *LOL*
You guys are a riot! :)
I do have a job already in a top tier school where most of you will only set foot on academic conferences.
That's fine with me. I'd never even apply for a job at a top research institution, nor would I take one offered to me. I think that teaching is a much more valuable way to spend my career. Your mistake is in thinking that everyone wants to end up at a top tier school.
Who wants to waste her time poring over methodology for the rest of her life when there are students to teach? Far too many faculty lose sight of that. They're too busy inflating grades and applying for grants to engage the students who want to learn. Or breaking through to people who don't want to learn.
Christ. This is why I hate all the politics of academia. Some poeple just don't get it.
Holy shit, this guy is pathetic! A job at a top tier school? Well that just proves that academia is not a meritocracy. He makes fun of other people for not understanding logic, but he doesn't even seem to know what a "non-sequitor" (sic) is, much less how to avoid using them constantly.
Did you get that top tier job for knowing how to spell "sequitor"? Or was it "mysogenist," "schovinist," "judgemental," or "hillarious"?
You're right, everyone should be laughing, but at you, not with you.
Do us all a favor and just kill yourself.
anonymous--or should i call him out as KGrady--is a typical example of precisely why second-rate universities should not be in the business of churning out Ph.D.'s
i hate to break this to you, buddy, but if you want to "engage" students and teach (what someone else, like me, has discovered through research), then you do not belong in academia but may try the local district school board.
"an original and significant contribution to a field of science" is what a Ph.D. is given for, NOT for "engaging and informative teaching skills".
otherwise, you have "sour grapes" written all over you, like the countless other dullards i see at APSA every time. they have all their spelling alright, that and a truckload of empty theorizing, but funny how none of you ever make it to the pages of professional journals. Oh, could it be because... you have nothing to say that would be of even remote interest to the rest of us?
hey, man, i promise to write a textbook you can use to teach my theory to your community college class... i'll even sign the book *LOL*
1. It was me, not kgrady.
2. Unlike you, not everyone cares about the letters after his/her name. It's just a hurdle that has to be passed.
3. I'm going to stop now.
patbuchanan: Call me out? Nope, it wasn't me, sorry. You might have noticed that I have no need to hide behind a false identity here, because I stand by what I say. Interesting how your "reasoning" here resembles that you recently derided for being "half-intuitive." The difference is, jenn was just having fun; you actually thought you were right.
You continue to accuse me of lacking intelligence and proper education, yet what do you know about either one? Nothing. What have you actually done to call either one into question, other than name-calling ("leftie," "second rate," (you like that one, don't you?) "half-baked," etc.)? Nothing. What have you offered in place of the reasonable comments a whole host of people who disagree with you have earnestly shared? Absolutely nothing.
But here's what confuses me most about your misguided attempt to "call me out": I thought you valued anonymity. For someone who claims to believe that "It is the quality of the argument that counts, not who makes it," (a point, by the way, with which I am in complete agreement) you sure spend a lot of time trying to discredit arguments by making personal attacks on their authors. So what about the value of anonymity? Oh, right, you only value your own. It's no wonder either; if your colleagues knew this was how you spent your time, and how stupid you really are, they'd be as ashamed of you as we are.
If you'd like to stop the name-calling and actually talk about the issues, I invite you to do so with me at kylegrady@gmail.com. But this blog is not the place to air your abundant frustrations and insecurities, so I (and others) am asking you nicely to stop. Don't you ever get the feeling that you're just not welcome. No, of course not.
You are 90% wrong and 10% right, KGrady: Most of the people who posted on this thread no doubt have the insecurities, inferiority issues and the need to prove they are not of sub-standard intellect that are all so common in students who, all their lives, have had to settle for the second best: They were this close to getting off the Ivy League college waiting list (alas, had to be Michigan State instead *sigh*); then when they applied to graduate schools, we at the Ivy League could write our own tickets, while these guys had to swallow hard each of those fancy water-marked embossed letterhead rejection letters and settle for Penn State instead.
In short, life has been a series of suboptimal outcomes and near-achievements for most of the posters on this board, which is why they have developed this defensive reflex. At professional conferences you can always tell the people from the 2T and 3T (2nd and 3rd tiers, FYI), they are typically the ones with the three-piece suits (cheap atrocious fashion, I can't resist the aside) and bombastic sounding papers with 0.000 originality and intellect in them. They spend the whole conference fumbling at the heads of our professors in the vain hope of getting noticed; their presentations take twice as long as they struggle to prove to the academic world they are not dumb. All with a single goal: To fight that presumption of incompetence.
I, on the other hand, KGrady, have done very optimally in life at the top Ivy League schools and Oxbridge. I have nothing to prove, I'm here to have some fun and I engaged in this thread for the ton of shits and giggles I knew were bound to come.
So I tried as hard as I could to pull off the most outrageous clearly ridiculous and inane comments, to provoke and inscence you into righteous fury. Sure enough, as soon as I push your inferiority buttons, all of you ensamble engage my expletives, arguing against no reason as I and my office mates were rolling on the floor laughing our asses off.
Since you don't know either what I study or where I have studied it, you couldn't possibly know whether I would have preferred to be at another school, but that is not, and never has been, the issue.
Righteous fury? The only thing that has ever angered me (I can only speak for myself) is your willingness to make baseless personal accusations against good people. Go fuck yourself.
And if this amuses you, I seriously question how well you have done for yourself. What would your mother think?
By the way, did anyone here (besides you) ever even claim any credentials, other than common sense? Are such credentials required, or even helpful, in talking about these issues. I think you have demonstrated otherwise.
I don't get the sense that anyone's angry about your (undemonstrated and alleged) superior intelligence. They're mad because you're an asshole. The fact that you claim to have been kidding really doesn't make that better, it makes it worse.
"The fact that you claim to have been kidding really doesn't make that better, it makes it worse."
Who said I admitted to pulling this massively inconsiderate, inane, childish, immature, offensive to make amends or make anyone feel better? Dude, I'm having fun by pissing you off, of course I'm a crazy asshole! :)))
That doesn't mean I don't like y'all, petya and you seem pretty interesting, however outlandish that may sound coming from me... Actually, ever since I've been showing this around, you already have female fans here ;)
"Go fuck yourself."
Oh, man, that's too much! I'm go pop another beer and show this thread to the political theory bums next door, this discussion already made our drunken night in the international political economy office here.
I understand that it's fun for you. I'm appealing to your decency and asking you to stop harassing innocent people. Or, if you need to do so, please start your own blog and leave this one alone.
It doesn't take a psychologist to understand that someone who is amused by belittling other people obviously isn't as assured of his accomplishments as you claim to be.
Hey, hey, I've never belittled anyone here, and I'm most definitely not harassing--only chatting, isn't that why we're all here for? I've just made offensive comments and incendiary allegations, not because I necessarily believe in what I said, but because I designed it so as to draw you into the discussion. Otherwise it would not have been fun!
And I'm not a particularly good case to study from a rational point of view. I'm crazy, impulsive and wild, I enjoy life to the fullest--you either love me or hate me :)
Pat,
I really don't know what to say to you anymore.
It doesn't really matter to any of us where you go to school, what you do, or what you think of yourself. The fact that you AND your office mates find this amusing says enough.
Bad manners and poor taste know no boundaries and all the privilege and education in the world could not compensate for a lack of simple human decency.
Consider this topic closed.
wow, that was the most amusing thing i`ve read today!
i`m really far from this "academic" stuff, but i find the short history of feminism completely funny and right:D
zazie: if this is the most amusing thing you've read today...it must be a not very amusing day. sorry about that.
about this version of the history of feminism: which was the funny part and which the 'right' part? because i'm having a really difficult time seeing either one.
wow gold cheap wow gold buy wow gold world of warcraft gold wow world of warcraft wow gold WoW Warrior WoW Hunter WoW Rogue WoW Paladin WoW Shaman WoW Priest WoW Mage WoW Druid WoW Warlock power leveling powerleveling wow power leveling wow powerleveling wow guides wow tips food flower google排名 google左侧排名 google排名服务 百度推广 百度排名 网站推广 商业吧 机床 LED灯 电池 塑料 摄像机 移民 甲醇 染料 福州热线 体育博客 股票博客 游戏博客 魔兽博客 考试博客 汽车博客 房产博客 电脑博客 powerlin518 logo design website design web design 商标设计
wow gold
When you play a game of the day, the list of friends in the game whether there are always a few names of blackwow power leveling wow power leveling friends, who have accompanied you to upgrade, to accompawow power leveling wow power levelingny you in Aizelasi travel together, shoulder toshoulder once together Fighting against the forces of evil, has wow power levelingwow power levelinga mysterious caves to explore the unknown, had fallen at BoSS experience with the excitement and fun equipment. Whether the game or reality, the road of life there are countless friends Friends accompanied, however, perhaps because these wow goldWorld of Warcraft goldare the reasons, they temporarily left the game, leaving you alone miss.
Peace in the always easy, perhaps you miss the same wow power levelingwow power levelingtime thought, maybe these friends have more happiness. But now, when people across the Heianzhimen, found that when the army had already defeated the devil
Reunited forces, ready to start a horrendous burning expedition, you prepared ? Aizelasi and Karim more quiet life will soon be broken, alliances and tribal confrontation is no longer meaningful, once the Comrade-in-arms, whWatches RolexRolex Watchesere are you ? Willing to come back to fight side by side, have you desperate to defend the guardian of the world. Aizelasi world needs you!
In Citie, please write down where you region, the server name, his (ID, career), miss the person (ID, occupation, class), rs goldthe unforgettable things (not limited number of words), if there are games In
Screenshot, please give shots. We will organize to fine wow gold
wow goldthe media, the official website, and let us meet in the data-burning expedition, again with the common fight against the burning Corps.
"World of Warcraft" S4 half of the season, I treatment from a 1600 / 494 Ren / 0 rapid priest, became a 1500 treatment / Ren 496 / 176 rapid pastor. S4 in the new season feeling really very generalWatch RolexRolex Watch Quickly washed the 1900 +, the use of special rapid sharing of experience and the majority of my colleagues. "World of Warcraft" and "the cream of sadness" Art and Design Competition has been one month to start, this competition has been overwhelming majority of "World of Warcraft" players the warm concern and supporrolex replicareplica rolext activities from the beginning, there have been drawing players to upload their exquisite works. Essay, once adopted, will pay royalties, and royareplica rolexRolexlties for the standard 50 yuan / thousands of words -80 yuan / 1000
Post a Comment
<< Home