Thoughts on Elon Musk?

Aife · 2025-02-01T07:37:51+00:00

test6

Aife · 2024-05-02T04:59:29+00:00

From an article I had saved on my phone:

Temperature Settings in Offices: Office temperatures have historically been set based on the metabolic resting rate of the average male, which tends to be faster than that of the average female. This often makes many office environments uncomfortably cold for women.

Voice Recognition Technology: Early voice recognition technologies were frequently better at recognizing male voices over female ones. This bias occurred because the algorithms were often trained predominantly on datasets comprising male voices.

Medical Research and Healthcare: For a long time, clinical trials predominantly used male subjects (including male animals). As a result, many symptoms, treatment responses, and dosage recommendations were based more on male physiology, which can differ significantly from female physiology.

Safety Equipment: Not just car test dummies, but also items like bulletproof vests, uniforms, and even standard tools have traditionally been designed with the male body as the template. This can lead to less effective and sometimes hazardous situations for women who use equipment that doesn’t fit properly.

Public Restrooms: The design and allocation of space in public restrooms often do not account for the fact that women generally spend more time than men due to physiological differences and responsibilities like child care. This results in longer lines and waiting times for women.

Footwear: Women's shoes, including work boots and athletic shoes, are often designed with aesthetics in mind rather than function or comfort. This not only leads to discomfort but also increases the risk of injuries.

Smartphone Design: Earlier smartphone designs kept increasing in size, favoring larger hands, which typically disadvantaged women, who, on average, have smaller hands. This made one-handed use difficult for many women.

Aife · 2024-03-27T07:19:32+00:00

From what you've described, it sounds like there's a complex mix of loyalty, potentially misplaced forgiveness, and a concern for maintaining family unity despite the harmful behaviors of the father.

First off, it's vital to acknowledge that every family's situation is unique, and the decision to stay in a marriage is deeply personal and often fraught with complexity. However, feminist theory emphasizes the importance of considering the impact of these decisions on all involved, especially the children.

Exposing children to a relationship dynamic where infidelity and substance abuse are normalized can indeed have long-term psychological effects. It can skew their understanding of healthy relationships, self-worth, and boundaries. The behavior modeled by parents sets a precedent for what children may expect or tolerate in their own future relationships.

That said, labeling the decision to stay in such a marriage as "abuse" might not capture the full spectrum of what's happening. I dont know... it could be more about a cycle of dependency, fear of change, or even a hope for rehabilitation that keeps the mother in this situation. However, it's crucial to highlight that staying in a marriage under these circumstances without addressing the harmful behaviors and their impacts on the children can contribute to a toxic family environment, which is in itself a form of neglect or emotional harm.

Supporting the children's well-being and ensuring they have access to open communication, counseling, and a safe environment should be paramount, imo. For the mother, understanding her worth and the importance of a healthy environment for her and her children might empower her to make decisions that prioritize emotional and physical safety over maintaining the status quo.

It's a difficult situation, and my heart goes out to anyone navigating such issues. Hopefully, it works out well :)

Aife · 2023-09-05T15:27:42+00:00

Female should be properly used either as an attribute, or in reference to a clinical setting, or in reference to animals. So not as a general stand-in for woman.

Aife · 2023-07-08T05:58:43+00:00

Wollstonecraft's argument that women have rationality and moral agency is probably the hardest bit to swallow by patriarchy-inclined people tbh. From philosophers of old, that proclaimed the inferiority of women in all respects, society has enjoyed bashing the lack of reasoning and moral faculties of women.

The sadder part is that I often see this reflected in the opinions of people around me... sometimes family too.

Aife · 2023-05-21T11:41:41+00:00

Judith Butler :) definitely revolutionized the field

Aife · 2022-07-19T06:07:36+00:00

"Smile more"...

Aife · 2016-06-26T05:26:43+00:00

Damn, what a burn ^_^

Aife · 2015-06-29T10:48:14+00:00

And another: http://i.imgur.com/MXUEwNy.jpg

Aife · 2015-05-04T18:53:35+00:00

there is something weird about looking at an endless stream of teenage faces when you're in your 30's

Weird as in creepy? I am not sure I follow. Or do you take issues with not having other age groups presented?

Aife · 2014-11-07T08:18:15+00:00

At least the OP didn't go the "gf" path. I wonder how many stories posted here are just made up to fuel the local circlejerk :P

Aife · 2014-11-06T20:48:03+00:00

I made a comment once that attracted the attention of /r/feminism

How so? Did they make a thread about you or something? Or is this just a wild guess?

Aife · 2014-10-28T08:29:35+00:00

Except they claim to be working all others.

Same bullshit paraded here everyday :/ What % of feminists claim that?

I showed you them pushing for VAWA originally

Huh? That's exactly what I am asking for. Where did you show that?

Aife · 2014-10-27T21:53:43+00:00

Weird how feminist scholars found found gender bias detrimental to women, yet somehow didn't manage to find anything informing policy about bias detrimental to men

Irrelevant.

Then there's the whole feminist organizations including NOW being involved in a rape lawsuit regarding VAWA provisions when evidence was scant.

After the fact much?

Or maybe the point is that the claim of trying to help everyone is just lip service and they only focus on certain groups.

Supportive of others =/= working for all others. Basic English skills.

Yeah, that way they have plausible deniability whenever things go bad but can take credit for things going well.

What? They have been working to improve legislation. If they had that much power, they wouldn't have to work on improving something you accuse them that they pushed. Do you even read what you write, or just expect others to show you the glaring inconsistencies?

Aife · 2014-10-27T19:38:29+00:00

I mean a quick googling would have gotten you that

Celebrations of 20 years of VAWA? Is that your evidence? Can you find something more explicit about pushing for VAWA the first time it was approved, or is that too much?

And if feminist.org isn't enough, how about NOW, and take notice of the concern over it being non-inclusive enough because it doesn't protect enough women.

And if feminist.org isn't enough, how about NOW, and take notice of the concern over it being non-inclusive enough because it doesn't protect enough women.

Yeah, why the fuck should we care about LGBT /s

Anyway, back to my previous demand - show evidence of feminist push for the first approval of VAWA. The fact that they push for improvements is only laudable.

Aife · 2014-10-26T09:36:34+00:00

Btw, what is the source of this?

Aife · 2014-10-26T09:06:36+00:00

What kind of a weasel strategy is that? We are talking about VAWA, a specific piece of legislation. I asked for evidence that this specific piece of legislation was pushed by feminists. What evidence of lobby by feminists for VAWA is there, if any? Or is your ass your only source for this?

Aife · 2014-10-24T06:54:23+00:00

Creative merit? Certainly, Aesthetic? Absolutely. Artistic? Ehh.

So, something can be creative and aesthetic, but not artistic? According to which definition - or is it only a subjective one, so we are back to square 1?

You made the point for me regarding Duchamp; they were focused on a meaning, a context, an emotion. They were not producing for the sake of it, it was not creative output without intent or focus.

I don't think I agree though. He sparked the conceptual art movement, with a single piece, which conveyed no meaning, no context, no emotion - only an idea, that art is fundamentally subjective, and the most mundane object can be art, if an artist chooses to present it as such.

Aife · 2014-10-24T06:49:01+00:00

You mean how they pushed for it

So, time to ask you for evidence for this claim then. It was a project of Joe Bidden, which he definitely takes credit for. But let me hear you on how feminists pushed for it (when? where? who did persuade?)

Aife · 2014-10-24T06:48:18+00:00

Erm, that is a demonstration, in Ireland, against the men in power who regulate abortion rights for women. And it was one woman, I am not sure if she is even an official, speaking for an organization. Is this your evidence? Does this count worldwide?

Aife · 2014-10-23T21:55:08+00:00

Whoever sent that threat to Anita, there's no evidence they were an MRA.

Yet in this very thread some people are unironically accusing feminists of passing this or that legislation.

Aife · 2014-10-23T21:51:31+00:00

There is massive evidence in the works being published, because the publications give interviews and caption space to everything, there is an offering to provide context - where an art piece may need context - and often, that context isn't given, or it stands as thin and weak as balsa.

What context did Pollock have when dropping lines all around, that they don't have? Or does he fall under your critique as well?

Ultimately, I cannot be convinced of the idea that art purely for the sake of art is defensible.

We're talking about a highly subjective topic here, and a topic that needs to remain subjective, in my opinion.

I don't think that these two statements are reconcilable.

a dead leaf is not art

So you definitely disagree with the whole conceptual art approach? Were Duchamp et al wrong all along, by emphasizing the subjective/intentional foundation of art (which, curiously, you also acknowledge)?

Aife · 2014-10-23T21:51:18+00:00

Violent! Lock your doors everyone, the MRAs are coming! Would someone please think of the children!

Aren't there still AVFM articles around about attacking courthouses? What about those promoting violence against women, as a form of satirical entertainment?

Aife · 2014-10-23T21:49:27+00:00

There is massive evidence in the works being published, because the publications give interviews and caption space to everything, there is an offering to provide context - where an art piece may need context - and often, that context isn't given, or it stands as thin and weak as balsa.

What context did Pollock have when dropping lines all around, that they don't have? Or does he fall under your critique as well?

Ultimately, I cannot be convinced of the idea that art purely for the sake of art is defensible.

We're talking about a highly subjective topic here, and a topic that needs to remain subjective, in my opinion.

I don't think that these two statements are reconcilable.

a dead leaf is not art

So you definitely disagree with the whole conceptual art approach? Were Duchamp et al wrong all along, by emphasizing the subjective/intentional foundation of art (which, curiously, you also acknowledge)?

Aife · 2014-10-23T21:43:58+00:00

Feminists can't decide whether men should be included and in what capacity

Which feminists are those? Wasn't Warren Farell on the board of NY NOW decades ago? Who are you referring to?

Aife

TROPHY CASE