Taylor Swift Is A Whining Feminist Man-Basher In Latest Music Video ‘The Man’.

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, Lynnel said:

Giving someone a job they're less qualified for because of their gender or because you need to look like a progressive university is a no-no in my book.

Again, this comes down to what are “qualifications” and who decides “qualifications”? 

Deciding what counts as a qualification is relative and needs to be discussed on a hiring committee. It’s not like there is some magical, objective list of 6 verified, objective qualifications that magically falls from the heavens. Rather, a hiring committee must decide the mission and direction of their institution before listing out qualifications. This needs to continually be updated as things evolve over time. At my institution, the qualifications for a TT position is  different than it was in the 1960s. One of our newer missions is to promote underrepresented groups in STEM. To that end, we got millions in donations to promote this. Now, “qualifications” change. We’ve been recruiting underrepresented groups for students and faculty. This has changed the demographics and what counts as a “qualification”.

For example, we now have a large number of students that come from poor inner-city neighborhoods. These students are undrr-prepared and many of them speak English as a second language. In our science department a *new* qualification is the ability to teach to under-prepared students - even basic things like writing proper English in science reports. This was not a “qualification” at my University in the 1960s because all the students came from affluent homes. 

During our last job search, one of the candidates was hispanic, spoke spanish, was a first generation immigrant, grew up in a poor hone, and has personal and professional ties to mexico and central america. Decades ago, these would not be assets for a TT science professor at my uni. It was a very different environment. There were only rich white kids. Yet environments change. We are now 38% under-represented students, many of which are minorities, first generation, ESL and poor. In this environment, these “non-science” assets of this candidate was very attractive. Noone in our department is hispanic, speaks spanish or has anything like his life history. He would be able to connect to many students like noone else i. our dept. can. Many of our inderrepresented students would see themself in this successful prof. That is a powerful dynamic. He could help our department regarding issues for disadvantaged students and how we can better help them. He could set collaborations in mexico and take students down there. . . . These were all assets we could call “qualifications” unique to individuals. As well, other candidates also had their own unique qualifications. 

In the end, we had “common qualifications” like a postdoc, research experience, publications and teaching experience. Yet we also had flexibility for unique characteristics that were assets to our uni - as described above.   

[Parththakkar12]

25 minutes ago, Lento said:

But this is not realistic at all. How would we determine which perspective is the most comprehensive? Are there any objective measures for this? See, at least with gender equality, we can know who is a man and who is a woman. I'm not sure but I still sense a bit of denial of the female perspective.

There are no objective measures for this. It's literally just felt-based and intuitive. It's not applicable in a formal sense that we can prove to people who's perspective is the most objective one. You don't know how conscious someone is and you can't raise someone else's consciousness.

What you can do though is raise your own individual consciousness. You can become conscious of everyone's perspectives yourself, like who's in the game, what for exactly and why is everyone invested in it. If you're doing this right, someone who isn't projecting on you will feel validated by your actions. That's ultimately what matters, cuz the people projecting on you aren't in reality, and therefore they can be consciously manipulated into getting what you want! The fact that they're getting manipulated is on them cuz they're not in reality. That's the only thing to do with them!

You can become lesser identified with the ego perspective and as a result find the path of least resistance for all parties involved. For more information, watch Leo's video on Collective Ego.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Lynnel]

@Serotoninluv

I've been loving your responses since I'm trying to grow a bit more into yellow.

Now that I think of it it's completely true and it's very important to consider.

[SgtPepper]

This video does not capture the experience of Man, simple as that. 

[remember]

somehow i feel there is so much more music i want to post in this thread.

 

[remember]

 

[Yog]

You might like this guys.
 

 

[calibrate]

Bunch of incels on this website

Music is entertainment for an intended audience. But these days it can also be used to cause controversy and generate clicks.

Recognise this and keep moving..

[Derek White]

7 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Again, this comes down to what are “qualifications” and who decides “qualifications”? 

Deciding what counts as a qualification is relative and needs to be discussed on a hiring committee. It’s not like there is some magical, objective list of 6 verified, objective qualifications that magically falls from the heavens. Rather, a hiring committee must decide the mission and direction of their institution before listing out qualifications. This needs to continually be updated as things evolve over time. At my institution, the qualifications for a TT position is  different than it was in the 1960s. One of our newer missions is to promote underrepresented groups in STEM. To that end, we got millions in donations to promote this. Now, “qualifications” change. We’ve been recruiting underrepresented groups for students and faculty. This has changed the demographics and what counts as a “qualification”.

For example, we now have a large number of students that come from poor inner-city neighborhoods. These students are undrr-prepared and many of them speak English as a second language. In our science department a *new* qualification is the ability to teach to under-prepared students - even basic things like writing proper English in science reports. This was not a “qualification” at my University in the 1960s because all the students came from affluent homes. 

During our last job search, one of the candidates was hispanic, spoke spanish, was a first generation immigrant, grew up in a poor hone, and has personal and professional ties to mexico and central america. Decades ago, these would not be assets for a TT science professor at my uni. It was a very different environment. There were only rich white kids. Yet environments change. We are now 38% under-represented students, many of which are minorities, first generation, ESL and poor. In this environment, these “non-science” assets of this candidate was very attractive. Noone in our department is hispanic, speaks spanish or has anything like his life history. He would be able to connect to many students like noone else i. our dept. can. Many of our inderrepresented students would see themself in this successful prof. That is a powerful dynamic. He could help our department regarding issues for disadvantaged students and how we can better help them. He could set collaborations in mexico and take students down there. . . . These were all assets we could call “qualifications” unique to individuals. As well, other candidates also had their own unique qualifications. 

In the end, we had “common qualifications” like a postdoc, research experience, publications and teaching experience. Yet we also had flexibility for unique characteristics that were assets to our uni - as described above.   

@Serotoninluv Qualification is relative but we can all more all less agree on it. Most people would agree having consistent good grades, interests, and hobbies makes for a good university application. 

I can understand the university considering knowing more languages and coming from a poor home an asset in your application. Knowing more than one language is a sign of intelligence and growing up in a poor home and applying to university is a sign of dedication. But I don't understand how being from an underrepresented group is advantageous and why is your university targeting such groups? Could you explain that? This could potentially lower the standards of the university. A better way of helping them would be to increase the funding of their schools. 

I was reading an article which was a transcript of an interview with Paul Tough, author of the bestseller The Year Which Matter The Most: How College Makes or Breaks Us. He was asked about how US private colleges are in red and are offering massive tuition discounts and how only 11% pay the full freight. He said most institutes, except the top ones, need tuition money to operate, students who don't have particularity good grades but have enough family money to pay full tuition are sought after. They also hire out of state students for the same reason. Idk if scholarships but this is what the article said. So maybe your university is targeting underrepresented and under-prepared kids because of they are financially beneficial and giving you false reasons to enroll them?

[Arcangelo]

Here at actualized.org we believe that it is better to stay away from redpill as a whole because of it's misogyny and bitterness towards women. Which needless to say creates a toxic atmosphere here in the forum.

 

''NOTE: This is NOT an anything-goes free speech zone!''

 

[Ananta]

1 minute ago, Arcangelo said:

Here at actualized.org we believe that it is better to stay away from redpill as a whole because of it's misogyny and bitterness towards women. Which needless to say creates a toxic atmosphere here in the forum.

 

''NOTE: This is NOT an anything-goes free speech zone!''

 

?That's right!

[Leo Gura]

This ain't going anywhere good.

[Inliytened1]

14 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

?That's right!

in other words we know who is boss! 

 

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

This ain't going anywhere good.

you aint married yet