2. Tereshkova did not have a panic attack in space. She had a panic attack before going and was strapped into the seat against her will. Again, this is not uncommon - NASA considers behavioral and psychiatric conditions a significant risk to the integrity of its missions (http://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Risks/risk.aspx?i=99).
(An interesting aside: A 1976 Soviet space mission Союз 21 had to return early because of "interpersonal issues" but of course these were male astronauts so no one says the mission was aborted due to crew's cat fighting).
3. Tereshkova was not "unresponsive", she fixed multiple engineering/communication failures, both during flight and landing.
"She didn't want to go," Soviet space scientists told me. "At the last minute, she panicked, and they had to strap her into her seat against her will."
It is not actually possible to take words in a threaded conversation out of context and twist them. The entire thread and your unaltered, original words are right there, for all to see.
Q. What was the fate of the women's group after Tereshkova's flight?
A. It is well known that Korolev's attitude toward the presence of women at work and especially on the launching pad was very negative. He believed that on a launching pad, like on a ship, a woman brings misfortune.
(Korolev was the head of the Soviet space program at the time).
Carnegie Hall, specifically, is known for enabling sub-par performers to rent the space (along with all its prestige and history, of course). Yes you can "get to Carnegie Hall" on talent alone - OR you can just pay your way in. Rentals start at just above $1,000 (for one of the smaller auditoriums on a weekday) and go up to $20k (for the main Stern auditorium on a Saturday night). To put this in perspective, if you get the most expensive rental and sell out its 2,800 seats at just $10 per ticket (the rental fee includes ticket marketing and sales by Carnegie Hall, by the way), you will pocket $8k in profits.
In the music world, this is a well known punchline to the "how do you get to Carnegie Hall" joke. Lots of people get in that way, such as the Tiger Mom's daughter, as one famous example. (And let me tell you... as a classical music lover duped into attending these performances because of the Carnegie Hall brand - they suck).
There is an interesting parallel to another front-page post on HN today, Entrepreneurs don't have a gene for risk – they come from families with money (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10151566). This quote fits especially nicely: "So while yes, there's certainly a lot of hard work that goes into building something, there's also a lot of privilege involved - a factor that is often underestimated."
Ah yes, Florence Foster Jenkins being the famous example [1] who was wealthy and hired Carnegie hall for a concert, in spite of being tone deaf thought she would sing Mozart's difficult Queen of the Night aria: and record it. [2]
She is famous for saying "people may say I can't sing but no one can ever say I didn't sing".
These lines of reasoning (it's talent/money, not work/grit/focus) appeal to those who don't want to take responsibility for their own success or failure.
The line of reasoning that money or social status play no role appeal to those who have it and who want to think of themselves as entirely "self-made." It wasn't the millions of dollars I got handed or the premium education, no, it was pure grit and hard work.
You see this all the time with rich people. They're the kids of even richer people but yet still are "self-made" who "started out with nothing" and did it through "hard work."
The fact that you immediately equated "diversity" to "lowering your hiring bar" and "under-performing" is as ignorant as it is insulting.
Women and brown people are not lower quality humans, and it has been shown over and over and over that companies who hire for diversity perform better.
I think ignorance is taking things out of context unnecessarily. I am assuming Pinterest already has an unbiased hiring bar. Yet, due to sheer probability, the number of other races get hired much more. Considering the number of applicants remain the same, how do you balance the race/gender without being biased to one race/cast?
They [...] keep their own hours, NEVER have to work if they don't want to and 0 consequences for working or not working specific hours.
Not true. I know someone who drives for Uber. Just last month, he was suspended because he did not want to drive during low-demand hours (when he literally loses money). Uber drivers are, in fact, required to (a) work when they don't want to and (b) work specific hours.
I've heard a lot of termination notices from Uber, but that doesn't sound right. Are you sure he wasn't turning down rides from outside of surge? Uber doesn't like it if you have a low acceptance rate. If anything, Uber wants you to work when there's surge to help drive prices down. Also sometimes Uber just makes shit up when the real reason for termination is something else. (Low rating, safety)
Why would that matter? I would totally "fire" (i.e. terminate the contract) a contractor that didn't work when I needed him/her to (i.e. that didn't get the job done). Why would Uber need to be any different?
The scenario you bring up is a 2-party scenario between a client (the passenger) and a service provider (the driver) while Uber claims to be in a 3-party scenario where they are a software-based logistics service in-between the passenger and the driver. Their entire legal argument is resting on the claim that they are merely facilitating the scheduling and the payment of the ride.
Incidentally, if it were a 2-party scenario where you required a specific contractor to be available on demand, you would probably be their legal employer. A mandated, regular schedule is indeed one the main tests when distinguishing between an employee and a contractor. I have worked as a software contractor in the US for over almost 15 years and the employers, especially the larger ones with proper HR departments, have been careful to define my work in terms of skills and deliverables, not hours worked.
A 3rd party logistics service can do the same thing. If my business is to connect customers with web developers, but one particular developer turns down nearly all the jobs I offer him, I'm going to stop wasting time sending him offers.
If I don't weed out people to make the connections as efficient as possible, I'm not doing very well at my job of handling the logistics.
As someone in this 62%, I can tell you that the numbers may be correct but the terms are anything but. Men hear "rape fantasies" and think real rape, while women think "intense sex with a hot stranger which requires no effort on my part and furthermore absolves me of any decision making so no one can brand me a hoe".
As always, it helps to remember that women are people and therefore the overwhelming majority do not fantasize about actually being tortured and possibly killed or maimed for life. (Not saying that the parent actually said anything to that effect, just trying to drive home the point that these stats use bad terminology).
Edit: for some reason I cannot reply so I will post an answer here.
Is the survey methodology flawed in what they ask the respondents?
I think so. The linked study said it counted self-reported incidents of fantasies of sexual encounters that fall within "the legal definition of rape", and that's where I have a problem. The central point of the legal definition of rape is the lack of consent. So how could sexual fantasies, which are by their nature something you want in that moment, be counted as non-consensual? You are asking people about a consensual sexual scenario that's only staged as non-consensual but then you are counting it as non-consensual. It's like asking people if they fantasize about the doctor/nurse scenario (or whatever) and when 20% report that they've had that fantasy, you conclude that 20% of the population wish they had a serious illness.
That's not rape though. I guess I wonder why this 62% figure comes up if it's actually "hot sex with an attractive stranger" rather than "forced intercourse." Is the survey methodology flawed in what they ask the respondents? Are the respondents confused about what they're agreeing with? Are the results being incorrectly reported?
"absolves me of any decision making" certainly implies it (and meets the "legal definition of rape" the study was looking at).
It's also easy to miss that figure is "have had" a rape fantasy, meaning at least once would qualify. This survey study[1], for instance, found estimates of 31% - 57% "have fantasies in which they are forced into sex against their will". However, for only "9% to 17% of women these are a frequent or favorite fantasy experience".
In any case, I'm not sure why this is surprising. Power dynamics are a powerful part of any sexual experience, whether they be a central part of it or just fleeting. The point that rada made above is important, though, that when speaking of fantasies we are talking about people deriving pleasure from circumstances that are imagined by the very person who wouldn't be able to give consent were the situation reality.
Apart from all the things you point out, I also can't help but wonder - for eg. the US "1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape)."[1, numbers from 1998]
So, how those that jive with "rape fantasies"? Are we to assume that many women that have been the victim of rape, still have rape fantasies? Without going into the deep topic of coping strategies for trauma, and what is considered "normal" sexual behaviour etc -- at the very least it would seem that the "rape" in one survey isn't quite the same term as the one in the other?
To reply to the sibling comment about "legal definition of rape" -- that kind of disregards the fact that these are fantasies. Isn't there something from Freud about us being everyone in our dreams? I don't think it's wrong to claim that when you fantasise about having control of someone else, you're also fantasising about being the one in control.
As for the low numbers for men (3%), I came across an article[2] on the prison system -- that doesn't really seem to change the overall picture that much: Men are less likely to be sexually assaulted in general, while inmates (of both sexes) are more likely to assaulted.
One depressing thing that can be gleaned from the second article, is that female correction officers apparently have a higher rate of abuse of juvenile inmates. Overall, I'm not sure the article adds much to the discussion of rape fantasies -- but I add it here as it might be of interest to those that are curious about rape statistics in general.
I've been raped but also have (what I would consider) rape fantasies. My sexual assault isn't at all like my rape fantasies. I can't say I understand it either but they are totally different in my mind. My fantasies are different in that I have fantasies about resisting my husband (someone I trust completely) who then holds me down "against" my will and "forces" it on me while I struggle to physically "resist" but ultimately lose. It's roleplaying and when you are roleplaying it isn't like reality by definition. When I was actually raped it was different but I'm not going to describe that here because I don't want to have to defend myself.
Of course that also has absolutely nothing to do with whatever that creepy dude was talking about comparing yellow lizards with breeding rapists. We can just also say the best rapists aren't the kind that are strangers who jump out of bushes (the kind that society hates). My rapist was a charismatic "lady's man." My rape was never reported but many years later my rapist is currently sitting in jail for raping someone else. Part of me feels like I'm responsible for the other women who he raped after me because I never said anything. I'm also sure the other woman who reported him probably got a lot of backlash too.
It probably helps that my assaults was a very long time ago and I didn't start having these fantasies until probably a decade later.
> One depressing thing that can be gleaned from the second article, is that female correction officers apparently have a higher rate of abuse of juvenile inmates.
Would it be less depressing if male correction officers had a higher rate of abuse instead?
I am quite grossed out by the racist and misogynist media coverage of the "missing avocado" incident. Every single article about the case makes sure to mention that it was a female juror against a male juror and some of the articles also point out that the accuser is asian while the accused is white. How are these factoids relevant to the incident, or the larger case?
The real story: two months into the project, Karma founders Dayne Rathbone and Clyde Rathbone realize that they are not happy with their contractor, Artem Andreenko. DR & CR threaten AA that unless he gives them a full refund, they would publish a name-and-shame article about him. AA disagrees, Karma founders follow through on their threat and publish the piece.
From the article:
We discuss how much money we should ask Artem to refund us. We consider all the time and energy he’s cost us in addition to the cash, and decide to request all our money back.
A search on GoDaddy informs me that www.artemandreenko.com is available. I buy it and begin writing this blog.
The following day Clyde and I had our last chat with Artem. We were interested to see his reaction to a draft of this blog, and to give Artem the opportunity to decide how the story ends.
This is true, but I'm not sure if the study went into male vs female (and I'm not up for paying the $40 to find out). Either way, though, my point about the male-dominated force was that there's less gender diversity, which does seem to correlate with the divorce incidence rate.
I jump rope on two yoga mats, one on top of the other. I've done it without a couple times and noticed the very next day. FYI I am just over a 100 lbs but I also jump for 30-40 minutes, depending on the show I am watching.
1. Yes she threw up in space. So do ALL astronauts. So much so that NASA has procedures on how to handle that (http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/29/17970838-vomit-i...).
2. Tereshkova did not have a panic attack in space. She had a panic attack before going and was strapped into the seat against her will. Again, this is not uncommon - NASA considers behavioral and psychiatric conditions a significant risk to the integrity of its missions (http://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Risks/risk.aspx?i=99).
(An interesting aside: A 1976 Soviet space mission Союз 21 had to return early because of "interpersonal issues" but of course these were male astronauts so no one says the mission was aborted due to crew's cat fighting).
3. Tereshkova was not "unresponsive", she fixed multiple engineering/communication failures, both during flight and landing.