Jump to content

Scylla Rhiadra

Resident
  • Posts

    19,987
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    182

Everything posted by Scylla Rhiadra

  1. Ugh? ETA: Sorry Arielle, now that I'm at my computer, I can give this the response it merits. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be descriptive, or prescriptive. Are we supposed to like this person? Are men supposed to want to be like this? That's an important question because, for me (and most men and women with whom I associate, I suspect), this person is far from "desirable." This description seems to elevate egoism or narcissism to a kind of moral virtue. He is apparently entirely un-self-aware ("Not affected by criticisms"; "Rarely admit their mistakes"). I value criticism, at least legitimate and thoughtful criticism, because I know I make mistakes, all the time, and I want to prevent them from recurring in the future. He seems to be emotionally disconnected and intentionally self-isolating. I find the former sad: why would you WANT to cut off an important part of who you are? The latter is underlined by the fact that there is not a single mention here of connection, generosity, or altruism. This guy exists by himself, solely for himself. He's certainly not going to "charm" this "lady."
  2. People who believe themselves to be "Alphas," or want others to believe this, do tend to be crappy people, in that they are destructive and mean But I think ultimately that they are really rather sad. I don't mean that in a nasty sense: I mean rather that they are probably pretty damaged, their personalities distorted by low self-esteem, a sense of inadequacy, or whatever. A kinder, gentler world would, I suspect, not produce such people at all.
  3. Well . . . Yes! That is in fact the implication of my point that there are no "special" categories of men. They are best judged as we judge other things, including women. I'm glad you picked up on this! I should note that there is a type of woman parallel to the pseudo-Alpha Male. Pretty much any woman who went to middle or high school will have run across them: they are particularly toxic and destructive, but more subtly so. Tina Fey wrote a movie about them. Ultimately there is nothing "Alpha" about them, either. They are just crappy women. I hope and believe that you don't actually make anyone cry, Orwar, as that would be unnecessarily mean. I'm sure you don't.
  4. Oh, totally. But I don't think there's such a thing anyway, except in their own minds. It's not a hierarchy, it's a spectrum. There are good men, there are crappy men, and there is a vast range of men who fall in between. And "good" has nothing to do with their ability to thump their chest and "dominate."
  5. So last night I made a thing. It's not a very stylish thing, but I'm going to be wearing it a fair bit for a little while. (If anyone would like a free copy of this thing, let me know. And what body you use.)
  6. "Forced equality" . . . As opposed to all of those instances in history where the privileged just willingly gave up their advantages. Because they were "nice," of course.
  7. OMG! And now, this, a dead ringer for Gauguin??? 😏
  8. I have no idea if this was your intention or not, but this looks very much like some of the paintings of Henri Rousseau! Either way, très magnifique!
  9. Thanks Myra! I have of course seen your really useful pieces on replicating lens types in Kultivate, and have been using your settings there for, well, years. I have a reasonable grasp, I think, of how DoF works in RL cameras: what I've been trying to grapple with is the relationship between the Phototools settings for DoF and their RL analogues -- and come to the conclusion that it's a highly imperfect match. As you say, they may have mixed up FoV and View Angle. Certainly, FoV seems to have the exact opposite effect of what it should: increasing it should effectively widen the DoF, but it seems instead to narrow it. So I'm not at all sure that setting FoV, View Angle, and Focal length to the "correct" RL numbers is actually replicating what you'd get in an RL camera from that particular setup -- particularly, as I said, because FoV seems to work backwards. But given the fact that DoF is turned "off" by default most of the time anyway, which is of course also not really possible in an RL camera, it may be expecting too much. I agree entirely that it would have been great if they had linked FoV and View Angle to Focal length, so that adjusting one automatically changes the others (as would happen with an RL camera if you changed Focal Length), but I guess that's too much to ask. Also, wouldn't it have been nice if Aperture (f-number) also affected the lightness/darkness of the pic? And ISO and shutter speed would have been nice . . . (The LL viewer has the same settings as FS, by the way, but hidden in the Debug settings, and with slightly different names. Black Dragon is much like FS, but with View Angle listed separately from the others.) Thanks for this! And I'm having fun with the lens simulator!
  10. I was wondering these things myself. Linden Research Co. has had 4 CEOs, none of them women, for instance. This is, sadly, all too true, although I suspect it is, at least in part, a generational thing.
  11. Well, Trotsky had his Stalin, I suppose. But which are you?
  12. It's not just her choice, Garrett. You make it sound as though women are the only ones who want children. It's not something women do for fun, and, whether planned or not, men bear an equal responsibility for it happening. But the biological reality is that by far the greatest burden for having children -- and effectively keeping the human race going-- lies on women. And when that is compounded by actual financial, social, and political penalties, you've got a problem that needs to be redressed. If everything else -- and remember, this is complicated -- were equal, no. But everything else is seldom equal. Again, look at the complex range of factors at play here. It's important to note that in many cases "men" aren't to blame for this: it's systemic. And that is in part because the system -- and more generally our culture -- hasn't yet adjusted fully to the realities of women in the workplace. It's actually getting measurably better. But we're not there yet.
  13. No need to worry, Paul. I just double-checked, and you are NOT on the official "Men-Who-Are-Really-Going-to-Get-It-When-We-Take-Over" list.
  14. But taking your car to a mechanic isn't a gendered activity. Pregnancy, maternity leave, and childcare are. I should note that in my country, men are now eligible for paid paternity leave as well. That is a great thing.
  15. But it is if the reason you are not working the same hours is because you are a woman. I take your point, but, again, it's more complex than merely "women don't work as much." In my place of employment, women get occasional bonuses in order to bring their average wages up to the rate of men -- and this is in a salaried job, not one based upon hours worked. In other words, hours worked isn't a factor, and yet women are statistically still being paid less for (in this instance) exactly the same work. The document I cite also notes that "in its 10-year analysis, Statistics Canada (2018) notes that nearly two-thirds of the studied gender pay gap is unexplained. For this portion, possible explanations include gender differences in work experience, 'as well as unobservable factors, such as any gender-related biases.'"
  16. ONLY on the forums? Pfffft. We're WAY more trouble than that.
  17. Well, to begin with, it's not "a study" -- it's actually the result of decades of analysis and data, drawn from a really wide range of national, geographical, and national studies, and investigated in almost countless academic and institutional studies. A huge amount of data on this subject has been amassed, and it has been subjected to examination, interrogation, and peer review in thousands of "studies" and analyses. The subject is, of course, more complicated than it sounds from Luna's remark -- although, in substance, she is correct. Your remark that hours worked is one of the factors in the pay equity gap is also true -- partially -- but it doesn't account for the many gendered reasons that women often don't work the same number of hours as men: these include things like the fact that women are more likely to be the primary caregiver of children, and so more likely to work part-time, as well as the fact that maternity leave frequently ends up restricting job and advancement opportunities for women. Women in effect are often financially penalized for the fact that they are the ones who get pregnant, give birth, and do the bulk of the childcare. Also at issue is the fact that many highly-paid careers tend not to be as open to women; traditional areas of "women's work" are generally not paid as well. So, it's a very complicated issue, with a really broad range of factors to blame, many of which are not addressed by current legislation. If it is true that Luna's aside is too brief to account for that complexity, it's also true that your response doesn't come close to reflecting the full reality of the reasons for the pay equity gap. Can I recommend this web site: it's Canadian, but the issues it identifies are generally applicable in all G7 nations. Please note that it is fully referenced with statistical sources and studies.
  18. Yeeesh. Stop it already! (My partner comments when he hears me engaging in what he calls "my angry typing." Apparently I hit the keys particularly hard and rapidly when I'm agitated. It's been known to wake him up. I've taken to tiptoeing across my keyboard.)
×
×
  • Create New...