I thought the upper left corner was the guy thing, just worded a bit differently.
cksays
@rq,
A lot of the first row has variations on “It’s a guy thing.”
laurentweppesays
Many of these excuse are perfectly valid
…
If you add “because a bunch of bullies did all they could to discourage as many talented women as possible”
Seriously: try it:
There aren’t enough qualified female speakers because a bunch of bullies did all they could to discourage as many talented women as possible
There aren’t a lot of women in C-level positions because a bunch of bullies did all they could to discourage as many talented women as possible
No one has complained about this before, because they were afraid of the bunch of bullies who did all they could to discourage as many talented women as possible
There aren’t that many female attendees either, because a bunch of bullies did all they could to discourage as many talented women as possible
Why do I have the feeling you could add another row and column to this, fill them all in with common excuses without too much work, and not make the game any harder?
anabasissays
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
There are many qualified women to present various viewpoints, but statistics are statistics.
Perhaps I’m missing something but aren’t equality and evolution mutually exclusive?
How on earth did you get that idea? Yes, I do believe you’re missing something.
lochabersays
Is it just me, or is there a recent rash of idiot trolls popping up in the beginning of every and any thread related to social justice issues?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Is it just me, or is there a recent rash of idiot trolls popping up in the beginning of every and any thread related to social justice issues?
Been that way ever since ElevatorGate.
lochabersays
I’m used to seeing them at some point in the thread, but lately I’ve noticed them popping up in the first score or so of comments…
And they are all (sockpuppets maybe?) displaying Palin levels of intellectual arguments…
Rey Foxsays
Perhaps I’m missing something but aren’t equality and evolution mutually exclusive? There are many qualified women to present various viewpoints, but statistics are statistics.
Non Sequitur Sunday!
Jackie, all dressed in blacksays
The American Non Sequitur Society; We don’t make much sense, but we love pizza!
antepreprosays
Perhaps I’m missing something but aren’t equality and evolution mutually exclusive?
Aren’t equality and genetics mutually exclusive? Because no two people (except twins) are identical, therefore they aren’t equal, therefore fuck the legal system (?)
There are many qualified women to present various viewpoints, but statistics are statistics.
Well statistics are statistics indeed. You are a master of the equal sign. When Ayn Rand said “A=A” you must have shat yourself and said “This is all I need know about life, ever”.
The American Non Sequitur Society; We don’t make much sense, but we love pizza!
That’s not enough of a non-sequitur. The only reason to join most social organizations is the food they serve at gatherings. (Although perhaps they would use that motto and then serve sandwiches?)
theoreticalgrrrlsays
Statistics say there are 2.2 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus, 500 million Buddhists, 14 million Jews, and 58 million people who belong to other faiths such as the Baha’i faith, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Wicca and Zoroastrianism.
So, 84 percent of the world population has faith. Therefore, it must be in our genes to have faith in a God or gods of some kind. There are a lot of atheists who present various viewpoints to the contrary,
but statistics are statistics.
jefrirsays
Perhaps I’m missing something but aren’t equality and evolution mutually exclusive? There are many qualified women to present various viewpoints, but statistics are statistics.
Wtf does this even mean?
vaiytsays
There are many qualified women to present various viewpoints, but statistics are statistics.
The statistics don’t say anything but “things are this way”. You’re interpolating that things are this way because things are this way, and therefore things should be this way. Think about why you’re doing that.
woozysays
Perhaps I’m missing something but aren’t equality and evolution mutually exclusive?
Huh???
There are many qualified women to present various viewpoints, but statistics are statistics.
Huh???
….. okay. Equality and evolution mutually exclusive… Uh, why on *earth* would you think that? Um, that’s just weird. Doesn’t matter anyway as the this BINGO graphic card is from “Feminist Philosophers” blog and has nothing to do with evolution. It’s an all-purpose observation about conference speakers in pretty much *any* field.
…now, qualified women to present various viewpoints, but statistics are statistics ….. ???Huh???? … I’m sorry. That just doesn’t make any sense. I can’t even understand what you are attempting to say. If there are qualified women to present than there are statistics for that so … what are you saying?
====
So, 84 percent of the world population has faith. Therefore, it must be in our genes to have faith in a God or gods of some kind. There are a lot of atheists who present various viewpoints to the contrary,
but statistics are statistics.
1) Statistics of people believing in something doesn’t have anything to do with whether the thing is true. I don’t know of a single atheist who denies that 84 percent of the world is religious or who “present a varying viewpoint to the contrary”.
2) It “must be in our genes” is very much an oversimplification. It is not “in our genes” to live in urban centers or to have specialized jobs. There are many theories as to why humans have faith and there are really no atheists who claim there are no reasons. A dozen years ago the “god spot” of the brain was speculated but that seems to have been for naught.
3) The differences between the listed faiths are greater than any commonality. You might as well argue that as all human beings wear some type of clothing, then the nudists’ claim of clothing being a social construct doesn’t fit statistics.
theoreticalgrrrlsays
woozy:
“Statistics of people believing in something doesn’t have anything to do with whether the thing is true.”
Yes, exactly.
Athywrensays
Perhaps I’m missing something but aren’t equality and evolution mutually exclusive?
Lets assume that this is completely true……. so what? Evolution tells us what is the case regarding the development of life over the generations. It tells use precisely nothing about how we should act. Though I’d point out that, as a social species, our fitness can only be improved by supporting all members of our society, and not imposing artificial selective pressures upon certain groups based on nothing more than irrational biases, prejudices, and appeals to tradition.
Louissays
Look at this group of people who have (on average) been generally held under the jackboot of this other group of people. Why that second group must be inherently better than the first. That can be the only possible explanation!
I wanted to rise up against my oppressors, but gravity kept me down. :(
Nepenthesays
I wanted to rise up against my oppressors, but gravity kept me down. :(
*snort*
Well played ma’am.
muskietsays
“It’s a male-dominated field” looks close enough to “It’s a guy thing”.
woozysays
So is the weird idea of evolution and equality being mutually exclusive another misapplication of the inaccurate adage “survival of the fittest”?
First of all, it’s been explained many times that the phrase is inaccurate. At any rate it doesn’t apply individually at all times. I am not in direct physical competition with you and my mere survival will not come down to my superior genetics.
Second, it’d be absurd to apply that to gender. Males and females can’t compete against each other for survival and “destiny” of their species because they are the *same* damned species and parthenogenesis aside (which temporarily limits genetic diversity) both genders are required to reproduce so one gender *can’t* be “the fittest” over another. Which really hints at a basic misconception of “survival of the fittest”. It isn’t about individual against individual but about development of traits and passing them to a population.
Thirdly, and I *really* *really* do not understand why zealot anti-evolutionists do not get this, studying a scientific principal in action does not in *any* way indicate a belief in any moral or societal ethics. The idea is absurd! Does a belief in gravity imply a disbelief in social mobility or, as son of rojblake and SallyStrange pointed out, freedom. Does evaporation determine anyone’s financial planning (divest! divest! always divest!) ? This is … incomprehensible .. Really incomprehensible.
*FINALLY* This is about hiring guest speakers at conferences, not the actual research. Should a dog breeding convention only hire canine speakers because humans and dogs are mutually exclusive?
David Marjanovićsays
I wanted to rise up against my oppressors, but gravity kept me down. :(
Thread won.
Second, it’d be absurd to apply that to gender. Males and females can’t compete against each other for survival and “destiny” of their species
Hang on a second. There’s no such thing as a species outside of our skulls. Your genes have no idea what species they belong to.
Of course they also have no idea what gender they belong to…
Statistics say there are 2.2 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus, 500 million Buddhists, 14 million Jews, and 58 million people who belong to other faiths such as the Baha’i faith, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Wicca and Zoroastrianism.
In other words: no one faith has a majority. Therefore, every one of them must be false. Sorry, but statistics are statistics. :P
antepreprosays
Just to clarify for theoreticalgrrl, I’m pretty sure her 17 is just a parody of 7, not a convoluted attempt to prove that we must all bow down and praise Non-denominational Jesus.
Yes, I realize that. My point is that atheists win even when parodied.
hjhornbecksays
anabasis @7:
There are many qualified women to present various viewpoints, but statistics are statistics.
Indeed, but they don’t lean they way you think they do. We appear to consistently see more difference between men and women then there actually is, so the absence of qualified women in some areas suggests we’re devaluing women in those spheres.
theoreticalgrrrlsays
@32
Yes.
@33
LOL, yes. :P
Anrisays
I was under the impression every square was just longhand for “It’s a guy thing”.
Athywrensays
@22, me
I really need to clarify this, just in case someone notices the ambiguous sentence structure and misinterprets my meaning:
as a social species, our fitness can only be improved by supporting all members of our society
Supporting all members of our society is obviously not the only way to improve our fitness – we could develop the ability to shoot lasers from our eyes which would be a huge improvement! (Especially if the ability to make presentations involving graphs, pie charts, and other informational illustrations becomes a selective pressure.) – but supporting all members can only be an improvement.
That’s the free space, obviously.
I thought the upper left corner was the guy thing, just worded a bit differently.
@rq,
A lot of the first row has variations on “It’s a guy thing.”
Many of these excuse are perfectly valid
…
If you add “because a bunch of bullies did all they could to discourage as many talented women as possible”
Seriously: try it:
There aren’t enough qualified female speakers because a bunch of bullies did all they could to discourage as many talented women as possible
There aren’t a lot of women in C-level positions because a bunch of bullies did all they could to discourage as many talented women as possible
No one has complained about this before, because they were afraid of the bunch of bullies who did all they could to discourage as many talented women as possible
There aren’t that many female attendees either, because a bunch of bullies did all they could to discourage as many talented women as possible
Uncanny.
Also: “We didn’t do it on purpose!”
Why do I have the feeling you could add another row and column to this, fill them all in with common excuses without too much work, and not make the game any harder?
“There are three types of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.” Mark Twain.
And your alleged statistics say?
How on earth did you get that idea? Yes, I do believe you’re missing something.
Is it just me, or is there a recent rash of idiot trolls popping up in the beginning of every and any thread related to social justice issues?
Been that way ever since ElevatorGate.
I’m used to seeing them at some point in the thread, but lately I’ve noticed them popping up in the first score or so of comments…
And they are all (sockpuppets maybe?) displaying Palin levels of intellectual arguments…
Non Sequitur Sunday!
The American Non Sequitur Society; We don’t make much sense, but we love pizza!
Aren’t equality and genetics mutually exclusive? Because no two people (except twins) are identical, therefore they aren’t equal, therefore fuck the legal system (?)
Well statistics are statistics indeed. You are a master of the equal sign. When Ayn Rand said “A=A” you must have shat yourself and said “This is all I need know about life, ever”.
@14, Jackie, all dressed in black:
That’s not enough of a non-sequitur. The only reason to join most social organizations is the food they serve at gatherings. (Although perhaps they would use that motto and then serve sandwiches?)
Statistics say there are 2.2 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus, 500 million Buddhists, 14 million Jews, and 58 million people who belong to other faiths such as the Baha’i faith, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Wicca and Zoroastrianism.
So, 84 percent of the world population has faith. Therefore, it must be in our genes to have faith in a God or gods of some kind. There are a lot of atheists who present various viewpoints to the contrary,
but statistics are statistics.
Wtf does this even mean?
The statistics don’t say anything but “things are this way”. You’re interpolating that things are this way because things are this way, and therefore things should be this way. Think about why you’re doing that.
Huh???
Huh???
….. okay. Equality and evolution mutually exclusive… Uh, why on *earth* would you think that? Um, that’s just weird. Doesn’t matter anyway as the this BINGO graphic card is from “Feminist Philosophers” blog and has nothing to do with evolution. It’s an all-purpose observation about conference speakers in pretty much *any* field.
…now, qualified women to present various viewpoints, but statistics are statistics ….. ???Huh???? … I’m sorry. That just doesn’t make any sense. I can’t even understand what you are attempting to say. If there are qualified women to present than there are statistics for that so … what are you saying?
====
1) Statistics of people believing in something doesn’t have anything to do with whether the thing is true. I don’t know of a single atheist who denies that 84 percent of the world is religious or who “present a varying viewpoint to the contrary”.
2) It “must be in our genes” is very much an oversimplification. It is not “in our genes” to live in urban centers or to have specialized jobs. There are many theories as to why humans have faith and there are really no atheists who claim there are no reasons. A dozen years ago the “god spot” of the brain was speculated but that seems to have been for naught.
3) The differences between the listed faiths are greater than any commonality. You might as well argue that as all human beings wear some type of clothing, then the nudists’ claim of clothing being a social construct doesn’t fit statistics.
woozy:
“Statistics of people believing in something doesn’t have anything to do with whether the thing is true.”
Yes, exactly.
Lets assume that this is completely true……. so what? Evolution tells us what is the case regarding the development of life over the generations. It tells use precisely nothing about how we should act. Though I’d point out that, as a social species, our fitness can only be improved by supporting all members of our society, and not imposing artificial selective pressures upon certain groups based on nothing more than irrational biases, prejudices, and appeals to tradition.
Look at this group of people who have (on average) been generally held under the jackboot of this other group of people. Why that second group must be inherently better than the first. That can be the only possible explanation!
{Faints dead from irony and eyerolling}
Louis
It’s also missing periods. Punctuation, people!
That much is certain.
What, like freedom and gravity? Sure..
I wanted to rise up against my oppressors, but gravity kept me down. :(
*snort*
Well played ma’am.
“It’s a male-dominated field” looks close enough to “It’s a guy thing”.
So is the weird idea of evolution and equality being mutually exclusive another misapplication of the inaccurate adage “survival of the fittest”?
First of all, it’s been explained many times that the phrase is inaccurate. At any rate it doesn’t apply individually at all times. I am not in direct physical competition with you and my mere survival will not come down to my superior genetics.
Second, it’d be absurd to apply that to gender. Males and females can’t compete against each other for survival and “destiny” of their species because they are the *same* damned species and parthenogenesis aside (which temporarily limits genetic diversity) both genders are required to reproduce so one gender *can’t* be “the fittest” over another. Which really hints at a basic misconception of “survival of the fittest”. It isn’t about individual against individual but about development of traits and passing them to a population.
Thirdly, and I *really* *really* do not understand why zealot anti-evolutionists do not get this, studying a scientific principal in action does not in *any* way indicate a belief in any moral or societal ethics. The idea is absurd! Does a belief in gravity imply a disbelief in social mobility or, as son of rojblake and SallyStrange pointed out, freedom. Does evaporation determine anyone’s financial planning (divest! divest! always divest!) ? This is … incomprehensible .. Really incomprehensible.
*FINALLY* This is about hiring guest speakers at conferences, not the actual research. Should a dog breeding convention only hire canine speakers because humans and dogs are mutually exclusive?
Thread won.
Hang on a second. There’s no such thing as a species outside of our skulls. Your genes have no idea what species they belong to.
Of course they also have no idea what gender they belong to…
@17, theoreticalgrrrl
In other words: no one faith has a majority. Therefore, every one of them must be false. Sorry, but statistics are statistics. :P
Just to clarify for theoreticalgrrl, I’m pretty sure her 17 is just a parody of 7, not a convoluted attempt to prove that we must all bow down and praise Non-denominational Jesus.
Yes, I realize that. My point is that atheists win even when parodied.
anabasis @7:
Indeed, but they don’t lean they way you think they do. We appear to consistently see more difference between men and women then there actually is, so the absence of qualified women in some areas suggests we’re devaluing women in those spheres.
@32
Yes.
@33
LOL, yes. :P
I was under the impression every square was just longhand for “It’s a guy thing”.
@22, me
I really need to clarify this, just in case someone notices the ambiguous sentence structure and misinterprets my meaning:
Supporting all members of our society is obviously not the only way to improve our fitness – we could develop the ability to shoot lasers from our eyes which would be a huge improvement! (Especially if the ability to make presentations involving graphs, pie charts, and other informational illustrations becomes a selective pressure.) – but supporting all members can only be an improvement.