SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Temperatures are set based on formulas that aimed to optimize employees' thermal comfort, a neutral condition of the body when it doesn't have to shiver to produce heat because it's too cold or sweat because it's too hot. It's based on four environmental factors: air temperature, radiant temperature, air velocity and humidity. And two personal factors: clothing and metabolic rate, the amount of energy required by the body to function.
The problem, according to a study in Nature Climate Change on Monday, is that metabolic rates can vary widely across humans based on a number of factors -- size, weight, age, fitness level and the type of work being done -- and today's standards are based on the assumption that every worker is, you guessed it, a man.
Or if you want to be really specific, a 40-year-old, 154-pound man.
...
Kingma and van Marken Lictenbelt's work builds on research out of Japan which found that the neutral temperature for Japanese women was 77.36 degrees (Fahrenheit) while it was 71.78 for European and North American males.
5.58 degrees is a significant difference. Is it better for half the people in the office to be sweaty than half the people in the office to be chilly?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:31PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:03PM
Probably virens had a mod point to spend.
(Score: 4, Informative) by K_benzoate on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:04PM
Patriarchy is a fictional concept created by feminist academics based on flawed historical and sociological analysis and a misapplication of proto-Marxist philosophy. SJWs actually exist. They also ruin communities, so it's not unreasonable to be wary. Nothing about this is particularly hard to understand so don't be so smugly dismissive.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:47PM
Not unlike furries then eh? Thus why they are banned so many places and the oh-so-popular "yiff in hell"
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:47PM
Patriarchy is a fictional concept created by feminist academics based on flawed historical and sociological analysis
patriarchy: [merriam-webster.com]
noun pa·tri·ar·chy \-ˌär-kē\
: a family, group, or government controlled by a man or a group of men
You realize that it was illegal for women to vote or hold public office in the US for about the first 100 years of its existence, right? It think the flawed historical analysis is yours.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:58PM
Nice equivocation there. You are not an idiot. I am certain you realize that the term patriarchy has a purely negative connotation towards men having power as used today and is no longer the neutral definition that you have posited. And please, show me a married man in the western world that is in total control of their own life, let alone the lives of their family. Women rule the world by proxy, always have.
Also, "there is no such thing as mysogyny because it is not in the dictionary". Yet there are indeed people in the world that are sexist towards men. Funny how dictionaries and reality don't match.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 05 2015, @06:39PM
Nice equivocation there. You are not an idiot. I am certain you realize that the term patriarchy has a purely negative connotation towards men having power as used today...
No equivocation. I addressed, directly, the accusation of "flawed historical analysis."
"there is no such thing as mysogyny because it is not in the dictionary" Yet there are indeed people in the world that are sexist towards men
Try spelling it correctly. [merriam-webster.com]
Or, perhaps try learning the actual term for it (also in the dictionary) [merriam-webster.com]
(Score: 2) by gidds on Thursday August 06 2015, @12:17PM
[gasp]
You can't spell it 'misogyny'! That starts with 'mis', which sounds like 'miss', which is a derogatory term for a female of a certain age and/or marital status — neither of which are any of your business!!!
[sig redacted]
(Score: 4, Informative) by K_benzoate on Wednesday August 05 2015, @06:08PM
No, it’s still you who is off base.
You don’t get to play this game in one direction only. Most men couldn’t vote either throughout the history of democracy, and universal female suffrage followed very closely behind universal male suffrage. Also, you don’t get to ignore that men have had to bear the majority of responsibilities and liabilities to their families and societies. And don’t forget the immense shame, guilt, and in the recent past even corporal punishment that is dealt to men who fail to live up to these duties. Teddy Roosevelt even longed to bring back the whipping post for men who mistreated their wives—the lash having the benefit over a monetary fine or stay in jail that it would not deprive the man’s family of his resources and labor which accepted practice considered them entitled to.
Feminism is the intersection of systemic, unapologetic, intellectual dishonesty and bitter misandry.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 05 2015, @09:38PM
The existence of other crappy forms of governance has no bearing on whether this particular crappy form of governance is "fictional" or not.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @07:04PM
You realize that men in the US and Brittan did not have the right to vote either? Men were dying in wars they were not allowed to vote in politics to perhaps prevent because they were not land owners. Shortly after universal suffrage for men came universal suffrage for women, within one generation in the US or and less than two decades in Brittan. People who legally fought Drafting for military service in the US were defeated by a Congress which ruled that Conscription was the duty required to those afforded the right to vote. Thus the largest push back against voting rights for women were women themselves who did not want to be conscripted and didn't really care about politics (the marriage was a union, and the family had one vote which she typically had a say in). As soon as more women wanted the right to vote than didn't the all male government granted women the right to vote without requiring the duty of conscription how "oppressive".
You history wast taught to you by ideological propagandists. The past sucked for both men and women. I can always smell a SJW by the sexist and ignorant shit they say.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday August 05 2015, @11:50PM
We're going way off topic, but you raise a point that bugs me. In Amazon tribes, it's the duty of every able-bodied woman to defend the tribe from aggressors and to rebuild after environmental disasters.
More prosaically, Heinlein wrote in Starship Troopers (I confess I haven't read it yet and only know the deliciously campy movie version):
When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
While I wasn't unaware that women were not held to the same standard outside of Amazon law (I wasn't born an Amazon), I was, however, shocked to the extent that this discrepancy didn't even enter into the minds of the feminists I was required to read in college. Perhaps more excusable (more surprising than shocking), is that while this discrepancy comes up for MRAs, the obvious solution, bringing gender equality to Selective Service, doesn't seem to have a lot of support in those circles, either.
(All though, I did learn an adequate explanation from my mentors back in Qinghai: many women are happy being weak, taking pride in being the mysterious, fair gender, exclusively connected to the Door of Guf. Eh, who am I to argue with them? As I've been researching submissions, I've found that there may be some upcoming tensions among Western women in what, exactly, feminism should be for.)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @12:56AM
That's not what the SJW crowd use the word for. In gender studies, the patriarchy is a system of oppressive male dominated society where women are disadvantaged by nebulous things such as institutional structures and subconscious cognitive biases. They literally think that a meritocracy is oppressive to women because it "unfairly" favors men.
That's not uncommon for them, a lot of politically charged words like racism get "sociological definitions" and are used interchangeably along with the real words. I'm pretty sure it's intentionally confusing.
You realize that it was illegal for women to vote or hold public office in the US for about the first 100 years of its existence, right? It think the flawed historical analysis is yours.
SJWs think the patriarchy exists and is widely prevalent today. And no they aren't talking about the middle east or Africa, they mean western societies.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by darnkitten on Thursday August 20 2015, @04:17AM
-
Anecdote is not evidence time...
-
I worked retail for a time, for a Store Manager who deliberately arranged the sales floor and store room so he could literally trap women--staff and customers, and hit on them. He had been transferred in from another division. Women stopped coming into the store during the hours he was there, and female staff quit. Complaints from male staff were ignored, because we "weren't [ourselves] directly harrassed." He lasted for a few years after I left, until he harassed a VP's secretary, who had enough pull to get him fired.
I also worked as a shop foreman under a new Technical Director. He was a great boss, patient, understanding, and a great teacher--to the men. if one of the men made a mistake, he would sit with him, show him what he did wrong and how to correct it, multiple times even. If a woman made even a slight mistake he would "jokingly" suggest that they were "too dumb to do the job," but wouldn't help them. He would find fault in their construction work or their draughtsmanship, even when it was of a higher quality than the men's work. If they complained to me or asked me for help, he publicly belittled them, because they were "crybabies, who couldn't handle the pressure." He hired men with NO experience or even without any RELATED experience in the field over women with years of direct experience. His contract would have been renewed, had I not made a point of finding out when his contract review was, so I could speak up. Management liked him--he was pleasant, and completed his projects on time and within budget. We ended up losing all the women who had worked for us in the time he was there--they just left the industry. A waste. None of the men came back, either--they were only there to get paychecks, and had no interest in the field.
-
-
Today, I run a small rural library.
Despite having TWO female paleontologists (one dinosaur) and a married pair of antarctic scientists as well as female doctors, a female firefighter and female ranchers, business owners AND military personnel in our town of about 700,
I still
(just today, in fact)
hear parents or other adults tell little girls
"oh, you don't want to read THAT, that's a BOY BOOK!"
...when all she wants is a book on spiders, sharks or dinosaurs.
(boys of that age already won't read "girl books," even with action and explosions, at least in front of other kids).
-
--This ends today's episode of "Anecdote is not evidence." Please feel free to imagine the cutesy theme music of your choice.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @06:48PM
You are not incorrect:
Invention of the Patriarchy. [youtube.com]
However, Feminism is an outgrowth of Marxist Theory [wikipedia.org], which is not only attacking the west through dishonest propaganda that causes gender divisionism, but also via media lies designed to cause racial tensions. [youtube.com]
SJW is the non "Politically Correct" term for lying and manipulative ideological extremists who co-opted the once legitimate Civil Rights movements to further a world wide propaganda war against capitalism in the west.
Feminism is not "women's rights". Feminism is a bogus ideology that does not further the rights of women. Women's Rights needs a divorce from Feminism, which is just traditionalism (more protection and provision for women) repackaged and sold to angst filled college youths as a way to "rebel" against "oppression" and "tear down gender roles" (while actually furthering them and increasing the size of the socialist police state); These useful idiots who buy into the easy to believe lies then spread the propaganda and cause erosion of social unity without even realizing what they're doing -- they think the rest of us are all just blind to how evil we all must be for not agreeing with them (even though many of us know far more about their bullshit teachings than they do).
E.g.: If you had no knowledge of the KKK and they were teaching a class about "Racial Studies" and promoting Racial Pride, and just wanted to inform you of the inherent evils of "blackness", the correct thing to do would be to research the KKK beyond just what is stated in their own propaganda. Notice that SJWs don't do any research about Feminism or Marxism outside these ideologies' own propaganda, and thus teach and attend classes about "Women's Studies / Gender Studies" and "African / Native American Studies" (etc.) while promoting "gender" pride, and just want to inform you of the inherent evils of "maleness" and "whiteness". It's fucking disgusting, and colleges are rife with this Orwellian authoritarian ideological indoctrination. [thefire.org] I feel sorry for the duped idiots who are unwittingly helping to destroying western cultures (who never mention the "diversity" disparity and lack of "representation" of blacks among Chinese or Russian businesses, BTW), but then again I have no tolerance for stupidity or identity politics. [wikipedia.org]
Feminism did not break down gender roles and allow the family to select which parent would raise the children and maintain the home. Instead it shamed women into the workplace by overvaluing the worker role and devaluing the parenting responsibilities. Once women entered the workplace the economy adjusted to two income homes, and so you now get the same amount of pay per home for twice the labor -- Capitalists love it too: Workforce labor at half the price! That's why elites like the Rockefeller fund feminist rags like Miss Magazine. With both parents slaving away in the workplace the State loves being able to take on more responsibility for raising / controlling the children [youtube.com] -- gee, how very Marxist, eh? The better to indoctrinate you with, my dear.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by K_benzoate on Wednesday August 05 2015, @07:13PM
The doubling of the labor force driving down wages is something that I've struggled with. I do agree with the idea that women should be allowed to choose to work if that's what they think is most fulfilling. I'm also committed to the idea that the most stable unit to raise children is one full-time worker and one full-time caregiver, at least until the child is old enough to start school. I'm not committed to any particular arrangement of the sexes within that framework. Two men, two women, one man, one woman, all seem equally effective. I would say however that children, boys especially, need a "traditionally" masculine role model. This does not necessarily have to come from one of the parents, or even a male for that matter.
Suffice to say I disagree with all sides on this debate to the point where I have almost no allies or cohorts. Liberals call me a conservative "family values" bigot, and conservatives detest my flexibility with regard to sexuality and gender roles. I like to think I look at what works and adopt it, regardless of where the idea came from. Our society seems to have done the opposite and mixed the worst aspects of every modality.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday August 05 2015, @08:01PM
I'd like to say I agree with your position on the matter. (My only nitpick is that my hypothesis is that a child needs a role model who is the same mental gender, but we'll need to wait 20–30 years for any data to come out to test that hypothesis. Of course a role model doesn't necessarily need to be a parent, so my hypothesis wouldn't be an argument against homosexual marriage but perhaps a consideration for parents to take into account, if it's true at all.)
It's a very small part of the series, but the first episode of Madoka Magica [wikipedia.org] is just about the only instance I think I've ever seen of a “househusband.”
We opened up the workplace to women, but we neglected to open up the “kitchen,” as it were, to men.