I tried looking up the definition of this phrase online, but anything I could find on it just made me more confused. Could someone please help me out and explain the concept to me in simple terms?

-Vic

The evening of February 24th, 1976 was like any other for Michelle Mitchell. The 19 year-old University of Nevada nursing student had spent the day in class, and as the sun dipped below the horizon, she was running a habitual errand—dropping a container of orange juice off to her father at a nearby bowling alley—before heading home.

Just past 6 PM, Michelle was driving her Volkswagen Beetle east on 9th street, on the southern end of campus, when, as she passed Evans avenue, her engine seized and shut down, causing her car to roll impotently through the intersection. She used the car's accrued momentum to coast to the side of the road, and with the help of a passerby, pushed it into a nearby parking lot. Michelle then crossed the street to the university campus, walked into a phone booth, and called her mother, Barbara, to ask for a ride home.

When Barbara Mitchell arrived half an hour later, however, Michelle was nowhere to be seen. Barbara performed a cursory search of the area and found Michelle's Beetle, sitting in the parking lot Michelle had described, but couldn't find Michelle. With rising anxiety, she hurried back to the phone booth and called her husband and the police.

Barbara, her husband Edwin, and the police together spent hours combing over the entire campus and its surrounding neighborhoods searching for Michelle, but to no avail. The police brought a sniffer dog along, but an attempt to have it follow Michelle's scent from the phone booth led nowhere. As night officially set in, the police began to transition Michelle's disappearance into a larger missing-person investigation, with another search planned in the coming week.

Later that night, an elderly couple living at 333 E 9th Street, pulled into their driveway and triggered their garage door. As they watched the door open, their car's headlights began to illuminate the garage's interior, and they saw something unexpected: a human body. The startled couple rushed inside to investigate, and found the body of a partially-clothed woman, lying prostrate in a pool of drying blood, her hands bound behind her back with twine. Police were called, and as they turned the body over, they recognized the woman immediately. It was Michelle Mitchell.

The only major wound on Michelle’s body was a deep laceration across her neck, which was the source of the drying blood. She didn’t have any defensive wounds, which meant she may have been taken by surprise by her attacker, and the state of her body

r/ AntiHateCommunities is a parody of AHS, which mocks campaigns to condemn identity-based hatred. This recent posts reeks of extreme transphobia, showing a photo representing a stereotypical supposed transwoman, implicitly making fun of transwomen's appearances for perceived ugliness and being un-passable and accusing transwomen of sexually harassing little girls in bathrooms, titled "Bad news Xueens, I got kicked out of a bathroom for trying to show a six year old girl how vaginas work. Bigots everywhere."

https://archive.is/4XU2I (+506, 2 'silver' awards, 1 'wholesome' award)

Commenters continue mocking transwomen's genitals, repeating child sexual predator jokes.

>I hate bigots so much! But you are beautiful and valid! (+83)
>
>~
>
>Yikes! I hope you called the social workers to take that child away from that abusive household. (+68)
>
>~
>
>Vaginas are just inverted penises... why hate? (+44)
>
>-> No different than innie/outie belly buttons. (+30)
>
>--> ^That
>
>I hope you don't mind that I save this comment to fight transphobes. So smart. (+12)
>
>~
>
>Your vagina is just as valid as any other vagina, Xueen! (+33)
>
>~
>
>It's ok, I'm a primary school teacher, send me your details and you can come show my students a few times a week. (+31)
>
>~
>
>Can you come speak at our library's "Read to the Kids" meeting? So much ignorance needs to be counteracted! So many need to be educated! (+15)
>
>~
>
>Not all vaginas are innies (+14)

I'm a highly skilled, experienced software engineer.

I'm also a woman (and brown.)

I program in 13 languages, guest lecturer at 4 universities, I hold a patent on 8 inventions. I have written white papers published by the IEEE. My github stretches back 10 years and my stack overflow profile answers put me in the to 10-20% on the site.

I have had 3 or 4 job interviews pass on me on the pretext I'm not skilled enough at whatever stack. In reality, their hiring process is garbage. I teach others how to pass coding tests ffs, but at this point in my life I can't do coding crap with exclusively white guys. I have noticed I am struggling to not just go blank. I think in part I do this because my expectations are informed by my experience to that degree and that's all I can think about.

A friend of mine who is as a rule not the asshole, and is somewhat trying to be helpful I guess, was telling me about his org's hiring process and he made the statement that "well if there's a coding test, we use coderbytes or something so at least everybody is at the same disadvantage" and I was like "hold it right there" cos it's definitely not. I don't react like this unless it's white dudes and that's aside from the thing where making a marginalized person aware of their marginalization makes them perform worse on tests, especially where they think their marginalization might somehow play a role.

And even despite knowing these things consciously, it's incredibly hard to avoid thinking maybe the imposter is right. The imposter syndrome is louder than everything else combined right now.

I think this has to do with the autistic reaction to rejection. It's so intense it hurts. And Casa Del Sorceress is on the brink of every bad thing because of it.

:(

Edit: The issue I am having is the coding test. The problem I'm having is implicit bias crippling me. And I think there's a broader pattern here for autistic women, or autistic people in general, with the job interview process and stereotype threat.

I used the wrong term. The term is stereotype threat, not implicit bias.

I see a lot of people on here saying they liked Jason but only after his whole redemption arc by befriending Salim and going back for him, and they found him insufferable for the majority of the game

However I liked him right from the beginning, he’s serious but still is able to be humorous sometimes compared to Eric vs the rest of the marines, particularly Merwin who both are the extremes of both sides, respectively

He’s brave and had the balls to say “better not miss” to a enemy combatant behind him who turned out to be Salim

And I found his conversations with Salim before they became good friends to be funny, some of my favorites lines were:

“So those chemical weapons are close right?”-Jason

“I don’t have any grievances with you”- Salim “Than maybe you need to switch on the news”-Jason

“I think you need to give that mouth of yours a rest”-Jason

Also a random thing, and not really that important but I did like his last name, Kolcheck (might be spelling it wrong), it definitely has a good ring to it

Did anyone else feel the same way as me?

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4 (you are here)

Education

As cited in Perspectives in Male Psychology, Louise Liddon & John Barry, page 79: > An Israeli study of nearly 30,000 pupils in more than 300 schools examined data for three cohorts of Jewish secular high-school seniors in the years 2000-2002 (Lavy, 2004). Student matriculation exams were routinely graded in two ways: an external grade which is blind to name and sex of the pupil, and an internal grade which is non-blind. The pupil's final grade is a mean of the internal and external grades. This study found that boys were given lower grades in the non-blind assessments across all nine subjects studied. The researcher, having ruled out the other possible explanations, concluded the discrepancy in scoring was a result of bias in the unblinded grading. A strength of this study is that it is a natural experiment.

The 2004 papers is freely available here. See also an updated version of the paper: Do gender stereotypes reduce girls' or boys' human capital outcomes? Evidence from a natural experiment (Lavy, 2008)

In PISA 2012 results: The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence (OECD, 2015) it was found that "teachers generally award girls higher marks than boys [for the same exact work]" (page 159): > The report also shows that teachers generally award girls higher marks than boys [for the same exact work], given what would be expected after considering their performance in PISA. This practice is particularly apparent in language-of-instruction courses. Girls’ better marks may reflect the fact that they tend to be “better students” than boys: they tend to do what is required and expected of them, thanks to better self-regulation skills, and they are more driven to excel in school. In additi

I've been working on this rant for months. Due to its length, this entire OP will be split in three parts. Parts 2 and 3 will be in the comment section.

People should stop using the nostalgia argument to knock others' love and acclaim for any cartoon not made in the 2010s. And no one should tell others about how something "deserves" their love. I also want art to be as diverse as possible, and that includes art that is not for me.

I generally don't like knocking people's acclaim and love for anything, I think it's very wrong. If a work of art touched many people so much (hell, if it touched even just one person in the world), I try to understand what's appealing about it, and I'm happy for everyone who loves it that much, everyone who gets so much out of it, even if I don't. It's what art does, its role is to move us. And art is special and doing something truly right if it succeeds to deeply do that with people, or even just one person, even if not necessarily myself (there is nothing that everyone will love after all). I don't think that anyone should tell others that "you love this too much" (exceptions are the way, way, way too extreme cases, some of which I will talk about specially in Part 3 of this rant, but please don't skip any part of this whole text). Let's relax and happily enjoy what we enjoy.

I love Singin' In The Rain, Disney's Pinocchio, ATLA, the DCAU as a whole, The Incredibles and so on. And I have insanely scrutinized them, specially ATLA, Pinocchio and The Incredibles, I know all their many insane qualities to fine detail, I know they deserve MY love and praise. Does that explain entirely why I love them so much? No, but that's the case for all art we love! There aren't just "objective" reasons for loving anything! Art is about effect and emotion, not just an intellectual exercise! That's why we generally shouldn't be judgmental towards other people, towards what they love, and how much they love it ("it doesn't deserve to be so loved by others", I hate whenever anyone says that), even when we don't love it. I hate when people shame and mock others for loving something, and that's so common that I fully understand why people are often so defensive of what they love, including myself.

Nothing is truly overrated, don't let anyone tell you that what you love (and that you are sure it's amazing for N factors) is being "overrated" by you. No one should take away what you love, and how true and valid your love and reasons for loving it

I've not met many ENFJs out in the wild, and so I only really have myself to base this on. But I've been thinking about my characteristics and I'm actually just kind of baffled and wonder if anybody else experiences these sort of opposing sets of characteristics?

1. Really warm and tender but also will doorslam (without hesitation) if done wrong

I really do value my relationships and hold them sacred to me and so would like to say that I give a lot in relationships and will try endlessly to make something work if I perceive that it is worth it. Equally, if someone has crossed me or has just been a bit ... sh*t one too many times, I will loud doorslam (i.e., bluntly explain that things are over and leave it there).

2. Super organised but also pretty all over the place

In terms of how I live my life, it could be perceived as pretty routine and organised. I always pay my rent on time, I exercise at the same time on a usually specific set of days etc. But there's also a side of me which runs free and wild where I will have 1,000 ideas and try to start all of them at once lol. I can be a bit bad at managing time too and just a little scatterbrained.

3. Risk averse but also spontaneous

Similar to the above, pretty set in my ways about taking new risks or feeling uncomfortable doing something when I haven't already made a plan to do it. Equally, will sometimes just go for something without thinking through it first (for better or worse).

4. Understanding of others, but also judgemental and selective of people

I feel like there's a stereotype that xNFx just understand people implicitly and so have a lot of compassion and love for others. This is true, but I am also quite judgemental of people's actions often because I can generally tease out the underlying motive for doing something and if the morals don't line up then I find it pretty hard to be open-minded. So, can be very pleasant in a first interaction, but if I am rubbed the wrong way, then will just give people the bare minimum or straight up ignore them, but I don't do this consciously and I feel pretty guilty for the callousness.

These are just some examples I see within myself and I suppose the way that the cognitive functions are stacked (Fe, Ni, Se, Ti) a lot of them can be explained/answered this way...

I'm not in a bad way or anything, but I often confuse others and myself with the above dichotomies. Would love to hear your guys' input as I hear that ENFJs/INFJs can be quite

This post is about the term "toxic masculinity" and why many people in the MRM consider it harmful. As I consider it a slur, the phrase will be abbreviated as 'TM'. Before I go into detail about why I think usage of the term TM is harmful, I want to elaborate on how traditional masculine gender roles have indeed harmed men in many ways. This perspective is important, but as I explain later, the problem is not with the individual man, but that society at large is still blind to the extent of male suffering, and forces often cruel standards on men that they cannot escape if they want to live a happy life.

Men have always been shamed for not adhering to strict standards of masculinity, i.e. what was required of them by society at the time. There is an expectation that masculinity is something that has to be "earned". The transition from boy to man is often portrayed to be more of an ordeal based on hardships with the goal to achieve fame and social standing or to preserve some ideal for society's greater good. This can be observed in various cultures around the world, for example the Filipino tradition called Tulì, which is "regarded as a culturally sanctioned rite of passage from boyhood to manhood resulting in significant PTSD-like symptoms among much of the male population" (Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among Filipino boys subjected to non-therapeutic ritual or medical surgical procedures: A retrospective cohort study, Boyle & Ramos, 2019). According to the same paper:

>Typically, an elderly man (manong) stretches the boy's foreskin over a wooden anvil (tree stump), places a “cut-throat” barber's razor (labaha) lengthwise on top of the foreskin and then with a few quick blows slices the foreskin wide open, thereby exposing the glans. The resultant traditional dorsal slit (superincision), while damaging in and of itself, at least spares thousands of erogenous nerve endings and highly specialized sensory receptors located within the inner foreskin. The newly-cut boys then bathe in the cool water of a nearby river or stream in order to lessen the pain, and they also apply chewed guava leaves to the genital wound in an attempt to control bleeding and promote more rapid healing.

Another example is the Sateré-Mawé tribe in Brazil, where they fill wicker gloves with bullet ants and put a sedative on them to make all of them fall as

Warning: Post is extremely long. If you're interested in just the gaming part, please skip to "Sexualization in gaming". Though I'll be providing a TLDR, I think it's worth reading in full, since it's a pretty complicated issue.

Hello everyone.

I am sure that most people on this subreddit may already be familiar with the issue of misogyny recently addressed by Dr. K. And, despite how controversial it apparently is, most members of our community seem to be quite open to learning more about the oft-overlooked experiences of women in male-dominated communities. I think this is an excellent development that benefits every member in our community, and one which I hope will continue to inspire further discussions in the future.

And, seeing our community's positive reaction to this issue, I think it is high time to explore another aspect of women's experience that is also related to misogyny, but is often neglected, dismissed or frowned upon by many on the internet. What I am talking about is the issue of sexually objectifying portrayals of women in video games and works of anime/manga. In the post below, I will provide a brief overview of the scientific literature on this issue, and will make the case that the over-sexualization of women is a kind of sexism, and it exacts palpable psychological damage to almost everyone who games, or reads/watches anime or manga.

This post is not intended to inspire future discussions (though I would not complain if there are any), but is mostly written to inform, mainly because the mental toll of sexualization is still not very widely known among gamers, despite just how popular it is in not just gaming, but almost every type of media. So please see this as something of a PSA, and I hope that it serves its purpose well.

#What even is sexualization? According to the most widely accepted definition of sexualization, it is a phenomenon that occurs when one of these four things occur:

• a person (or a character) is only considered valuable, or of worth, based on her sexual appeal and nothing else. Advertisements provide the best illustration of this particular point, as many of them feature images of attractive women accompanying the products being advertised. Images of women could, sometimes, be the primary element in an ad,. The bodies of women in these cases are being basically used exclusively to attract the attention of passers-by, to the detriment of everything else - their personality, emotions, goals, dreams, or

• Part 1
• Part 2 (you are here)
• Part 3
• Part 4

Women are Wonderful Effect

According to Wikipedia — Women-are-wonderful effect: > The women-are-wonderful effect is the phenomenon found in psychological and sociological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with women compared to men. This bias reflects an emotional bias toward women as a general case. The phrase was coined by Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic in 1994 after finding that both male and female participants tend to assign positive traits to women, with female participants showing a far more pronounced bias. Positive traits were assigned to men by participants of both genders, but to a far lesser degree. > […] > One study found that the effect is mediated by increased gender equality. The mediation comes not from differences in attitudes towards women, but in attitudes towards men. In more egalitarian societies, people have more positive attitudes towards men than in less egalitarian societies. > […] > Some authors have claimed the "Women are wonderful" effect is applicable when women follow traditional gender roles such as child nurturing and stay-at-home housewife. However, other authors have cited studies indicating that the women-are-wonderful effect is still applicable even when women are in nontraditional gender roles, and the original Eagly, Mladinic & Otto (1991) study discovering the women-are-wonderful effect found no such ambivalence.

Nursery Rhyme — What Are Little Boys Made Of?

What are little boys made of?
What are little boys made of?
  Snakes, snails
  And puppy-dogs' tails
That's what little boys are made of

What are little girls made of?
What are little girls made of?
  Sugar and spice
  And all things nice
That's what little girls are made of

In [Are Women Evaluated More Favorably Than Men?: An Analysis of Attitudes, Beliefs, and Emotions (Eagly et al., 1991)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.199

Dr K, Please stop perpetuating the myth that ADHD is primarily a male disease. I was pretty frustrated by today’s stream, if I’m fully honest.

I’m fully aware of what the data says, but this is a case of correlation != causation, and of people seeing what they’re expecting to see.

Women and people typed as female routinely go either undiagnosed for ADHD or misdiagnosed with one of the comorbidities (Depression, Anxiety, OCD, etc), because of the harmful stereotype that ADHD is predominantly a male/boy’s disease. Implicit and explicit bias in the medical industry only furthers to perpetuate this and reinforce the corrupted data. Most females/female presenting people who have ADHD go undiagnosed, and those who do get diagnosed tend to get recognized only as an adult, and often because they come in seeking treatment for one of the comorbidities, or because they recognize they have ADHD and have to fight for their successful diagnosis.

I was one of those people. I got my ADHD from my mom, who believes her mom also had ADHD. My mom and her mom are/were undiagnosed. I had to fight for mine, was only diagnosed well into adulthood, and was able to get treatment after learning to advocate for myself many years after the diagnosis--and had I done none of those things, I would be one less data point. And the thing is, I’m white, which means I don’t even have to deal with the extra burden of medical racism stacked against me. I have another female friend who also exhibits most of the traits I do, has a therapist, but is unable to get diagnosed (because the therapist does not believe in ADHD and females, and has stigmatized stimulant medications for ADHD) and is being unsuccessfully treated for depression with standard anti-depressants which do very little for people with ADHD. I have a fourth female friend who also believes she has ADHD but is too afraid to try to get diagnosed with it because she is exhausted and overwhelmed by even the prospects of fighting for a diagnosis. I have exactly one male friend with ADHD (and, as context, most of my friends are male or male presenting).

Females and people who present as female get ignored and overlooked because society forces us into certain boxes, and shapes us to hide or over compensate for our symptoms. We're punished for being hyperactive and ignored when we're inattentive. We’re expected to be quiet. We’re expected to be clean. We’re expected to be organized. We’re heavily penalized when we’re not. We learn co

It really does, I swear!

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

They’re on standbi

Many of you may know Jessica Taylor at VictimFocus, best-seller author, self-proclaimed radical feminist and chartered psychologist. You may not recognize the name just yet, but stay with me.

Note: For those who still don't understand why her self-proclaimed feminist affiliation is even mentioned. It is simply because her claims are in conflict with her actions. If you are afraid that highly influencial people like her will be framed as representatives of feminism, maybe you should join me in calling them out. The reason I write about her is not her feminist affiliation but her misandristic statements and questionable research practices.

She knows that - by law - women can't rape men. Of course she uses that knowledge to call out the inherent misandry spread the belief that the only ones ever responsible for a rape are men and that it is inappropriate to phrase statements as if female rapists could exist. Here are the quotes:

>(Jun 25, 2021) Rape is committed by a male with a penis as per the law

>(Aug 4, 2021) Only males can commit the act of rape by law. Whilst we may have differing views on gender, it doesn’t change the fact that a male needs a penis to commit the act of rape and we will make zero progress in prosecutions and justice by obscuring this.

She's not technically wrong, but the way she uses that knowledge is disturbing and dishonest. It is essential to point out the problem of misandry within laws. What is not essential, is to use it to justify this:

>(Aug 4, 2021) To be CRYSTAL CLEAR: The only person responsible for rape is the man who committed it. No one else, ever.

It is almost like a deja vu, KOSS I could swear someone has made similar statements at some point. If only I remembered who that was...

Also see the poor soul in the comments who believes the FBI definition to be "the law" and to be inclusive of men... [Not only is it not inclusive regardless of the made-to-penetrate question, it would also need s

Buenosdillas

Pilot on me!!

Do your worst!