Jump to content


tastywheat

Member Since 20 Nov 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 01:49 PM
-----

#1190004 Making the world's biggest military even bigger, watch out China!

Posted by tastywheat on 17 March 2017 - 02:23 PM

I think it's concerning.  Trump's erratic actions are going beyond what is normally expected of a Republican President.  I'm sure most of you have seen the poster making rounds on social media:

 

fascism.jpg

 

It was misreported as something from the Nazi holocaust era.  It was actually only authored in 2003 by Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt, who was studying social behaviours in Germany, Italy, Spain, Indonesia, and Chile that lead to the rise of Fascism.  

 

What I take from it is that the increase in military spending might not have any connection with external factors, and is actually intended to increase a sense of nationalism and superiority among his supporters, which in turn will allow him to claim more power.  

 

He's obviously a megalomaniac from my perspective, so it follows that his actions are primarily directed towards fulfilling such desires, without necessarily considering the likely outcomes.  I don't for a moment think Trump is pro-fascism, or that he identifies his actions as fascist.  I think he just wants power and admiration.  The problem is that he has no interest in historical lessons, or engaging with alternative opinions/ideas (it's all alternative facts, fake news, bias etc).




#1189949 South Australia to install new batteries!

Posted by tastywheat on 15 March 2017 - 10:56 PM

The process, technology and outcomes for conventional drilling are pretty well(tee hehe) understood. In the NSW case in particular, the company in question had gone through all the regulatory hoops and checks and it was 'hippie protesters', backed by the known science guru Allan Jones, who frightened the crap out of the state government to such an extent that they paid compensation to the company in question and told them to go away...

 

Conventional and understood doesn't remove the inherent risks to the water table, the impact of transport, or the property access issues.  While the conversation was dominated by nonsense and noise, that's not necessarily how it started.

 

Ignoring the hysteria, the actual science is pretty straightforward.  Gas is generated by anaerobic decay of biological material.  The products of this process migrate through the rocks and sediment, and most of the time escape into the atmosphere.  Occasionally, they'll hit an impermeable barrier, and become trapped.  It follows that extraction necessarily requires the puncturing of these barriers.  

 

For most gas wells, you generally can't avoid drilling through water tables.  The vast majority of your wells will penetrate one or more sources of groundwater.  During drilling, a slurry of chemicals called 'drilling mud' is used to keep the well sealed, and prevent groundwater contamination.  This is the first point of failure, should operator error, or pockets of extreme underground pressure, result in a loss of pressure.  

 

The wells are then capped by pumping cement through an installed central casing, displacing the drilling mud to form a hollow tube.  Pressure checks are then performed to ensure the well is sealed.  This is the second point of failure.  The cement and casings need to maintain their impermeability indefinitely, long after the gas company has stopped making profit from the well.  Cement decays, metal oxidises.  If you're a government regulator, where do you draw the line for safety?  How do you actually test it, to ensure the nominated time period is accurate?

 

Finally, the well is penetrated at zones identified as being productive.  Operator error can again result in penetration that leads to groundwater contamination.

 

Conventional gas still requires a large number wells to be constructed.  Controls mechanisms aren't foolproof.  This isn't a hypothetical, we have documented evidence of what happens from early days of gas extraction in America.  Salt contamination with surface water was a common outcome. With modern technology, maybe it's only 1 in a 100, or 1 in 1,000 wells that causes an issue.  The outcome might be isolated, or it might spread over time.  Ultimately, you're poking holes in rocks that have been sealed for millions of years, and hoping your plugs hold.

 

The question then becomes, why do it on agricultural land, when there are offshore and remote reserves readily available?

 

Before the 'Lock the gate' campaign became a thing, close family friends were fighting to keep gas off their property near Camden, in NSW.  They weren't hippies, and it wasn't about a lack of compensation.  It took almost a decade, and drove them to the point of bankruptcy, but they eventually won based on a lack evidence that risks were being properly managed.




#1189941 South Australia to install new batteries!

Posted by tastywheat on 15 March 2017 - 08:45 PM

Seems that gas prices for volume consumers is pretty low. 

 

... 

 

Depending on where you look, prices fluctuate, supposedly they're tied more closely to coal than crude at the moment.  As a sample, US$2.93 per million BTU for LNG at the latest NYMEX close.

Divide that by 8.77 to give the equivalent price for the same energy = $0.33 per gallon, or (divide by 3.785 for litres) 8.71 cents per litre.

 

Natural gas is definitely a cheap option for reactive power (power generators that can be throttled quickly to match demand).  In terms of carbon emissions, it's cleaner than conventional coal, though it has more methane emissions (much more potent greenhouse gas).  It has a high capacity factor, meaning that a 300MWh plant can produce ~260MWh consistently (i.e. good for base load power).  Wind or Solar PV by comparison would generally only be able to produce ~120MWh and ~75MWh respectively with the same 300MWh capacity.

 

The problem with natural gas in Australia at the moment is that there is a national shortage, which has driven up fuel costs.  For the most part, the cause is increased export to Asia, and lucrative supply contracts that have absorbed the majority of supply:

 

TXCTBYu.png

Source: Department of Industry, Innovation and Science 2015

 

This has resulted in gas prices more than doubling from 2002 to 2015:

 

hXbaPRo.png

Source: Department of Industry, Innovation and Science 2015

 

There's nothing unique that's driving gas prices up, it's basic supply and demand mechanics.

 

When you strip away the subsidies (something consumers pay indirectly), doubling the cost of fuel makes the difference between Natural Gas being competitive with conventional coal, to making it more expensive than Wind and Solar PV, and comparable in cost to Nuclear.  The problem is that the supply issues are actually going to get worse over the next few decades.  Demand as Asian countries develop will outstrip increases in production.

 

A cheaper option to fix the SA issues in peak summer are Diesel generators.  They're quick to install if you get the pre-configured shipping container units, and have a low capital cost, but they're expensive to run.  The idea would be to buy a few hundred of them, and leave them turned off unless there's an emergency.  It's not a great investment, because they become a generally unused asset that steadily depreciates, as opposed to a new gas fired plant that can take over from older brown coal plants as they get decommissioned, or battery storage, which increases the effective capacity factor of renewables that have already been installed.




#1189925 South Australia to install new batteries!

Posted by tastywheat on 15 March 2017 - 04:13 PM

So the proposal on the table is $150 Million for a 100MWh battery, and $360 Million for a peak demand gas turbine generator.

 

This is what the current demand cycle for SA looks like:

 

GRAPH_5SA1.gif

 

Total demand is shown in green, with a scale of MWh.  The difference in demand and price (shown in red) between low demand and peak demand suggests there's decent potential for battery storage optimisation.  Draw a horizontal line at around 1,500MWh, and the area under the line for demand cancels the area above the line for demand.  

 

A very simplified version to keep the argument straightforward is that battery storage would be able to absorb fluctuation in demand, and translate this to a steady load on generators, which would result in a steady energy cost of $60 per MWh wholesale.  Less than half what is currently being paid during peak demand.  A minimum of 350MWh of storage would be required, but to reduce capacity factor (which extends battery life), we'd ideally want 50-100% more.

 

A big central battery plant is generally a more economical option in terms of capital outlay, but for shits and giggles, let's look at a massively distributed option using Telsa Power Wall 2s, because the price and specs are then something objective.  A fully installed Power Wall 2 costs ~$10,000 AUD, and has 14kWh of storage.  For $510 Million, you could buy and install 50,000 power walls, providing 700MWh of grid connected storage, with $10 Million left for project management.  That completely ignores Musk's 50% discount offer, or the cost advantages of a centralised plant.

 

Power stability issues averted, mean power costs substantially reduced, grid made more efficient.  Victoria may even benefit if excess capacity is left over to buy during off-peak hours, and supply back to them during peak hours.  Everyone happy except those involved in gas power generation.




#1189912 South Australia to install new batteries!

Posted by tastywheat on 15 March 2017 - 11:51 AM

So Turnbull has come out this morning to talk about national 'leadership' to resolve the current gas crisis.  

 

We've gone from an increasing energy costs crisis under the carbon tax, to destabilised grid crisis as a result of renewables (definitely not severe storms, record heat waves, or poor performing gas turbines), to a natural gas crisis because the companies we've given huge subsidies to are maximising their profits by selling the product to the highest bidder (often overseas).

 

Does anyone actually subscribe to this stuff?




#1189888 South Australia to install new batteries!

Posted by tastywheat on 14 March 2017 - 08:49 PM

The left-wing part of the deal is where people jump up and say "that's the best way, let's do it!" with total ignorance of tender and evaluation processes.

 

The fact that the current infrastructure and provider might suck and be corrupt and rip people off - it's not really relevant other than the fact it should spur into motion the process to at least think about change.

But the way some here are carrying on, it's like we should dump all the perceived negative aspects of the current system and jump on board the Musk train yesterday.

 

Who's suggesting we skip the tender process?  Australian companies should be given a chance to bid on solutions.  The potential deal with Tesla is 100 days from when the contract is signed, not 100 days from today.

 

The key point is that grid battery storage, if priced appropriately, is going to be a hard solution to top from a technical perspective.  It stores fluctuating power from renewables that are already in place, at a rate that pumped hydro is unlikely to match.  Additionally, it can be used to even out off-peak demand by storing it until peak demand comes around.  The total impact is a more efficient system, not necessarily more power output.

 

What's being proposed is an expansion to natural gas production, which almost certainly would be operated by companies who own the existing IP, which necessarily implies supporting current infrastructure providers who have a proven track record of monopolistic, profiteering, consumer hostile behaviour.

 

Political leanings should have nothing to do with it.  We should be looking for objective facts, and what's going to work the best for the future.




#1189875 South Australia to install new batteries!

Posted by tastywheat on 14 March 2017 - 05:42 PM

As warm and fuzzy as it all sounds to some, it just opens the door for future corruption and ignores proper and due process for procurement of new infrastructure.

 

Of course, the left-wing attitude as always is let emotion overrule common sense and conveniently ignore laws or regulations in the name of momentary righteousness.

 

So instead of the technologically superior solution that as you have identified, comes with the potential for future corruption, we should just accept the existing corruption, and invest public funds in an inferior solution that will objectively cost tax payers more money in the long term (in addition to taking longer to implement?

 

And you call this common sense?  Exactly what part of the deal is 'left wing'?




#1189855 South Australia to install new batteries!

Posted by tastywheat on 14 March 2017 - 12:06 PM

Not sure how feasible Pumped Hydro is, that would take a lot of time to implement.

 

Pumped hydro is a proven, but inefficient technology.  Anytime you introduce pump mechanics, the ceiling for peak efficiency is reduced to around 30%.  It takes time to build, gets affected by water shortages (expected to increase in frequency over the coming decades), and has a negative impact on the local environment.

 

Battery storage on the other hand has a real-world efficiency of around 85%.  A critical difference is that this storage can be distributed, which compared to pumped hydro, decreases transmission losses, and increases redundancy.  A downside is that batteries have a set cycle life, meaning they need to be replaced after a number of years.  The tech specs for Tesla's new 2170 cells haven't been released, but the old cells designed for grid storage had a cycle life of around 3,500 (i.e. 3,500 charge/discharge cycles before the capacity is reduced to 80% of the rated capacity).  

 

Assuming a 65% grid capacity factor (i.e. average battery use is 65% of the rated capacity, giving 35% for reserves to tackle heat waves and storms), this would give a system life of ~15 years.  By then, better and cheaper batteries will likely be available, while the pumped hydro is till going to be stuck at peak efficiencies of ~30%, and still subject to operational interruptions by drought.

 

 

As an Engineer who occasionally worked on small scale redundant energy systems (diesel, gas turbine, and battery backups for hospitals and government buildings), I think batteries are an objectively better prospect for this application given the net shortage of power at peak demand times.  Hydro doesn't solve the shortage in supply due to it's efficiency, and would require additional power generation capacity.

 

Gas turbines are a good solution to variable power output from renewables due to quick ramp up/ramp down times, but we currently have a shortage of gas, and this solution generates more greenhouse emissions.

 

_______________________________________

 

 

I'm probably being a bit too cynical about this, but I think the announcement today was a direct response to Elon Musk's offer.  We have ineffective and unimaginative leadership, beholden to various vested interested in the private energy generation and fossil fuels industries.  Musk threatened the status quo in a way that immediately generated significant public support, so they were forced to respond.

 

The argument before Musk's offer was that SA had a 3rd world power system, that needed immediate action to prevent a loss in productivity.  This was being used as a very political argument against renewable energy (i.e. it ignored many of the facts of the situation).  They never expected to be offered a solution that would fix these issues in 100 days, in fact I'd suggest they were banking on the opposite.  

 

Comb through the details of the proposal, and you'll see it necessarily requires longer than 100 days to implement, and is going to increase reliance on fossil fuels to the benefit of those vested interests.




#1189742 So far so good...

Posted by tastywheat on 10 March 2017 - 01:09 PM

Now THAT's fascinating

 

So if we forget my magic recovering heart rate; 

Wwhile not technically correct, the end result could appear as if I'm more efficient?

 

As an example, lets take the problem of "Americans are fat" and as you point out, its starting to look like more than diet is the sole cause.

Living my childhood years in Texas where I ate scary amounts of high fructose corn syrup and what not; I might have significantly different gut flora to the average Australian?

 

A high sugar diet is known to promote different balances in gut bacteria, which become more efficient at processing high sugar foods. Since our bodies have evolved to survive with what they're given, extended eating habits will result in biological changes that maximise their survival advantage (morbid obesity wasn't a thing 100,000 years ago).  

 

Fructose in particular has a few specific pitfalls that you should be aware of.   Unlike sucrose and glucose, which can be metabolised by most cells in your body, fructose can only be metabolised by the liver.  It doesn't produce an insulin response.  It doesn't increase your levels of Leptin (meaning you still feel hungry).  It can't be stored as glycogen (for medium term energy), so your body stores any excess energy from it as fat.  It serves a purpose when we consume it along with the dietary fibre in fruit.  It's a poor dietary choice if you want to lose weight when consuming it as fruit juice (where the dietary fibre has been removed), or when it's added to soft drinks and other food products.  Tomato sauce for example, depending on brand, usually has high levels of fructose.

 

Since your heart rate seems unreliable, I'd suggesting benchmarking your exercise habits by VO2 max, or the level where you body is consuming the maximum volume of oxygen it can get.  Unlike heart rate, this is a direct measure of the amount of energy burnt.  All of the oxygen you take in is used to produce energy, it has no other biological function in the body.  For Glucose (C6H12O6), that reaction looks something like this:

 

C6H12O6 + 6O2 -----> 6CO2 + 6H2

 

The way to interpret this is that to extract energy from a molecule of Glucose, you need 6 molecules of Oxygen.  This produces 6 molecules of Carbon Dioxide that you need to breath out, and 6 molecules of water.  In order to burn 100g worth of Glucose (~1550kJ or 370 calories of energy), you need to consume 107g of Oxygen (~75L, or 250 breaths).  When you suffocate, the mechanism of death isn't the lack of oxygen directly, the cells in your brain starve to death because they can't exact any energy from blood sugars.

 

The standard way to estimate VO2 max is heart rate, but there are alternatives.  If health problems don't prevent you from running, measure how far you can run in 12 minutes.  VO2 max can then be estimated with the following equation:

 

bdy3f0p.png

 

Where d12 is the distances covered in 12 minutes, in metres.  The resulting number has the units mL/(kg·min), millilitres of oxygen consumed per kg of bodyweight per minute.  An average male will have a value of between 35 and 40 mL/(kg·min), average female between 27 and 31 mL/(kg·min). 

 

You can use this measurement in two ways.  Qualitatively, you should be aiming for the feeling of breathlessness at the end of the 12 minute run when you exercise, and hold this level for 6-8 minutes in accordance with High Intensity Interval Training strategies.  3 to 5 HIIT sessions per week will boost your metabolism and keep it high far more so than 3 to 5 two hour cardio sessions that don't hit sustained levels of VO2 max.  Quantitatively, you can use this as a measure of your fitness progress.  A higher VO2 max is an objective measure of increased metabolism.  Feedback is absolutely critical to success, both in terms of the mental impacts (stimulation of reward systems), and in adapting strategies to maximise benefit.  If you're not seeing improvements to your VO2 max week to week, it's a good sign that your approach is wrong, and you need to readjust your strategy to suit your particular biology and lifestyle choices.

 

As mentioned in a previous post, eat well to lose weight.  Exercise to improve overall health, mental capabilities, and strength.




#1189729 So far so good...

Posted by tastywheat on 09 March 2017 - 11:51 PM

I know exactly what a calorie (and Calorie) are.  But it's entirely abstract and almost meaningless for food: and I could apply it literally at work.
 
KJs tho'?  Js and Ws make sense.  We measure everything in them. 

 

Not quite what you were talking about, but I think it's an interesting thing to consider:

 

Up until the 90s, the Kilojoule/Calorie content for food was a measure of how much it heated a specified amount of water when set alight in sealed and insulated container, in the presence of pure oxygen.  No biological factors were considered.

 

We now use energy conversion factors to account for the fact that our stomachs aren't furnaces.  These were mostly calculated by burning faeces to determine undigested energy content, and necessarily make a lot of assumptions to keep everything uniform.  

 

There's growing awareness within the scientific and medical communities that gut bacteria might have a significant impact on calories that can be extracted from food, and the one-size-fits-all information is misleading. i.e. A kilojoule is not always a kilojoule, and while we're still figuring it out (studies have collected conflicting data), it might vary by up to 30% for some individuals.




#1189695 I do not, nor have I ever seen a penis ...

Posted by tastywheat on 09 March 2017 - 03:23 AM

At the end , I am all for removing any barrier that stands in the way of equality
But women are their own worst enemy, they tell each other that they must concern themselves with appearance and behaviour. Men do give a shit how they look

The nature of women makes them more nurturing, while men are more aggressive
We are not going to simply give control to you

Women take years off for child raising
While men climb the corporate ladder


Women believe the myth that you can have it all, family and power
Nup, to have one, you need to sacrifice the other. Examples Gillard Bishop, neither had children

 

I agree with your observations, but do you think stating them a different way detracts from them at all?

  1. Gender discrimination is a cultural problem.  It's not a male vs female problem, and when it's presented as such, it misrepresents the mechanics at play.  Issues like pressure on appearance have deep roots in animalistic behaviour and gender roles, and certain issues are asymmetrically perpetuated by feminine parts of society.
  2. There are fundamental differences between the sexes that are driven by biology.
  3. Lifestyle choices that people make have a greater impact on their employment and pay opportunities than systematic oppression in Australian society.
  4. Compromises need to be made between traditional roles, and the emerging roles that people choose.

This isn't about being semantic, pedantic, or PC.  Like I said, I agree with your observations.  But I also think language is important, because it is literally the stuff of thought, and so it plays an important role in how we organise and conceptualise information we receive.  For example, I don't think you were suggesting that every women believes in the myth of no compromises, but stripped of its context, it's plausible that someone might mistake this intention.

 

There's a lot of feigned outrage in these sorts of discussions on language, and I'm not suggesting such responses should be taken seriously.  The only reason to care is if you want the people who are most out of touch with these observations, who aren't entrenched in a particular ideology, to receive them intact, as you understand them, instead of just talking past each other.




#1189682 I do not, nor have I ever seen a penis ...

Posted by tastywheat on 08 March 2017 - 06:12 PM

They can be as specific as you want them to be, but by labeling a whole movement with what most would consider a gender tag, is always going to feel like a one sided army.

 

...

 

Well, sure, but it's kind of like one man picking up plastic from the ocean, just to watch the dump truck empty a whole load of the same rubbish right back in.

You can't tell  people to 'pick up their rubbish.... so we can make you do it again'....

 

I won't support any ideas that lead to one group of people being superior to another for the simple reason of "Because we are".

I'm sure you'll argue, but that's what most of these movements have become; and there's no undoing the 'social media' damage that's already unleashed.

 

I'm focusing on these particular parts of your response to keep things on topic, but I appreciate the detailed descriptions given, even if I've left them out of the quote.

 

For the first point, I'm going to use another analogy that models this issue in a different domain, which we would expect rational behaviour from - Science.

 

A fundamental component of Chemistry is an understanding of Reduction-Oxidation reactions (usually shortened to Redox), which relates to the transfer of electrons in chemical processes.  The terms were coined by alchemists operating in the 18th century who noticed metallic ore would lose weight under certain conditions (hence it was reduced?), and that Oxygen was common to most observed phenomena that would later be described as Oxidation.

 

It's difficult to image more misleading names.

 

The process of Reduction actually leads to a substance gaining electrons.  Oxidation has nothing to do with oxygen, and actually relates to a substance losing electrons.  We've known these terms were wrong for at least a century, and while there have been multiple attempts to use more appropriate terms, we still teach every High School student the wrong fucking terms.

 

Feminism is an exclusive name for a movement that's all about promoting inclusion.  It's illogical, but the way culture is disseminated, often relying on historical narratives, makes it very hard to change.

 

 

On the second part of your response that's quoted above, I'd suggest you're misunderstanding the situation.  Treat the noise as any good pre-amplifier circuit would, and ignore it.  Pay attention to the signal, however weak, not because you like the idea of supporting Feminism/Equal Rights, but because it has practical utility for you, and others in your life.  

 

There's no reason to pander to faulty ideology, but engaging with it and trying to shut it down necessarily contradicts Egalitarian philosophy.  The people behind social media posts calling for things like "The Global Takedown of Men's Rights" deserve freedom of speech, even if what they're saying appears counter-productive from our perspective.  

 

I think if more people made an effort to start genuine, long-form dialogue with people they disagree with, instead of throwing around labels and superficial insults, we'd not only make more progress, we'd actually be working towards a society Second-wave Feminism advocates for.  It follows then that developing literacy in the substance of its ideas, not just "Feminism is Women having equal rights" truisms, would promote such progress.




#1189677 I do not, nor have I ever seen a penis ...

Posted by tastywheat on 08 March 2017 - 04:58 PM

 

Would you say the clients or customers you work with fully understand or appreciate what you do?

 

Definitely.

 

Is this another case of you painting with 'broad strokes'?  

 

I'm pretty sure I remember some very specific gripes that you've posted about in the past.  I can dig them up as objective evidence if required, but lets go along with the broad strokes mentality.

 

The 'broad strokes' were that customers were doing something objectively ignorant/counterproductive with their computers, and when you provided them with an alternative solution based on your 7 years of accumulated knowledge with computers, it was rejected without proper consideration, or ignored.

 

One of the things about working with computers that I think you'll agree with is that it's more than simply knowing a set of commands that apply to a set of tools.  An IT professional will of course know these things well, but to be good at their job, they also require complex problem solving abilities that go beyond book-smarts.  They'll need to study protocols, services, and hardware in detail, how these different things interact, and work backwards from a limited set of symptoms to resolve the underlying problem.  Additionally, knowledge that was developed even 5 years ago will have some fundamentals correct, but will constantly need to be refreshed to stay current.

 

Linking this back to Feminism.

 

Feminism is the study of accumulated interactions, power structures, and tradition/convention within the context of systems that are vastly more complicated than current computers, in order to help us understand why the world is the way it is for certain groups of people.  It's stretching the analogy, but suggesting that all we need to do is to promote 'Rights for everyone' is about as useful or informed as someone suggesting MyCleanPC is a good solution to a computer that's running slow.  It ignores the deep complexity of the situation, suggests a token solution that has pretty much no utility without context, and exposes a lack of knowledge the person making the suggestion has.

 

You say that you're an expert, and that you demonstrate this expertise everyday in the way that you treat Women.  I'd suggest you're mirroring the few nightmare customers I'm sure you've encountered, who don't know what they're doing, but insist they know more about IT than you, despite not having invested anywhere near the amount of time you have to earn your knowledge.  

 

It's important to note that this isn't a conscious bias.  These beliefs are consistent and logical to the person they're attached to.  They are however a form of cognitive bias.  Specifically, a form of illusory superiority studied in detail and then described by two Psychologists at Cornell University in 1999, who coined it the Dunning-Kruger effect. 

 

If you're a good guy, you should pay attention to this stuff, and ensure you have a deep understanding of it before writing it off.  

 

There are serious issues with Neo-Feminism that make it awfully regressive.  I'd argue it's because proponents of this new form of Feminism communicate predominantly via mediums that don't encourage deep contemplation, don't have much respect for the work that has come before them, and thrive off a currency of outrage.  It's the sort of thing predicted by Information theory and Memetics when new forms of communication are introduced to a system.  Neo-Feminists ideas have iterated to adapt, selecting messages that are shorter in size to increase distribution, and maximising attachment by stimulating strong emotions like anger and outrage.

 

It's mostly noise, with kernels of truth.  An outcome we need to be mindful of as we learn how to integrate new systems of communication.  It's not an isolated phenomena either.  The Atheism wave that came before it followed a similar pattern, and there are many other movements and ideologies undergoing similar processes. 

 

Below this noise, only accessible to people who actively invest time trying to understand it, is a sophisticated body of knowledge that spans multiple domains - Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Epistemology etc.  It's knowledge that can be applied to help us understand not just issues related to Women, but the daily interactions we all have in communication, our social lives, and how we perpetuate culture.  Many of the important developments in knowledge were made in the 60s and 70s, not unlike modern science.  The community behind these developments are referred to as Second-wave Feminists, and I think they represent to sort of Feminism that leads to social progress.

 

I'm not an expert.  This knowledge initially forced down my throat through professional development associated with teaching.  I pay attention to it now because I see it directly affecting my students.  If I was in control of the Non-Profit behind these signs, I probably wouldn't have made the same decisions, but then I don't know what the intended goals are.  Maybe their goal was to cause discussions just like this one, in which case it would be fair to say they were successful in achieving their aims?




#1189658 I do not, nor have I ever seen a penis ...

Posted by tastywheat on 08 March 2017 - 02:14 PM

I'm probably more educated on the issue than anyone; at least the the point that you can learn from history books and record keeping. (including pay, rights, and so on).

 

Needless to say, by the end, even the women in class were fighting for a "mens movement" to come back.

 

...

 

I have no problem with Equity vs Equality, where things are truly unfair, fight for it.

Lets start asking for "Equal rights for all people" not just "Women".

 

Let's just say I know more than one person who "Identifies as female" on their insurance for the above reasons.

 

 

You state that you're an expert, which suggests more than a superficial understanding of these issues, but then you go on to say the solution should be to ask for "Equal rights for all people".  Have you ever done a quick audit of these beliefs, to ensure you're not affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect?  

 

Outside of your experiences in High School, have you read any Feminist literature?  Would you say you regularly participate in any Feminist, Masculinist, or egalitarian groups or discussions?  Are you active in organising any Feminist, Masculinist, or Egalitarian movements or events?

 

If someone did 3 years of computer study at high school where they were stuck on a particular topic like you because of time table clashes, do you think the depth of the things that they could learn would make them an expert?  If not, what would they need to do in order to claim expert status? 




#1189653 I do not, nor have I ever seen a penis ...

Posted by tastywheat on 08 March 2017 - 12:16 PM

Can't hate on that I guess; What day is Mens Day?

 

Celebrating a particular cause doesn't imply the exclusion of other causes.  Think of it in terms of equity vs equality:

 

equalityequity.jpg

 

Men face discrimination when it comes to custody, are far more likely to die in the workplace, and receive less help with mental health issues (leading to greater rates of male suicide).  These problems are not trivial, and positive discrimination is becoming more common, but Women's day does not trivialise or detract from these things.

 

Women are still at an objective disadvantage compared to white male counterparts in modern Australia.  They're more likely to be murdered and assaulted, particularly as a result of domestic violence.  They're less likely to be promoted to a leadership position, and they're less likely to be recognised for their skills and achievements.  There is a real pay gap of about 3 to 5% for women working in the same position, and for the same hours as men, even when accounting for other variables.

 

If we extend our attention to the developing world, which haven't yet experienced the progression fought for by Feminism, things get bleak.  FGM, human trafficking, forced marriages, being prohibited from going to school, all that really shitty stuff that humans do to each other.  Despite easy simplifications and popular notions, it isn't just about religion.  Ethiopia is a majority Christian country, that still has a rate of FGM among women of 74% (in anticipation: No True Scotsman fallacy).  

 

Most cultures (including ours) feature, or have featured some form of systematic oppression of Women.   Women's Day is about celebrating the progress we've made (like Women being able to vote), and looking for ways we can progress further (like equal representation in government).

 

If you're still stuck on the equity vs equality thing, International Men's Day is celebrated on the 19th of November.