CharonY

That is not the reason at all. Scientists use words because they are useful. We use species as a concept because it is useful, not because nature has set hard delineations that define this concept. We use different levels of taxonomy for the same reason. Some researchers look at changes. Some researchers work on different scales of evolution (e.g. within and between populations) and in order to clarify things they may use different terms.

If a lot of people are shorting, they are betting on a decline, which may influence stock value perception. If the amount in short positions is large relative to the float, it can directly affect the price. Why do you think it would increase, though?

Your argument would be more poignant if you discussed them in a thread focusing on men or at least when societal issues in general (e.g. patriarchal pressures) are brought up. Yet it at least seems that you have the tendency to try to bring the issues up exclusively as a counterpoint to women issues (which, I recognize, is almost exclusively discussed by males on the board. I wonder why that is). At best, that weakens your overall argument. At worst it seems that you may not be arguing in good faith. What I suspect is that you have a hard time reconciling the issues with your personal experience. And again, there are challenges for men, and according to some schools of thought they are borne from similar sources that create other challenges for women. But if you want to discuss them I suggest using existing research to contextualize findings. Because, seriously, saying that guys have a harder time finding a summer job in a certain area is an extremely weak argument for any of this (even if it may resonate most strongly to you personally). And doesn't this indicate why victims are afraid to speak out? And again, you will find similar dynamics in many situations where the victims career is dependent on the abuser. As mentioned, we find it in sports, academia, churches and corporate environments (though the latter may be wrapped in NDAs). It is just that powerful and influential people appear to be more believable to many folks, rather than a mere nobody.

I suggest taking courses in both areas and look at actual careers involving these disciplines. Zoology does not necessarily lead to outdoor jobs (but may involve e.g. animal care, consultant jobs, instructor etc.), whereas biotech does not necessarily lead to medical work. Also, time commitment depends more on the job than the degree. E.g. in an academic career post PhD your free time is very limited, same goes to fast-moving jobs. In others you may just have regular ~40h weeks.

Your question is unclear. Do you mean finding instrument withing an institute? It obviously depends on where you are and how large your institution is. Sometimes departments maintain list of equipment that are searchable, or have mailing lists where you can ask. Once a person is identified you could ask, but more realistically, you would have your supervisor ask.

It has been tangentially been addressed, but a big part of the word itself is that it was used as a medical term and while it has been abandoned by the medical community it was used in situations where it created ambiguity in terms of its use (i.e. description or insult). This is also the reason why experts would prefer it not to be used as it might still associate their patients with something which is now fully used as an insult. I suspect the difference between retard and moron (or similar) could be due to the fact that the latter may have been abandoned from scholarly used faster or earlier. Either way, word usages and the offense taken in their use are historic and change with societal context. For examples just take a look when 'black' was considered more offensive than 'negro'.

IIRC dogs have dichromatic perception, which allows them to see more than black and white (but fewer colours than we do).

Another aspect that is also relevant with respect to OP is that especially when there is a strong power imbalance is that peers to the abuser speak up. The reason is that this creates an environment which makes it easier for victims to believe that they are going to be heard and not just further abused. I think someone else mentioned training courses and suchalikes. I will add that these events are technically not designed to create a better environment. For the most part they are part of the due diligence of employers so that they can claim that they did everything to ensure professional environment in case someone starts filing complaints. While there may be some interesting takeaways, I doubt that that many believe that they are terribly effective for day-to-day events (similar to many other yearly training/safety exercises).

The problem is that you provided an anecdotal account of a personal experience. To care about that one would need to see the context. For example if this situation results in young men being struck with an higher unemployment rate, for example. Or even if one showed that in all other cases there was gender balance and salary equity. Start a new thread and show some data on how badly men fare in the workforce and we can go from there. Of course there are challenges for men and while often there is a certain general umbrella of reasons (e.g. a mostly patriarch organization of society) the mechanisms are different, though no less distressing. Take a study on US military personnel by Harrell and Buchanan: In other words, it is not that people don't care about males, but that your examples are too inconsequential and if taken a broad view, it still seems that women are disproportionately affected. There are areas where men are affected more, including suicide rates (there is a thread on that) and violence (as perpetrators as well as victims), for example. These are worthy of discussion but not if they are merely used to invalidate the experience of women.

I think one of the things that people (men) miss is the different experience in many situations. I certainly did not appreciate it until my now wife brought them up. And it did change my perspective on e.g. student/supervisor interactions that I had observed (especially on conferences) when I was still a grad. To those that were never in such dimorphic situations it seems like a trivial "flippable" situation. Yet out in the real world it certainly isn't. What is also not appreciated is that the experience does influence your perception even of innocuous situations. Most males would be somewhere between awkward to appreciative when commented on their looks by a stranger. However, females who experienced more or less regular catcalling for example may instead think differently about the same comments. E.g. "is my blouse too revealing, or my skirt too tight"? It can turn into a very self-conscious event , not because of the situation itself, but due to the specific experiences throughout life. In younger years when I was told about I thought it was an exaggeration until I realized how almost constant the feeling of exposure is in the public. Sure people looking is not harassment in itself. Yet one cannot help to feel vulnerable to some degree. And it is weird to see how almost automatically defensive actions are taken (change in gait for example, turning the body so the chest is less exposed, the need to repeatedly tell everyone that one has a bf/is engaged) just to escape attention. The world is a different place not only because where you are, but also who you are. As such it can be difficult to hold everyone to perfect standards in a very complex and non-standardized world.

You are essentially disagreeing with the legal definition of quid pro quo harassment. What you probably did not factor in is that these requests are given from a position of power. That alone can result in an implicit threat.

I think in the given context it is absolute appropriate and I did not mean to suggest otherwise. As I said, it is about nuance and context. Complimenting someone on their looks is generally not an issue. Reducing someone to it, on the other hand, is likely to be one. Again, it is not about complimenting or certain words, but the whole behavioral set and in which context it is used. And unfortunately, sometimes things shift uncomfortably. E.g. commenting on a new hair cut is polite and potentially uplifting. But if the boss for example starts saying things like that it looks "sexier" or mentions that a certain dress is prettier and so on, it quickly becomes more personal than appropriate. Not saying that it happens in your work environment, but the issue is that in areas where professional conduct is slipping or not existing at all, it is easy to have someone messing it up for everyone.

Actually I think the idea is the opposite. We must make it clear that harassment has no place and will not be excused. From there it follows that victims (hopefully) will have an easier time coming forward. However, in the absence of a mechanism that reliably protects victims, we also have to acknowledge that it may not as simple as that. And here is where nuance and context is relevant. It depends on whether e.g. you are the boss and what other forms of interactions you have with them. If everyone compliments each other or it is otherwise clear that it is part of regular chit-chat. Yet, if the boss only positively comments looks (but not e.g. work) then it may start being problematic (i.e. if the person is only reduced to that aspect). I.e. it is not only based on words being said, but the meaning being conveyed (and the patterns thereof). Actually I think the old Hollywood was really bad in that regard. But if you wonder about current times, I am not sure. At least I have not seen any comparative statistics. But one has also to acknowledge that complaints themselves are not a good indicator. As we have (hopefully) established, power structures can make reporting difficult. For example, I found that while still difficult in US academia reports of harassment are taking way more serious than they used to in Germany. And in both there have been notable cases. I do think that much of it is simply more in the open than it used to be, which goes back to the first point. Is it pervasive in all groups? Perhaps not. But then you are generally not stuck in only one group and as a woman there is a high likelihood that one experiences some sort of sexual harassment. Especially in jobs it is devastating as they also affects ones career.

It's because of unicorns.

I think there are several elements of it. First, how do they know whether a man is of good character? Sure, it may be true that humans are sexual beings, but if we want equality it requires that one keeps these things in check in professional settings, otherwise women will be brought down to certain roles (and this is not only true for starlets). And yes, men may not have had bad intentions and you may consider certain things a slip up. However, if , as woman, you are in an environment full of males it is going to happen more than a couple of times. People may even be apologetic. Yet, it does become a thing that keeps nagging at the back of your mind. And since there is always a furious backlash if one actually speaks up to the wrong person, one it ends up with a very tight circle of trustees, often with the provision to keep it to themselves.

And as already mentioned, there are a plethora of other examples in virtually all areas where power imbalance is coupled with narrow career trajectories. What enrages me is the fact that those situations are lose-lose for the victims. If you do not rebuff vehemently enough, you had it coming and are using your sexuality because you would not cut it otherwise. If you rebuff it, you are overdramatic, it wasn't serious and clearly it will have no negative impact on your evaluation, eh? Either way it shows that one is not an equal member of the workforce. But hey, we solved sexism and women who do not cut it are probably hindered by biology on some level. I really dislike the term as it apparently changes meaning constantly and is used to highlight oneself as victim. "Some PC, SJW student in a school said something mean on youtube, which proves that society is suppressing me." Sure, that is the same as having people in power actually doing horrible things.

What is being discussed is that a) certain people abuse their power in order to treat others as sexualized objects that b) due to the power imbalance it is not tit for tat in the sense of an agreed exchange and c) that specifically women face regular sexualization even in other innocuous settings that make them keep these types of abuse to themselves as it appears to be permeating through society (tbf, though, male victims also often do not come forward, but for the opposite reasons under the same societal structure). What you call "PC" is essentially a coming change in society in which we believe (or at least pretend) that we want equality and treat each other with respect. Especially in public places, at work and especially in boss-employee situations (or equivalent power structures). I understand that this is a significant departure of things from even 20-30 years ago, but as usual, one is expected to navigate those shifts.

The actual issue is that the species concept in bacteria is very arbitrary. It is traditionally based on 70% DNA-DNA cross-hybridization. Thus, if if we have divergence larger than that we call it a new species. Thus, there is no clear delineation. Genus and species are basically categorizations that we use to delineate populations in space and time (and in microbes also often functionally).

I think it is difficult and perhaps meaningless to confine the discussion to a specific individual. After all, this behaviour is the result of structural reasons (including extreme power imbalance). This form of exploitation has been around in many areas, where people of authority abuse their charges (and worse). And similar to this case, victims tend not to talk or only to close trustees. Only when there is a critical mass of publicity do they fee l encouraged to come forward, especially when the abuse happened when they were children . For example, only recently the USA gymnast team a medical doctor is accused of ~125 cases of sexual assault. And it only really got out after he was charged with possession of child pornography. There are many many more stories like this and while children are the most obvious victims, it is clear that it extends to adults as well. In academia recently reports of sexual harassment of students by their profs have been making the rounds. And again, it is not a new event, it is only that current discussions have shed a light on this ongoing issue. The book "The Lecherous Professor: Sexual Harassment On Campus" was originally published in the 80s and seems as relevant today. Ultimately one has to recognize that for many victims it is easier to shrug it off and maybe even normalize that behaviour in their minds (and after all, others are going to view it as a tit for tat anyway) and continue with their lives rather than face the potential repercussions. The article provided by iNow nicely portrays how the "playing along" mindset establishes itself in the victims.

I sincerely hope that he did not try to figure it out experimentally.

I am not sure what your point is. It is true that for a long time sexual assault was not a matter of law enforcement and that until very recently was assumed something that just happened without repercussion (and sometimes extended to situations which nowadays would be classified as rape). But are you saying that people should just accept it?

It is not always as rational as that. For example, some may have complained, but if everyone surrounding the industry basically shrugs and tells you that it is just the way it is, there is a huge barrier to actually try lodge a formal complaint.

I think this should be moved to ethics. One element that explains the lack of reporting is that there is a system of normalization around his behaviour, coupled with an extreme power differential. In addition, only one or two decades ago, such abusive behaviour was perhaps considered in bad taste but had less social cost associated with it (and heck, even today it is largely situational, considering how people get away with abusive behaviour). Thus even if she had objected as a relatively unknown actress there is a high chance that it would not have been taken seriously. There is also an inner barrier to overcome. Most victims of abuse do not report it for a variety of reasons, including retaliation and/or the simple fact that people may not believe them (and call them gold diggers or worse). After all, the rumors were around for years (i.e. some people apparently did tell others) and yet nothing happened. Typically, these allegations are only taken seriously when they come from several sources, so the first one to break it, is at considerable risk.

It seems to be the case of reading the headline and extrapolate from there. Just to state the painfully obvious for tar: "gay" here means "jovial" or "happy".

But this is not true for asexually reproducing species, such as bacteria. Considering that this is how life started out, it is a rather large exception.