Sexism in Science?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

you mean "could be qualified"

- brought to you courtesy of the RHPGP -

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You were using it in the context of being able.
"Could" is infinitely preferable in the context of that sentence.

"Would" is more appropriate for fantasies.
e.g. If I won a million I would buy a yacht.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

If ISIS, Taliban and Boko Haram have their way, women wouldn't even be allowed in high school much less in in graduate school. Boko Haram means 'no western education' for boys AND girls.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

He didn't.

Whether he is correct about the grammar, He was saying that you should have used
the word "could" instead of the word "would", and saying that "would" is preferably
used in sentences of fancy and fantasy.

He was thus unambiguously NOT comparing the likelihood of more women having careers
in science with a fantasy of anything.

You on the other hand are unambiguously overreacting to someone making a minor quibble
about your grammar in an otherwise harmless post to which you respond with insults.

I am not going to guess why you went so hostile so fast, but its something you do all the time
and appears to me to be a large part of why so many people seem not to like you.

That and your irritating habit of talking to an imaginary audience instead of actually to the person
you are conversing with, and the fact that you apparently assume everyone else is an idiot and in
need of condescension which you dish out in spades.

And finally, as demonstrated here, your reading comprehension of other peoples posts is not perfect.
You are not infallible and thus make mistakes. That's ok, so does everyone else.
However you act like you don't and cannot make mistakes, and never apologise or admit to making them.

Such a miss-understanding is how we fell out.

wolfgang59 has not said anything in this thread to indicate that he doesn't agree that sexism either exists
or is a problem in science [or anywhere/everywhere] else.
I don't know what other beef you have with him is, but given the pettiness of your beef with me, and my
experience with wolgang59 thus far, I would suspect it to be as baseless as your disagreements with me.

Perhaps you should read more carefully what people actually write and not what you imagine they are writing.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If ISIS, Taliban and Boko Haram have their way, women wouldn't even be allowed in high school much less in in graduate school. Boko Haram means 'no western education' for boys AND girls.

However, outside perhaps a small and limited area of the globe they are not going to have their way.

So lets not get overly excited about them.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Au contraire Duchess.

I was suggesting using "could" rather than "would" because they do have the ability.

Your usage of would suggests doubt of their ability which is why I corrected your grammar.r

The post that was quoted here has been removed

1. If someone sends me a PM I am under no commitment to keep it secret. End of.

2. For a long time I defended you in debates.

3. My tit-for-tat "abuse" started after you misinterpreted something ... called me sexist I think, which is utter nonsense if you look at my posting record.

4. The recent spat started after you complained about someone's spelling!

5. I haven't the time to troll you .. tempting as it may be.

😀

The post that was quoted here has been removed

This is quite a long reply that you have written. At no point in it do you acknowledge that
what you claim Wolfgang59 said was not actually what he said. At no point do you retract
that claim or admit making a mistake. The fact that you fail to admit this, fits the observed
patten I mentioned earlier, and is one of the reasons I mistrust your accusations against
other people.

If I ever need advice about English grammar, I'll ask one of my English professor friends.
Sometimes they have asked me for my critique of their English prose style and usage.
Wolfgang59's presumed motive is that he deeply resents me for having pointed out his
recent evident approval of cheating and lying in another forum, so he's jumping at any
opportunity that he can to put me down for an imagined error.

I don't care if either of you is correct about the grammar, and way to go with the self aggrandisement.

Googlefudge may be ignorant (or not care) about the fact that, in other forums,
Wolfgang59 already has a quite a record of personally insulting me, even in threads
in which I had written nothing to or about him. Wolfgang59 also seems to have been
at least implicitly, encouraging some of my other trolls to keep insulting me too.
I have no reason to believe Wolfgang59's motivated by any sense of fairness toward me.

I very seldom read other forums, and I read your posts and posts about you even less.
I am not currently disputing that wolfgang59 may have insulted you, So have I.
I just wrote a post pointing out a bunch of things you do that are likely to induce hostility
and increase your odds of being insulted by people who would not otherwise be hostile to you.
I also do not doubt that you get picked on by some people because you [claim to be] female.
However it is my observation that you tend to accuse anyone who attacks you of doing so
because you claim to be female whether that is justifiably the case or not.
It certainly wasn't when you accused me.

I don't like you not because you are female, but because you are a pompous ass.
The fact that you are a condescending smart 'know-it-all' as well makes it worse.

Recently in the Debates forum, Wolfgang59 published a PM from another person,
*without asking for his permission*, in order to attack it.

Don't care. I've done it myself when another poster posted weird stuff to me in a PM.
Don't cold send a PM unless you are fine with it being made public.

Googlefudge may like to believe that I must have made up this about Wolfgang59.

Again with the talking about me in third person when replying to me. You really need to stop doing
this it makes you sound like a deranged [if pompous] idiot.

And again, making assumptions about what and how I think that are WRONG.

Will you ever learn that you have no freaking idea what and how I think, every, single, time, you do this
you get it wrong. Most people would learn from that and stop doing it.
If your mental model consistently fails then it must be ditched for a better one.

I make no such assumption, I have no such belief, and as I said above, I don't care about the accusation
you made.

By the way, after Metal Brain felt too uncomfortable in his latest disputes with Humy,
he recently created an obvious troll thread in the Debate forum in which he accused
me (by name in the thread's headline) of 'trolling in the Science forum'. attempting to
encourage my usual trolls to come here and personally attack me, as usual, and, as he
hoped, lend support to himself. But no one has bitten yet on Metal Brain's tempting invitation.

Metal Brain is a deluded conspiracy nut who I would happily see banned.
That people have not rallied to his banner is a hint of hope for this forum.
From his posts he is evidently a misogynist on top of his many other faults
and he has clearly attacked you for that reason.
Not sure that this has anything at all to do with the fact that you just accused Wolfgang59
of something he didn't do/say.

The most spectacular recent event in the popular pastime of 'trolling Duchess64' took
place on 13 June 2015 in the Debates forum, when Bill718 (another of my trolls) created
*ten* almost identical troll posts in many threads, attempting to incite a 'flame war' with me.

It is quite clear to me that there are misogynists on these forums, like there are almost everywhere else.
This both makes me sad, and angry.

However, that doesn't mean that EVERY person who 'attacks' you is doing so because they are a misogamist.

Every time you are criticised for ANYTHING you make it about the fact that you are [claim to be] a woman.
And you make a big deal about the fact that you are frequently [and others] attacked for exactly that reason.

The problem is that you are frequently also attacked for being a condescending, pompous, know-it-all, ass.
And for blowing up at people who have not done anything to deserve it.

It's what you did to me. I don't care that you're a woman, I don't care IF you are a woman. It makes no difference
to how I treat you.

You know that I dislike intensely your posting to me while talking about me in third person.

And yet you do it anyway.

And you are surprised when people take a disliking to you.

If you want to piss everyone off, then carry on, just stop acting surprised and hurt by the hate-mail.

If you don't want everyone to be so antagonistic, well there is nothing you can do about the misogamists, but
they are a minority [albeit a ridiculously loud one]. You can do something about everyone else.

I started this by pointing out that you just accused Wolfgang56 of saying something he didn't actually say.

Are you going to be reasonable, admit that I was correct and that you were wrong?

Or are you going to write another polemic about how everyone hates you because they are misogynists and
talk at me in third person?

One way lies a path to conciliation and civility.

The other path leads to my going back to utterly ignoring everything you write.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You know what, you are right. Reveal Hidden Content

You can use either word, I probably would agree with Wolfgang56 that could is better in context,
but it's very marginal.

However, the thing is people make critiques of others grammar all the time, sometimes rightly
and sometimes wrongly.

Language is a fluid and evolving thing and as far as I am concerned the biggest mistake is to
believe that it's a fixed thing that you can be 'right' about in a rigid mathematical sense.
Some of the greatest writers and literature/speeches have flouted 'the rules of grammar' because
the 'rules of grammar' are more guidelines than actual rules and they would have got in the way
of the style and flair of the authors in question.

And consequently people disagree about the correct way to pronounce things, or to structure sentences.

Where you go horribly wrong is blowing up a little critique into a giant conspiracy to belittle you
and insult your intelligence/linguistic abilities/gender/whatever.

If someone critiques your grammar and you disagree, quip back and drop it.

Because you are reading into Wolfgang56's motives a whole bunch of stuff that is not justifiable off of
the evidence you have. Just like you misread me and attribute a whole bunch of motives and meanings
to my posts that are just not there at all period.

It must suck being you, being surrounded by all these people scheming and plotting to take you down.

The tragedy is that a fair number of those plots and schemes exists solely in your imagination.

I actually know what that's like. I was bullied for a time at school and it got so bad that I couldn't tell
any-more who the bullies were and treated everyone like a hostile threat.
I lost a lot of potential friends and allies that way.

You have lost [if you ever had it] the ability to tell the difference between people who are genuinely
bigoted against you and everyone else. So stop assigning motives to everything everyone says because
you are going to get it wrong.