Topic: Feminism back By Solid Science!

[Old Earth Accretionist]

I am a big fan of initiatives such as anonymous resume readings (remove name/age/location features) from resumes before they are sent for screening... You'd be surprised how different your selections might be (our biases are very deeply ingrained in our subconcious).  Even advertising that you do something like that when you put out a job listing can encourage people who otherwise might discount you as an option... and/or putting your job postings into communities where you are going to specifically get the attention of women or minorities along with the usual locations so that they know you are interested in going for equal opportunity... Otherwise they are likely to go to someone else who has a reputation for being more meritocratic (friendly to people who aren't the "norm", whatever that means).

Ideally if we could do for everything what we did for orchestras (blind auditions) things would be a lot better equality and meritocracy-wise (sadly that is impractical for almost anything other than orchestras).

[Ajzzz]

...and they don't mean that white males are being discriminated against

I don't see how it couldn't be discrimination. If you hire someone because they're of a certain "race" or gender, how are you not using "race" or gender to distinguish who gets hired. It makes me wonder what definition you're using for the word "discriminated".

it's simply that people don't just bring an abstract set of "abilities" into a job or group, they bring much more than that.

Their "race" and gender apparently, because it's not the content of their character you're interested in or basing decisions based on merit.

You can't be a feminist and be in favour of discriminating based on gender, not even if that's discrimination against men, there's a difference between equality of gender and advocacy for women.

[Old Earth Accretionist]

There are demonstrable benefits to having a team made up of people with diverse perspectives... while that can occur without mixing up race and gender... generally if you walk into a room and it is all middle-aged white guys in the same profession you really have to wonder how diverse the perspective in the room is going to be.

You mentioned before that you thought it was a terrible idea that, in the event of two candidates with equal suitability for a position to "default" to the woman, for example.  BUT what if your default was the one who brings something new to the group?  Would that be acceptable to your mind? 

So you have a team of all white men and three candidates that are equally qualified: White male, white female, mexican female... why not go with the mexican female because she most likely has the most diverse perspective to bring to the discussion. 

You have a team of all women.  Two candidates are equally qualified, one is another woman another is man... why not go with the man because he again would be most likely to provide a different perspective?

The problem right now is that in the above situation most places do have a default (even if it is unconscious) and in the case of engineering/computers/etc that default is the white male...  In universities, for example, people who think they are comparing their applicants fairly still manage to skew things so that minorities and women have to be significantly better than their counterparts to be considered equal candidates. 

If we can get rid of that bias then there is absolutely no need any more for any sort of specific diversity profiling, and we are all happy (although I still advocate the above model for decision making in cases of a "tie") 

[Ajzzz]

There are demonstrable benefits to having a team made up of people with diverse perspectives... while that can occur without mixing up race and gender... generally if you walk into a room and it is all middle-aged white guys in the same profession you really have to wonder how diverse the perspective in the room is going to be.

If you're prejudiced I guess you would do that to all kinds of groups, I thought that type of bigotry is what feminism was against.

You mentioned before that you thought it was a terrible idea that, in the event of two candidates with equal suitability for a position to "default" to the woman, for example.  BUT what if your default was the one who brings something new to the group?  Would that be acceptable to your mind?

If it was demonstrable that it was a benefit then of course, diversity for diversity's sake is not something that I believe has be demonstrable benefit. I'd be very interested in the design of a study that could demonstrate it.

So you have a team of all white men and three candidates that are equally qualified: White male, white female, mexican female... why not go with the mexican female because she most likely has the most diverse perspective to bring to the discussion.

That completely denies the individuality of people, people aren't their nationality or gender, it's insulting, I would be insulted if anyone did that to me, it's not treating people as persons. People choose to focus on certain categories if it suits them, what if mexican female was white and middle class, as are most of the employees of the company, and the two other candidates come from working class backgrounds? Why is one person given a nationality while the other two are giving a "race"? What if they're French and Russian? You skewed your example the way in practice the hiring process that discriminates in this way would be skewed. Swapping one type of discrimination for another isn't a solution. Just think about all the different opinions people have in the same family, it's ridiculous to suggest the level of uniformity you are over "white" males or females, how many are they of each in the world, I'm guessing over 200million.

You have a team of all women.  Two candidates are equally qualified, one is another woman another is man... why not go with the man because he again would be most likely to provide a different perspective?

Because women don't all think alike and there's no reason to think that having equal proportion of gender is any better, despite your claims.

[DRmeg378]

This is just an anecdote, as I am not a sociologist.

I am a woman. I am interviewed for two very attractive positions in the same industry. In one, I am interviewed by about eight middle aged white men, who are representative of their office. In the other, I am interviewed by a diverse group, both in terms of gender and ethnicity. I choose the second place, I'll be more comfortable there, even if the pay is a little bit lower. So if you think my choice is stupid, because the only thing that matters is pay (like the only thing that matters in a candidate is their "ability", as if that were easily measured), then you shouldn't worry about diversity. If you think there might be something to my preferences, then someone hiring should worry about diversity, because they lost someone they were willing to pay a nice amount of money to another firm, and so diversity is part of what an employee brings to the job. Sure, this applies to not hiring minorities if you think clients are discriminatory. You may disagree with that, but it goes into the cost/benefit analysis of alternative policies, and I care about cost/benefit more than I care about being called bigoted.

[Ajzzz]

So you're suggesting that this is a good policy because at least one person is a bigot. I'm sure there are other bigoted people that would go the other way. I don't think either you or any other bigots should be humoured in this regard. And what you're saying is that you'd be perfectly fine with companies not hiring people of minority ethnicities if there were more people who would choose less diverse companies over them.

You'd be perfectly fine deciding to work for a company because the interviewees were diverse in gender and ethnicities but were all homophobes or fundamentalists? Ethnicity and gender tells me a lot less about the person than it does you, and that's the difference between a bigot and a non-bigot.

[DRmeg378]

I don't really get what you gain from calling me a bigot, but suit yourself. If you think people don't have multiple identities, one of which is gender, one of which is ethnicity, one of which is sexual orientation, you'll have a hard time understanding any research that addresses stereotype threat, profiling, any sort of statistics really. I would not have liked a company with women only either, so I don't know how that fits in with your idea of me as a bigot. I mean, I do feel like not engaging in this conversation when you call me that, but I don't think that's your goal.

[Johnny Slick]

I don't really get what you gain from calling me a bigot, but suit yourself. If you think people don't have multiple identities, one of which is gender, one of which is ethnicity, one of which is sexual orientation, you'll have a hard time understanding any research that addresses stereotype threat, profiling, any sort of statistics really. I would not have liked a company with women only either, so I don't know how that fits in with your idea of me as a bigot. I mean, I do feel like not engaging in this conversation when you call me that, but I don't think that's your goal.

That's exactly what Hitler would say.

[Ajzzz]

I think people like you will pick the identities that are "relevant" for your ends, you only included sexual orientation after I mentioned it. I don't think you or anyone else can say that a "white", male, heterosexual has less in common in terms of perspective than a "black", female, lesbian. What if they're both atheists? What if they're both humanists? What if they're aggressive? What if they like the same art? What if they both extroverts? What if they're both really good at math? I'd like to know how "perspective" suddenly gets translated into "race", sex, age, it's ridiculous.

What research are you reading where "perspective" is reduced to age, sex, "race", orientation? I'd question the people who made such research and their understanding of many things, including statistics and profiling. It's the type of profiling that's the same as "black" people getting stop and searched more often, and Muslims get more closely monitored at airports. I think I understand that kind of profiling pretty well.

I called you a bigot because you're obstinately devoted to your prejudices. I'd like to see how someone who doesn't think they'll fit in to a group because of that group's "race" and gender would go about explaining how they're not prejudiced.

[andrewclunn]

Accusations of confirmation bias apparently carry a lot more weight when it pertains to group identity.  Though I take issue with meg getting a bigot card.  I've had to work my ass off offending people to be called a bigot.  She's also not a white man, so it's going to take twice as many accusations for it to stick 

[Old Earth Accretionist]

There are demonstrable benefits to having a team made up of people with diverse perspectives... while that can occur without mixing up race and gender... generally if you walk into a room and it is all middle-aged white guys in the same profession you really have to wonder how diverse the perspective in the room is going to be.

If you're prejudiced I guess you would do that to all kinds of groups, I thought that type of bigotry is what feminism was against.

Ummm... what?  If you have similar socio-economic and demographic situations you are more likely to have similar life experiences and therefore have a similar perspective?  How is saying that bigoted?

Just because it's not ideal that social racial and demographic constructions do have such a far-reaching effect doesn't mean that recognising that these things are actually REAL in their SOCIAL effects on a person's life experiences is bigotted.

You mentioned before that you thought it was a terrible idea that, in the event of two candidates with equal suitability for a position to "default" to the woman, for example.  BUT what if your default was the one who brings something new to the group?  Would that be acceptable to your mind?

If it was demonstrable that it was a benefit then of course, diversity for diversity's sake is not something that I believe has be demonstrable benefit. I'd be very interested in the design of a study that could demonstrate it.

Right now there is a real paucity of real data (partially because it is difficult to study and provide controls).

One of the papers I found suggests a positive correlation with diverse skill-sets and negative correlation (in one factory) between demographic diversity and productivity suggesting increased communication costs or a preference for segregation. But they stress that their results are limited in the fact that their sample set is essentially one place of work and one type of work.
http://apps.olin.wustl.edu/workingpapers/pdf/2004-05-001.pdf

One that was slightly more comprehensive, but still preliminary.  Looked at the New Worker-Establishment Characteristics Database... which provides a data-set covering several different companies at the establishment level.  But they concluded that there was a small positive to negligible benefit but no evidence of negative effects of increased diversity:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cnf/wpaper/0102.html

And yet another suggests that both the idea of difficulty in communication and increased learning capacity with more diverse demographics are in fact both valid hypothesis (by testing each one seperately) that both contribute to the total productivity and therefore it depends on what metric you are trying to maximize that will increase your choice of productivity measure.  So if you are looking for originality, creativity and learning, diversity will likely increase that metric, if you are looking for a team that outputs quickly and efficiently (such as in the factory paper) more homogeneity will likely increase that metric.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cnf/wpaper/0102.html

I would posit that a team that is used to working within a heterogeneous group (or has worked in the same heterogeneous group for a while) would likely overcome the communication gap to a greater extent than those unnused to it... BUT I do not have any data to currently support that.

So you have a team of all white men and three candidates that are equally qualified: White male, white female, mexican female... why not go with the mexican female because she most likely has the most diverse perspective to bring to the discussion.

That completely denies the individuality of people, people aren't their nationality or gender, it's insulting, I would be insulted if anyone did that to me, it's not treating people as persons. People choose to focus on certain categories if it suits them, what if mexican female was white and middle class, as are most of the employees of the company, and the two other candidates come from working class backgrounds? Why is one person given a nationality while the other two are giving a "race"? What if they're French and Russian? You skewed your example the way in practice the hiring process that discriminates in this way would be skewed. Swapping one type of discrimination for another isn't a solution. Just think about all the different opinions people have in the same family, it's ridiculous to suggest the level of uniformity you are over "white" males or females, how many are they of each in the world, I'm guessing over 200million.

It does not deny individuality... it is simply a fact that people from different demographics have more likelihood of different life experiences than those that belong to the same demographic.  That doesn't deny that every single person has a different set of life experiences... BUT you seem to be completely denying that demographics have any effect on a person's life experience and therefore their perspective?

Do you ascribe to the idea that people/personality are separate from their experiences?

You have a team of all women.  Two candidates are equally qualified, one is another woman another is man... why not go with the man because he again would be most likely to provide a different perspective?

Because women don't all think alike and there's no reason to think that having equal proportion of gender is any better, despite your claims.

Okay, fine... your argument boils down to the idea that you don't think that diversity is an advantage... fine.  The research is still preliminary here.  And it is probably not as black and white as one is always good and one is always bad.

But you know what?  You presented a question where you said both candidates were equal so I took you at your word and assumed that on everything except for demographics they were the same (which is admittedly unlikely in the real world)... you said it in a manner that now seems like it was meant as a trap because is there any answer you wouldn't have argued as being a terrible option?

I tried to say introduce an element of diversity to your metric... that diversity could be age, gender, race, socio-economics, hobbies... whatever, something that brings something new to your team...  But what would you suggest?  Because you obviously thought mine was a terrible idea.  Is it your opinion that the default should be that which most closely fits the current demographic?  Or do you think a coin toss is the best way to decide? or do you have a fourth option that I haven't thought of?

[DRmeg378]

I think people like you will pick the identities that are "relevant" for your ends, you only included sexual orientation after I mentioned it.

That's true, I went back to read my first post and it somehow got lost in my edit.

I don't think you or anyone else can say that a "white", male, heterosexual has less in common in terms of perspective than a "black", female, lesbian. What if they're both atheists? What if they're both humanists? What if they're aggressive? What if they like the same art? What if they both extroverts? What if they're both really good at math? I'd like to know how "perspective" suddenly gets translated into "race", sex, age, it's ridiculous.

I'm not sure if you're trying to read the narrowest interpretation of what I said, or if this is your most charitable interpretation. Here's how a charitable interpretation is done: I read what you say, and I see that you make a valid point, and I will not take it as you trying to purposefully twist the point I'm trying to make, and I will restate my point.

People have identities. Groups they belong to, whether they like it or not, because we are classified by others that way. I'm "Hispanic", whether I like it or not, and it affects how people see me. Now, I'm many things, and so are we all, but when making hiring decisions you don't really test what people are like in the actual job, so all you can do is go from observable characteristics to an estimation of what the person will add to the group. The question is, what observable characteristics do you focus on.

You say, only what's on the CV. Only not really, because I'm sure you would want to meet someone in person before you hire them, and ask questions that no piece of paper could really answer. So, it's now the CV, and the answers to the questions. Only it's not just that, because you are going to try and gauge whether the candidate had other features (ambition? drive? are they nice? it depends on the job). So I think up to this point, we agree.

Now, depending on the job, having a diverse group may matter. Say you're talking about a university department, where having multiple perspectives on an issue is important. Then you need to gauge whether the person you are talking to will be able to bring something new to the table, in a very nebulous fashion, because you don't really know anything. The question is whether you think people bring new things to the table because of their "identities" as defined socially.

Do I think a woman has a naturally different perspective? I suspect not. Do I think that women and men are treated differently by society, and that this difference translates to different perspectives on average. I do. And I think it's the same for ethnicities, immigrants, people who are the first in their family to go to college, people who grew up in the ghetto, and a long list of outcomes. I don't think it's intrinsic to what they are, but that we live in such a society.

Now, of course, what I am saying leads to differential treatment, and in a way maintains this problem. That's true, and it's problematic. The question is whether these groups were treated equally at any point in time, and I think not, so I find the alternative somewhat conservative. It's okay for private businesses, but I think in the case of college admissions, being "different" should count for something. And once you account for the observable differences (which of course I don't think should be ignored), I submit that some of the unobservable differences are correlated to these observable identities.

What research are you reading where "perspective" is reduced to age, sex, "race", orientation? I'd question the people who made such research and their understanding of many things, including statistics and profiling.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=stereotype+threat&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp=on

I'm really interested in this, but as an amateur. If you know of research that suggests that stereotypes are not important, I would love to read it (though it would cause my brain to hurt, due to having my beliefs challenged, I ultimately care more about being right).

I called you a bigot because you're obstinately devoted to your prejudices. I'd like to see how someone who doesn't think they'll fit in to a group because of that group's "race" and gender would go about explaining how they're not prejudiced.

In my case, the group composition suggested to me that the hours were such that women found it hard to have a baby and return to the workplace. Since this is a uniquely female experience that female professionals need to care about, seeing the composition of the group was more informative than their stated maternity leave policy. So I'm guessing my personal anecdote is perhaps not entirely valid in terms of the power of "diversity".

If you call me a bigot another time I won't respond. You may think personal attacks are great ways of engaging in constructive discussion of controversial topics, but I don't.

[Old Earth Accretionist]

I think people like you will pick the identities that are "relevant" for your ends, you only included sexual orientation after I mentioned it. I don't think you or anyone else can say that a "white", male, heterosexual has less in common in terms of perspective than a "black", female, lesbian. What if they're both atheists? What if they're both humanists? What if they're aggressive? What if they like the same art? What if they both extroverts? What if they're both really good at math? I'd like to know how "perspective" suddenly gets translated into "race", sex, age, it's ridiculous.

Heck, your assuming that all I am is a cis-gendered, white woman and that sexual orientation doesn't matter to me.... when it does because I am bi-sexual... you assume that because we don't mention every single metric (and make our posts even longer) that we don't care about metrics we haven't specifically listed. 

And actually in terms of life experiences these social constructions of race, sex and age ARE important in terms of perspective.  They have REAL effects.... look up anything in sociology for the past decade about demographics.  You will not find a serious person in the field arguing that social constructs have no effect in the real world regardless of "real" biological differences (such as how our idea of race has very little correlation with actual genetics).

What research are you reading where "perspective" is reduced to age, sex, "race", orientation? I'd question the people who made such research and their understanding of many things, including statistics and profiling. It's the type of profiling that's the same as "black" people getting stop and searched more often, and Muslims get more closely monitored at airports. I think I understand that kind of profiling pretty well.

I called you a bigot because you're obstinately devoted to your prejudices. I'd like to see how someone who doesn't think they'll fit in to a group because of that group's "race" and gender would go about explaining how they're not prejudiced.

Like I said.... you cannot garantee that a group that simply looks "homogeneous" will have remotely similar life-experiences or perspectives... BUT in a case of very similar demographics in most demographic metrics the odds are better that they will have more similar life-expereinces than those from a different demographic simply because that is the way the world works (and the more metrics they have in common the more likely they have similar life experiences and therefore are more likely to have similar perspectives).

If you are from a member of a group that is traditionally not as accepted in a field you would be more likely to go for the diverse-looking team because you are seeing evidence that the climate is going to be welcoming to you.  It isn't because you dislike the members of the traditional demographic it's because you are looking for a place where you will be treated as a member of the team rather than an "other" who is on the team. 

And it comes from life experience... not from a vague concept of suitability... I know from experience that if I am the only girl in a camp people are much less likely to take my expertise seriously whereas when there is a more even split there is much less pushback and much less acceptance of general "othering: behaviour.... such as physically removing heavy objects I am having no difficulty with, or telling me that I "don't look like a geologist".  Or when there is a better split between younger and older employees you don't get told that you "seem too young to be doing this sort of work" (although I have rarely seen guys get that even when I am in my mid-twenties and there's 18-year old boys working in the same camp).  That's not to say I won't take a job where I'm the only girl on the team, but given the option between two equally interesting positions I am more likely to go with the one that shows more evidence of being accepting that my demographics don't affect my technical capabilities and that the company is accepting of such differences.

I don't know if your cries of bigotry are an attempt to poison the well or if you honestly believe that recognising that the social constructions of race, gender, etc. have a real effect on the world, society and the individuals living in it is actually a form of bigotry.... but either way it doesn't seem well thought out... repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

And every single one of us has our own biases and prejudices, the key is trying to recognise them and recognise how they affect the world and people around us and how the biases and prejudices built into society actually affect individuals and how the inequal treatment due to different demographics shape the way individuals are treated and what individuals choose to do... and pretty much all equality movements are really, at their core trying to reduce the impact of these social constructions on life experience.... Thereby achieving that perfect world you seem to insist we are already living in where they do not matter one whit to anything in terms of opportunity and treatment.

[Ajzzz]

Ummm... what?  If you have similar socio-economic and demographic situations you are more likely to have similar life experiences and therefore have a similar perspective?  How is saying that bigoted?

Just because it's not ideal that social racial and demographic constructions do have such a far-reaching effect doesn't mean that recognising that these things are actually REAL in their SOCIAL effects on a person's life experiences is bigoted.

Are you suggesting that "white male" is a description of a socio-economic and demographic where a person is going to have similar experiences and perspective? I disagree, not only because it's not socio-economic group, but because I think that there's massive variance in perspectives.

Right now there is a real paucity of real data (partially because it is difficult to study and provide controls).

I already knew this.

It does not deny individuality... it is simply a fact that people from different demographics have more likelihood of different life experiences than those that belong to the same demographic.  That doesn't deny that every single person has a different set of life experiences... BUT you seem to be completely denying that demographics have any effect on a person's life experience and therefore their perspective?

Do you ascribe to the idea that people/personality are separate from their experiences?

I subscribe to the idea that hasty generalization is a logical fallacy and that your first paragraph directly above is an example of it.

But you know what?  You presented a question where you said both candidates were equal so I took you at your word and assumed that on everything except for demographics they were the same (which is admittedly unlikely in the real world)... you said it in a manner that now seems like it was meant as a trap because is there any answer you wouldn't have argued as being a terrible option?

It doesn't make any sense to assume two people equally qualified, which was your only description apart from nationality and gender demographics are going to be equal in all other respects, that's exactly my point, it's not a part of the real world, people are individuals and even in the same family can have vastly different approaches, perspectives, opinions, temperaments, desires, and skills.

I tried to say introduce an element of diversity to your metric... that diversity could be age, gender, race, socio-economics, hobbies... whatever, something that brings something new to your team...  But what would you suggest?  Because you obviously thought mine was a terrible idea.  Is it your opinion that the default should be that which most closely fits the current demographic?  Or do you think a coin toss is the best way to decide? or do you have a fourth option that I haven't thought of?

I suggest looking at the individual and not at a set of categories, perhaps asking them about their perspectives if it's relevant to the job. What exactly are you suggesting each gender is going to bring? What exactly are you suggesting a 30 year old is going to bring that's different from a 50 year old?

[Old Earth Accretionist]

(click to show/hide)

Ummm... what?  If you have similar socio-economic and demographic situations you are more likely to have similar life experiences and therefore have a similar perspective?  How is saying that bigoted?

Just because it's not ideal that social racial and demographic constructions do have such a far-reaching effect doesn't mean that recognising that these things are actually REAL in their SOCIAL effects on a person's life experiences is bigoted.

Are you suggesting that "white male" is a description of a socio-economic and demographic where a person is going to have similar experiences and perspective? I disagree, not only because it's not socio-economic group, but because I think that there's massive variance in perspectives.

Right now there is a real paucity of real data (partially because it is difficult to study and provide controls).

I already knew this.

It does not deny individuality... it is simply a fact that people from different demographics have more likelihood of different life experiences than those that belong to the same demographic.  That doesn't deny that every single person has a different set of life experiences... BUT you seem to be completely denying that demographics have any effect on a person's life experience and therefore their perspective?

Do you ascribe to the idea that people/personality are separate from their experiences?

I subscribe to the idea that hasty generalization is a logical fallacy and that your first paragraph directly above is an example of it.

But you know what?  You presented a question where you said both candidates were equal so I took you at your word and assumed that on everything except for demographics they were the same (which is admittedly unlikely in the real world)... you said it in a manner that now seems like it was meant as a trap because is there any answer you wouldn't have argued as being a terrible option?

It doesn't make any sense to assume two people equally qualified, which was your only description apart from nationality and gender demographics are going to be equal in all other respects, that's exactly my point, it's not a part of the real world, people are individuals and even in the same family can have vastly different approaches, perspectives, opinions, temperaments, desires, and skills.

(click to show/hide)

I tried to say introduce an element of diversity to your metric... that diversity could be age, gender, race, socio-economics, hobbies... whatever, something that brings something new to your team...  But what would you suggest?  Because you obviously thought mine was a terrible idea.  Is it your opinion that the default should be that which most closely fits the current demographic?  Or do you think a coin toss is the best way to decide? or do you have a fourth option that I haven't thought of?

I suggest looking at the individual and not at a set of categories, perhaps asking them about their perspectives if it's relevant to the job. What exactly are you suggesting each gender is going to bring? What exactly are you suggesting a 30 year old is going to bring that's different from a 50 year old?

Sorry, for that specific example I was misremembering you referring to two-equal candidates as something you posited as opposed to something in the OP article.  Because I agree that you are not likely to find two people who are the same in terms of qualifications.

(click to show/hide)

You can't be a feminist and be anti-men, those people aren't feminists. Three things that are anti-men, and are advocated quite often by people who called themselves "feminists" are gender discrimination with opportunities such as job or education placement(like in the article,

the minor version being when two candidates are "equal" the female candidate gets picked, and the major version involving quotas),

(click to show/hide)

claiming that men can't be "feminists" (also the so-called "feminists" that don't believe this but don't find it offensive and call those people "feminists"), and being against male sexuality which often manifests itself as protest and pressure on law making dealing with pornography and prostitution.

I don't remember much tackling or advocacy from feminists on domestic violence against men or mother bias in courts, which is understandable because serious woman on man domestic violence is rare, it's not actually an important issue. Who landed on the moon? Feminists. Who wears short shorts? Feminists. The pattern continues.

[/spoiler]