the_others
No bio...
User ID: 2680
the_others
26d ago
How often do you clean your shoes? If they're shoes that you wear outside regularly, they're obviously dirty in comparison to a typical indoor space.
the_others
1mo ago
I appreciate the detailed analysis. A few minor points:
-
The Japanese school year starts in the spring, so summer vacation happens during a school year, not in between two school years. This doesn't change too much about the quadratic evidence though, since she's also specifically being made to take summer classes because she's behind, so even if she's actually in high school, her schoolwork could be remedial middle school stuff.
-
The Japanese cutoff date for when you start school based off your birthday is April 1, which is also around when the school year starts. So most students start high school at 15. If Misuzu turns 15 in the summer, that means she was 14 when the school year started, which would make it her third year of middle school.
-
It's been a long time for me, but is it ever explicitly stated that the school is a high school and not a middle school? I remember this being vague. I know that some girls from Kanon make a cameo appearance, but there's no reason to think that the Air versions of Ayu and co. are the same age as the Kanon versions, or that they're the same year as Misuzu (unless there's some "different years have differently colored ribbons" thing going on?).
If I had to give a number for Misuzu's age I'd definitely say 15 as more likely than any other.
I'd be interested to see if you had any thoughts on how old Kanna was during the events of 1000 years ago. Narrative niceness would dictate she be the same age as Misuzu during the events of Air, but 15 seems too old for Kanna.
the_others
1mo ago
After the red card and before this happened, the general sentiment from my mostly liberal social circles was "What's the point of having a corrupt government if they won't step in at times like this?"
Now everyone is pretty happy.
the_others
1mo ago
I think Misuzu is closer to 15 based on a shot we see of her half-eaten birthday cake in the anime (which for plot reasons, we know has the right number of candles), but the bigger point is that she's not a particularly sexualized character and I wouldn't expect someone having her as a profile picture to be thirsting for her.
the_others
1mo ago
"18 and 17 is fine" was not the dominant view when I was in high school (which was not too long ago, and since then things have only moved in the direction of it being less fine). Every adult at school that spoke on the topic explicitly said that 18 and 17 was not fine, and 17 and 17 was also not fine.
It is still the case in some US states such as California that 17 and 17 is illegal.
the_others
1mo ago
It's only standard among people who are in too deep. When US schoolchildren learn about court cases, they learn about Marbury v. Madison, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education, not Marbury, Plessy, and Brown.
I've noticed an increase in single-word references to court cases in the past decade. One particularly irritating one is people saying "Roe" for Roe v. Wade since context isn't always clear in speech and row/rho/Ro/Roe/roe can mean many things.
the_others
4mo ago
Don't most people take the SATs in their junior year? College applications start going out in October so there isn't much time to take them in senior year.
the_others
9mo ago
Depending on your proclivities, it could also be "based outgroup"?
the_others
11mo ago
That makes sense. I think I lost track of the thread's context at some point.
I don't know much about changes to the NSF and NIH so I won't comment there.
the_others
11mo ago
Cut federal grants for diversity, withhold federal grant money from universities that don't toe the line on controlling the woke issues on campus. This is the stance that the admin took with Harvard and has served to keep Hopkins from acting up too much.
I'm confused. Is this not the exact thing that this whole deal with Tao and UCLA is about? The federal government revoking a DEI grant? It may have kept Hopkins from acting up, but it definitely hasn't stopped Tao from kicking up a storm.
I agree with you that this is a decent approach, but to me it seems that it is also more or less what the Trump administration is currently doing.
the_others
11mo ago
If you were part of the Trump administration, how would you punish academics for their woke excesses without negatively impacting useful research? The federal government does not directly control how universities manage their own affairs and any penalties assessed on the universities as a whole can be cast as damaging research in some way.
The only thing that I can think of is some sort of rule like "any university that violates XYZ policy automatically becomes federal property", which would allow the federal government to directly fire and hire, but nationalizing the universities comes with a million other problems.
the_others
1yr ago
My (admittedly clumsily made) point was more that rich women's male peers, including their matches on the apps, are almost universally employed and non-criminal, so such verification would be mostly useless. The distinction would be more useful for underclass women, for whom the verification system would reveal actual information about their potential male partners.
the_others
1yr ago
That would be very ironic, since I imagine the kind of woman who would most value full time employment and the lack of a criminal record in a man would be unlikely to be described as "rich".
the_others
1yr ago
I predict that, contrary to the usual pattern, a dating app which vetted the applicants on basic questions(stable and full time employment, criminal record, etc) would have more women than men, at least if it wasn’t just a matchmaking service.
If true, this sounds like a business opportunity, and not a particularly obscure one at that. Dating apps are basically all trying to figure out ways to get more women to use them, but I can't think of any apps that have tried this kind of verification. The closest I can think of are things like "The League", which requires users to submit an application (which consists of your Facebook and LinkedIn accounts, apparently?) and have it approved by the company before they can use the app, which is much different in that presumably they're not evaluating "basic questions".
the_others
1yr ago
One reason to enforce property ownership of things is to incentivize people to create or improve things. This seems to have mostly worked.
The natural follow-up is, if we made children perpetual slaves of their parents, would that increase the fertility rate and/or the quality of the average person? Why or why not?
the_others
1yr ago
For those curious, the Japanese abbreviation of Assassin's Creed, アサクリ (asakuri) can be parsed as asa ("morning") + kuri ("chestnut"). "Morning Chestnut Problem" is presumably a cheeky way to refer the problematic aspects of Assassin's Creed: Shadows, viewed from a Japanese perspective.
the_others
1yr ago
I definitely agree that control over the accounts is important. I just don't see how that's related to being a breadwinner or a homemaker. Just because someone is the person who performs the labor that leads to money being deposited in an account doesn't mean they're the one who controls said account. In East Asia, for example, the traditional arrangement is that the husband works outside the home to earn a salary and the wife manages the finances, giving him an allowance to spend. So to answer
I don't see how you avoid this if the sole employed partner wants it that way. In the case of a breadwinning spouse who says "It's my money, I'll deposit it in my account and you just let me know how much you need for the groceries" or "sorry, we don't have enough money for Timmy's braces," what is the SAH spouse's counterargument supposed to be?
"We are married and therefore equal stakeholders of this marriage and should have equal say over how our money is spent. If you don't agree with this, I will tell my friends and your reputation will be harmed. If you still do not accede, I will take you to court and you will lose because every institution that deals with this sort of thing recognizes financial abuse as a real and horrible thing, especially when done by a man to a woman, and you will incur their wrath."
There again, I don't know how the non-working spouse's counterargument is supposed to go. "Why are you buying ___ when we can't have a bigger house so Janie can have a yard to play in?" "I told you we couldn't afford the house, and stop nagging me about how I spend my money."
If it's just two people having an argument, no arguments matter. It doesn't matter who's correct unless one of them can use their correctness to convince the other, which is a strategy easily defeated by refusing to be convinced. The only time anything matters is when other people get involved. Therefore, the winning argument is to go to a third party and say "My husband is doing the dictionary definition of financial abuse to me. Please smite him." And unless that third party agrees with the husband that it's his money and not their money (which they won't, as was the point of my hypothetical "You have no right to complain" conversation), the wife easily emerges victorious.
I'm not sure I see how your examples support your view.
Example 1 is a couple where both partners earned money, presumably in approximately equal amounts, yet only one partner (the wife) managed the accounts. This pretty directly disproves that earning money yourself shields you from not having access to money to hire a lawyer with, since judging by your wording, the husband was earning some of the money during their marriage and yet it was the wife who controlled the accounts. That is, in a universe where it was your friend who was abusive and her husband the victim, he would have had no recourse despite earning money himself. This means that having a job doesn't actually protect one from this type of abuse!
Example 2 is a couple where everything is going great and the problem only exists after a series of hypotheticals. There are a few assertions about how the husband holds the power, but power doesn't exist unless it is exercised and you can't know who actually has the power until a conflict happens. In particular, these quotes make me suspicious:
(after all, it's his, he earned it)
(his money, his call)
I've only ever encountered this kind of reasoning in situations where someone wants to paint the man as a powerful abuser and the woman as a powerless victim for the purposes of legitimizing some sort of benefit given to women. If it was truly a principle that whoever earns the money gets more say in how it is spent, you'd see that principle used in other contexts, which I don't. For example, try imagining this exchange actually happening:
Wife: I think we should buy a bigger house, but my husband thinks the smaller one is good enough. He says that he should get to make the decision because he's the breadwinner and I'm a stay-at-home mother.
Wife's friend: He's right. You have no right to complain.
Maybe that's normal in your circles, but it's unthinkable among anyone I've ever known.
My point is, it might very well be that your friend's husband handles the finances in their marriage, but that probably has more to do with the fact that handling finances is a household chore that get assigned and less to do with the fact that he's the breadwinner. In a breadwinner-homemaker relationship, there is very little the breadwinner can do to leverage their position against the homemaker short of threatening to go on "strike" by quitting their job. In contrast, the homemaker typically has a lot of leverage due to their greater influence on the children and greater control over the home environment.
the_others
1yr ago
I agree that good outcomes go to the well-resourced in both law and life, but the average wife is much better resourced than the average husband. The median American woman is, famously, much better socially connected than the median American man, and when we're considering a married couple, their wealth at the point of divorce is by definition equal. That, combined with the well-known bias for women and against men of divorce courts, should mean that the average woman is getting a better deal out of the divorce than the facts normally would suggest by the letter of the law. The common story that comes out of divorce court is that it's the men who are being bullied into making custody or financial concessions, not the women.
I don't know, I feel like there's a severe disconnect between what we perceive to be normal. Having non-joint accounts in a marriage, for example, seems insane to me unless both partners work and have similar earnings, and the other stipulations in your post seem like severe outliers that one could reliably detect ahead of time if a woman were truly afraid of being abandoned.
the_others
1yr ago
My point was slightly different—I fully understand why a husband would want to leave his wife, but what I don't get is how that leads to such a disastrous outcome for the wife that it warrants any significant amount of fear. It just seems to me that the relatively low odds of it happening combined with how mild the downside is means that it shouldn't be a major factor in a woman's decision of whether to marry.
the_others
1yr ago
I often hear this trope about husbands getting bored and leaving their wives, but I have a hard time conceiving how that actually works. Surely he would be on the hook for child support at the very least, and if the impetus for him leaving was cheating-related, surely that would result in a very favorable judgement in the divorce. I'm aware that in many cases the man is "judgement-proof" in the sense that he has few assets or income to extract, but in this case you've mentioned that your aunt is a middle-class person, so presumably her ex-husband is as well, and therefore not judgement proof.
This is obviously not an ideal outcome for the woman, especially socially, but it's much better than is commonly portrayed, where a woman has pinned her entire economic future on a man only to see him abandon her and condemn her to a life of eternal poverty.
the_others
2yr ago
One interesting thing about ABH (2022) is that they find that white defendants don't get lower conviction rates from black jurors, conflicting with what was found in L&S, which concluded that black jurors reduced conviction rates for all defendants by roughly equal rates.
My initial hunch for explaining why black jurors would be more favorable to the defendant would have to do with a general skepticism of the system among black people (which would also help white defendants), but if the black juror effect only happens with black defendants, then a more in-group style explanation would make more sense. But this is all just speculation on my part.
the_others
2yr ago
Thanks for the studies, especially Lehmann and Smith. It's pretty comforting that the effect sizes all seem to be pretty small, possibly as a result of jury selection pruning the outliers (as you suggested). There does seem to be an overrepresentation of women (though not by as much as I had thought), but perhaps that's not really a problem.
In contrast, groups which are underrepresented on juries because they are disproportionately likely to be face hardship from serving, do have significant impacts on outcomes.
I'm not so sure this is true. Lehmann and Smith looked at race, religiosity, income, gender, and age, and of these traits, I would expect income, gender, and age to be most directly relevant in terms of selection effects before pre-jury selection. Income obviously due to hardship from serving, but also gender for things like being a single parent/sole breadwinner and age as a proxy for retiredness. Race is probably correlated with lots of these things, but I would assume that initial selection is probably less affected by race than by these other factors.
Does anyone have any statistics on the gender composition of juries, particularly in the United States?
I got curious about the question because at some point, I Noticed that in basically every high-profile court case I've paid attention to (which is, granted, not very many), every juror that was ever interviewed or reported upon was a woman. I also have a vague feeling that I've heard the phrases "all-female jury" or "all-woman jury" enough times for them to sound familiar, whereas the male equivalents sound totally alien to me. As a sanity check, I went and looked up the jury composition of some famous criminal trials, and it seemed to agree with my hunch (George Zimmerman's trial had 6 women and 0 men, and Derek Chauvin's trial had 8 women and 4 men). It seems plausible that women would be more likely to end up on juries for a variety of reasons, but it also seems plausible that I'm imagining everything.
When I went about trying to research the topic, the vast majority of jury demographic information out there seemed to be on race. The raw numbers are readily available (for example, here's a breakdown of jurors by race in Massachusetts for 2024 Q1 -- it seems basically proportional to the general population if you account for things like age). There are also commentaries abound about how important racial representation is for equal justice. One of the first Google search results for "juries by demographics" is this lengthy piece titled Race and the Jury, which is your standard mainstream race piece about how black people (and occasionally Hispanic people) are discriminated against in jury selection. Whether it makes a compelling argument is up to the reader, but the point is that these kinds of pieces exist in abundance and that the racial composition of juries is something that people care about. Given how racially charged the issue of policing (or "crime" depending on your viewpoint) is, this makes some amount of sense.
However, when I went to find statistics on the gender composition of juries, they seem almost non-existent. Several states publish data on juror race, but none seem to publish data on juror gender. There were also not as many articles and NGO-type places that seemed interested in the topic. Most of the commentary seems to be historical and unsurprisingly focused on Women as Oppressed Objects. This is perhaps best summed up by the Wikipedia article Women in United States juries, which spends many sections discussing the historical exclusion of women from jury duty while only offering one short paragraph on modern juries:
Today, women frequently serve on juries. In many states, specific exemptions are available for people involved in child care. For example, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Oregon allow exemptions to jury service for nursing mothers.
I was able to find some references to the gender composition of juries in other common law countries. Why there are more men than women on juries says that women made up 45.5% of jurors in the Australian state of Victoria in 2019 (or 2018? I'm not sure which year "last year" is referring to). One piece by the Irish Times says:
An analysis by The Irish Times of 200 trials in the Central Criminal Court, which deals almost exclusively with rape and murder, shows that men dominated the jury in 57 per cent of cases.
Women dominated the jury in only 17 per cent of cases, while there was an even six/six split between the genders in 26 per cent of cases.
The gender imbalance was most noticeable in rape trials, where 61 of 100 juries were dominated by men compared to only 13 dominated by women. To put it another way, 723 men sat on the juries compared to 477 women.
"Dominance" is an admittedly strange way to quantify jury composition that screams p-hacking shenanigans, but the numbers do lean toward men being more common than women.
I don't have a grand point to make, but I thought this could spark some discussion. Some points that came to mind:
- Why does there seem to be a relative paucity of published data on juror gender?
- Do men really outnumber women in juries across the English-speaking world? Or is there publication bias at play, where only cases where women are underrepresented (and therefore can be presented as victims) get news articles written about them?
- Do female jurors and male jurors act differently in important ways? The Irish Times article gives the example that female jurors are more skeptical of rape allegations and are more likely to acquit male defendants.
- If one gender is being selected to juries more often than the other, which side is the "victim"? On the one hand, jury duty is something most people try their best to get out of, but on the other, sitting on a jury is a small bit of actual power that a person can wield over others, albeit with little to no benefit for themselves.
"Female" being associated with misogyny has nothing to do trans and is more related to normie feminism. Feminists complained that people were using "girls" to refer to groups consisting of at least some adult women, so some people started using "females" to refer to those groups as a hypercorrection. This didn't satisfy the complainers; for an example, see the /r/MenAndFemales subreddit, dedicated to pointing out instances of people using "men" for men and "females" for women and gesturing at the apparent misogyny.
This has led to a hyperstitious cascade where the people still using the word "female" are less feminist than average.
More options
Context Copy link