It’s not exactly the charities fault.
The real issue is that for profit companies can pay their CEOs this much, which means charities have to compete if they want a good CEO too.
In reality we should be cracking down on companies hoarding wealth towards to their CEOs at exorbitant rates, that way charities won’t have to pay a wage like this just to function and even hire a CEO.
You do know some jobs can’t be done remote right?
It’s possible the two people are the two with jobs that require some potential in person intervention (IT being the main case)
If something physically fails, you can’t exactly fix that remotely.
The fact only 2 people remained says to me they prolly had that sort of job, or, some people genuinely prefer working in the office.
Sounds crazy but some people don’t have a comfortable set up at home and find it easier to focus in the office. I’ve had data where construction was right outside my window at home so yeah, I went into work to have some quiet.
Most of the time I prefer WFH, for sure.
But to pretend that literally everyone can always wfh, and always wants to, is silly and you’ve gone too far off the other end.
And the statement at the top implies the two people chose not to take PTO anyways. Maybe they wanted to save their PTO for christmas/new years.
Stop being so judgy lol
But they also know that 99% of rapists are men, and 91% of victims are women, that added to the aforementioned 1 in 6~ women that will have been raped in their lifetime means they are gambling just being alone with a man.
1 in 6 sexually assaulted, not raped, to start. Which is still way too high but don’t get it twisted.
Second, these 2 numbers actually have no functional relation to the odds of a random man being a rapist.
If you have 1000 people (500/500 men/women) and 1 of them is a rapist, and a man, you could say “100% of the rapists in this group are men”
Which is true, but what you actually care about is, in that case, only 1/500 of men in that crowd are a rapist.
As for the 1/6 women are assaulted, it’s a similiar issue.
If that 1 man proceeds to rape 50 women, you now could say (and be totally correct) that:
But all of that actually is missing the fact that in reality, if one of those women picked a man at random to be alone with, it’d only be a 1 in 500 chance she got the rapist.
Now. These are obviously hyperbole facts to demonstrate the mathematical hole.
Let’s find out the actual number then…
David Lisak’s research probably gives us the best estimate at around 1 in 16. Which is still quite high, but it is also very far away from numbers like “91%” or “1 in 6”
So now you’re looking at a 1 in 16 chance of a randomly selected man being sexually violent.
This suddenly starts to demonstrate how the “I’d choose the bear” statement comes across as sexist.
Because choosing a bear signals a vastly hyperinflated representation of the risk of a man.
This is, indeed, sexist. You’re taking the actions of a small minority of men and casting their actions over the average.
That, my friend, is textbook bigotry.
The reality is the vast vast majority of men (~94%) aren’t sexually violent and perfectly normal people who would be helpful and good to have around for survival.
If you seriously don’t see casting the 6%'s actions as a negative generalization on the other 94% as sexist, then I think you gotta go reflect on that for a bit.
What you are continuing to fail at is that I get the point.
I’m saying that the point is being conveyed atop a sexist mechanism
You might find this wild, but a cry fir help can simultaneously be sexist. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
You are arguing about what is being conveyed on the mechanism.
I am arguing the mechanism being used itself is a shitty one
Things can be more than one thing at the same time, which is tough for some people to understand I guess.
If you continue to keep trying to argue that a sexist post being a “cry for help” somehow nullifies it’s sexism, then you will continue to make zero progress here and, more importantly, you’ll continue to keep being part of the problem
And how would you react to if a TERF posted the same thing but changed it to a trans woman instead of a man?
Still a woman posting about her fear of being raped.
But now you maybe see how fucking awful ot sounds, right? How it makes you sound super bigoted, perhaps?
All that typing but you wouldn’t write it.
Deep down inside you know it’s a sexist statement, but you’ll twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify it.
It’s sexist, get over it and just admit it. It’s a shitty thing to say.
Fear is fear, you can’t pretend justifying sexism with fear is any better or worse than justifying racism with fear or justifying any other type of bigotry with fear.
If some TERF shithead posted “I’d feel safer alone in the woods with a bear than with a trans woman in the bathroom” or some shit you know how bad that would be.
You have to sit and look in the mirror and confront the fact that you think sexism directed towards men “doesn’t count”.
It does. And until the general public wraps their heads around what should be a very simple concept, shitheads like Trump are going to keep getting elected by reactionaries
No, I know what it is. Hyperbole when taken too far is just a fancy way to dress up sexism/racism.
The litmus test here is so easy.
Replace “man” with “black man” and repeat the phrase, tell me if it’s still something you’d say out loud amongst friends or not.
Suddenly doesn’t sound so paletteble does it? Maybe sounds kinda racist?
Literally anytime you wanna try and argue if a phrase maybe is problematic, and you wanna try and argue that because the subject is “men” makes it lt count, just change it to “black men” and double check it didn’t suddenly become super fuckin racist sounding.
If it did, it always was sexist.
No.
I get the point, I have always gotten the point.
My point is it’s a stupid sounding way to try and make the point, because it doesn’t actually translate well.
Instead you just sound like a naive inexperienced idiot and make yourself look bad.
You either come across as so hyperbolic you just sound sexist, or, you sound like a naive idiot.
Let me demonstrate for you.
If soneone told you given the choice of being alone in the woods with a black man or a bear, they’d feel safer with a bear, how does that sound now?
Do you still think that sounds “hyperbolic”, or do you maybe now see how fucked up and stupid it makes you sound?
That’s how women who genuinely say that shit sound.
It’s a stupid hyperbole that just says “I’ve never actually seen a bear up close”
It makes women sound stupid and naive, any woman who has actually encountered a bear up close will go “fuck no, a bear will fuck you up”
Bears will literally tear your limbs off just cuz, with little effort. You are nothing more than a ragdoll to them. They have thousands of pounds on you, and they can run twice as fast as you.
No person who actually knows wtf a bear us like would ever choose the bear.
The hyperbole instead just sends a message of “women are stupid” which shouldn’t be true, I would hope the average woman is smart enough to know that while being alone with a man is risky, a fucking bear is still way way worse.
The scenario is you are lost in the woods and you either have to choose between a wild bear, or a random man.
Many types of bears won’t run away, they will actively attack you. Some will run, but many will simply tear you limb from limb just cuz.
They are actually referencing a genuine fear many of them have being alone around men.
It still makes you sound stupid, tbh, when you admit you haven’t a clue how much more threatening a fucking bear is.
A man, no matter how scary, isn’t going to tear your fucking arms off with one hand lol
It demonstrates a degree of naivety that you truly have never actually seen a bear in person.
It just makes the person sound stupid.
At least pick an animal that is less of an instant threat. Like a cougar.
A bear will literally reduce you to multiple pieces without a second thought, and with barely any effort. It’s a bear
Thats not helping.
A huge amount of those men are either suffering from mental illness, or lashing out because of that hate, which is just further polarizing them.
Any woman who says “the bear” honestly, I have to assume" has never once actually encountered a bear in the woods.
Prolly has had extremely few encounters with anything in the woods.
People hang out on trails all the time, and are alone with another stranger on the trails extremely often, and the extremely vast majority of those interactions are overwhelming positive in all configurations. The vast majority of humans are helpful at worst, for all genders.
People like to help other people out.
Yes, I would vastly prefer to encounter a gun toting right wing MAGA nut on the trail than a fucking bear, thats not even a hard question to answer, its a fucking bear.
Im left wing by a long shot but I still know that even the average right wing MAGA nut is actually prolly still gonna be, on average, helpful and/or friendly, or maybe just cold and indifferent towards me, out in the wilderness.
Hell I’d actually honestly say this scenario is one of the few times I’d choose a MAGA right wing nut over a fellow left leaning fellow.
I love my fellow liberals but I also have to acknowledge the vast majority of us are city slickers, many many of which prolly couldnt even start a fire if their life depended on it (cuz its just not a thing that matters in the city)
Meanwhile the odds the random selected MAGA right wing gun nut prolly shows up with hunting equipment and knows how to do shit like make a lean to and skin a rabbit.
If I got to pick between the two, I’d choose the gun nut cuz Id rather risk surviving with a gun nut than dying with a fellow city slicker, love yeah all but like, we aint fuckin surviving in the woods long, thats just a fact lol.
Edit:
If you seriously think this sort of statement is okay to make, I dare you to replace “man” with “black man” and go post it to prove how it’s totally not a bigoted statement
Cuz any argument you try and make about “man” in this statement should hold water even if you change it to “black man” without suddenly sounding super fuckin racist.
Are you saying that theres >42% chance a bear will be on your side in the wilderness then?
That makes no sense. By all arguments taking “a man” is prolly the far better choice anyways, people are just stupid.
There’s a 100% chance that “the bear” is a fucking bear
Theres at least a decent chance “a random man” is an asset to survival and your odds of success go up instead of down…
There’s no scenario where choosing “the bear” improves your odds of success >_>;
Alberta is about to pass some pretty serious anti-trans legislature that a lot of people are protesting, but we cant really do anything (legally) to stop them
It’s not much better over here anyways, anti trans laws and oil industry dick sucking is ramping up more than ever.
Usually it’s a case of a well thought out decent post, but then you scroll down to comments and it’s “men are trash” and etc, so you end up with a bunch of fighting, which detracts from the original point.
Prolly would be better if “comments on this are disabled” was more common practice.
Or if administrative systems actually punished people heavily for saying stuff like “(any group of people) are trash”
This continues to boil down into that tired argument that an amalgamation of human behavior is distinct from how humans actually behave, but since no one can actually prove how humans produce thoughts, it follows you can’t actually prove that an LLM actually works or doesn’t work any different.
So I dont really dig into that argument.
To be honest, the one thing that LLMs actually are good at, is summarizing bodies of text.
Producing a critique of a manuscript isnt actually to far out for an LLM, it’s sorta what it’s always doing, all the time.
I wouldn’t classify it as something to use as concrete review, and one must also keep in mind that context windows on LLMs usually are limited to only thousands of tokens, so they can’t even remember anything more then like 5 pages ago. If your story is bigger than that, they’ll struggle to comment on anything before the last 5 or so pages, give or take.
Asking an LLM to critique a manuscript is a great way to get constructive feedback on specific details, catch potential issues, maybe even catch plot holes, etc.
I’d absolutely endorse it as a step 1 before giving it to an actual human, as you likely can substantially improve your manuscript by iterating over it 3-4 times with an LLM, just covering basic issues and improvements, then letting an actual human focus on the more nuanced stuff an AI would miss/ignore.
Fundamentally good CEOs expect a wage based on the market.
There’s tonnes of high paying positions so, no, non profits truly will struggle to find an actually good CEO if they dont offer a competitive wage.
It’s not their fault, it’s the lack of regulation on all the for-profits and the fact they can funnel so much money up to CEOs unchecked.
If for-profits had regulatory checks that made them do that less, then non-profits wouldn’t have to compete with nearly as insanely high wages.
IE if there was a law that CEOs couldn’t be paid more than 10x their lowest paid worker, this problem would be a lot less insane.