Cas Stark

Members
  • Content count

    12,682
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About Cas Stark

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

7,584 profile views
  1. This thread is depressing on multiple levels. Everyone simply talks past anyone that doesn't agree 100%.
  2. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-opposite-sex-at-work-gender-study.html
  3. An anonymous survey of female Capitol Hill staffers conducted by National Journal in 2015 found that “several female aides reported that they have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.” One told the reporter Sarah Mimms that in 12 years working for her previous boss, he “never took a closed door meeting with me. ... This made sensitive and strategic discussions extremely difficult.” Social-science research shows this practice extends beyond politics and into the business world, and it can hold women back from key advancement opportunities. A 2010 Harvard Business Review research report led by Sylvia Ann Hewlett, the president of the Center for Work-Life Policy think tank, found that many men avoid being sponsors—workplace advocates—for women “because sponsorship can be misconstrued as sexual interest.” Hewlett’s surveys, interviews, and focus groups found that 64 percent of executive men are reluctant to have one-on-one meetings with junior women, and half of junior women avoid those meetings in turn. Perhaps as a result, 31 percent of women in her sample felt senior men weren’t willing to “spend their chips” on younger women in office political battles. What’s more, “30 percent of them noted that the sexual tension intrinsic to any one-on-one relationship with men made male sponsorship too difficult to be productive.” https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/pences-gender-segregated-dinners/521286/ not just mike pence
  4. Kill him. That's about it. There might have been a theoretical possibility she could somehow mesmerize him with her awesomeness until she could kill him ...but really, the only revenge would be either kill roose or kill ramsay or kill them both. And since Sansa never even contemplated either of these actions, let alone tried to kill either of them....it's obvious the show didn't care about making any of those decisions sensible or logical.
  5. I did work with a senior manager who grabbed a woman's ass at a work event, and while her husband wasn't standing right there, he was close by and the ass grabbing was witnessed by other staff members. He was fired. But not until she threatened a lawsuit.
  6. I'm curious what people think of this NY Times reporter....who has made many statements supporting women and condemning harassment....and is now accused of..... let us say...... inappropriate behavior. Is he your garden variety hypocrite, who says all the right things in public but keeps hitting on 20 year olds and then spreading gossip about them? Or did he see his behavior as somehow not across the line? Was he misreading signals? I might give him the benefit of the doubt except for the multiple women who say he hit on them, they declined and then he gossiped about them, reversing the roles and making the woman out as the aggressor...that's ugly. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/20/16678094/glenn-thrush-new-york-times
  7. I'm over the whole thing. I expect to be disappointed by the ending. I expect this disappointing ending is the only ending that will ever exist for the story. The whole thing is a cautionary tale on many levels.
  8. Well, I would be happy to see Dany die, but it seems doubtful that will happen...more likely Jon dies, and Dany lives and she and Tyrion raise the magic fire and ice baby. The books and the series show that greatness is hard to maintain. Both started off strong and have seemingly lost their way, lost sight of what made them special and interesting in the first place. I do agree that there is a sense of diminishing returns on many of the later plot twists, especially in the show, where these deaths or twists have much less resonance than in the earlier years/books. It's a shame, really.
  9. That movie is SO underrated! I love it.
  10. The flaw there is that there never any plan for how exactly Sansa is going to 'get revenge'....LF seems to imply that she can just sex up Ramsay and get him to fall for her and then voila, she will be in control. But, this is a pretty bad plan. And Sansa's actions @ WF don't really support that, she is rude to everyone, never trying to seduce Ramsay at all. I would say this is a fatal flaw in the plan, especially with Stannis having been still alive at the time of the arrangement. Also, in this plan, many parties have to act out of their established characters. Roose Bolton would simply have killed LF once he got Sansa. And the Vale lords, similarly, would have figured out that Sansa wasn't kidnapped by the Boltons and would never have stood pat for an entire season in WF. So, I really don't think it hangs together as a reasonable plan, even if one assumes that LF believed Stannis would lose. How was he going to get Sansa back? It was, again, only by massive plot contrivance, that Ramsay left WF to engage Jon outside the walls and so was vulnerable....
  11. I'm sure he will. But, since I happen to think that Roger Goodell is the worst thing to happen to the NFL, maybe ever, I can't say it's a good thing, he's terrible at everything but TV contracts, he has been terrible pretty much from the very beginning and only continues on in his terribleness. Of course, I will hate him forever for FrameGate, but I already hated him and thought he was terrible long before that debacle.
  12. 1. How can my assertion be dubious, if you agree it's probably true? This is why I didn't post excerpts in the first place, because it would immediately be a tit for tat you didn't mention this or there is some other way to look at the data. I never said it was a strong claim, but it holds true pretty well across the board. 2. I did. But, again, a casual connection that isn't 'that strong' is nowhere close to being wrong. 3. I did not intend to imply this as I don't think it's correct.
  13. No, I made an off hand remark that many blue areas have a few rich people and a lot of poor people, "facts" were then demanded, so I took the time to post numerous links, silly me, having thought it was already common knowledge that income inequality is worse in blue areas than red, I was surprised anyone demanded 'facts'. And then, as night follows day, I was criticized for just posting links, because that was lazy, and then for the links not supporting my original statement....and since it's not worth the trouble to me to take it to next level of semantics and cherry picking that will ensue to go through each of those articles line by line, I leave it at that.
  14. And this is why this thread is an echo chamber. Have it at.