A) No c-section to procreate
B) Same behaviors (need for affection, size, general behavior)
C) Squishy jowly cuteness. Not quite as wide bodied. Many Bostons are built like grey hounds with a chihuahua size...
We bought a boston terrier from a breeder who gave us one she saw was docile and good for a family.
Honestly, that's what's missing from the adoption equation. Not physical characteristics (though I wanted a small dog that wouldn't trample and intimidate my 6 year old) but judgement from the breeder about whether the pet is suitable for your situation.
That's actually incorrect. I'm trying to find better links, but Boston Terriers frequently require c-sections for birth. "Three breeds were singled out as having caesarian rates of over eighty per cent – the French Bulldog at 81.3%, the Bulldog at 86.1% and the Boston Terrier at a remarkable 92.3%" [1].
For whatever reason Boston Terriers don't appeal to me nearly as much as Frenchies. That said, if and when I get another dog, I'll definitely look into that breed. I'd almost certainly want to adopt another rescue, though.
I'm desperately trying to come up with an anecdote that combines DEA raids that begin with canine murder, dog insurance, swatting, gated communities, Michael Picket of the secret service and Aaron Swartz fame, and stem cell research.
I'm usually good at this but the requisite savoir faire eludes me.
In a similar vein I don't get these people that lionize Salk or Newton. Isaac's physics isn't relevant. Now that we have quantum mechanics what purpose is there in studying the process, people, materials and mechanics of a bygone era? Give me my atomic bomb and penicillin but Lord! Spare me the tiresome explanations. What value could there be in that fool Einstein's physical works? Burn it with the Rossetti archives and smother the ashes with Jerry Mcgann's tears.
(excuse me, I'm off to play call of duty with people who understand games are supposed to be fun not make you think.)
The US Military and associated intelligence branches have crafted heros, but also committed atrocities against our own men and women in uniform. That used to be the line they didn't cross.
You can give an enlisted man syphilis and see what happens. You can even overtly target black enlisted men and see what happens.
But you do the same kind of experiment with the civilian population and you are straight fucked.
I guess if we're obliterating that line, then sure, what's the difference? You're either cop or little people.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, that's what I intended to convey.
In the public sector we mostly consider employment solely based on its benefits because under US law there is only so much bad shit that your employer is allowed to cause you to endure.
Employment with the US Military or associated intelligence services MUST be considered with the stark fact in mind that a core tenant of your employment is signing over your life. Not to die nobly for just causes. Simply to give over your life for nearly any purpose deemed fit by your superiors.
I rarely see these, "playing the victim" arguments shut down. I'll frequently see them deconstructed, explained away, dismissed, but not forcefully and cunningly defused.
Here's my attempt: Academic environments have historically been places of cultural experimentation diametrically opposed to the stifling culture of the workplace.
How desperate and bereft of sensitivity and creativity must you be to emulate the corporate model of HR in your classroom?
Networking is the most straightforward answer there. Every time you make a new hire let her know first. Let her know that you understand that feeling isolated in the workplace can happen for a lot of reasons, but if you are of a legally protected status there are steps as her manager you can take to alleviate that. Give preference to candidates she recommends and feels comfortable with.
I would further posit that the norms of tech culture that isolate some and include others and this culture as it intersects with hiring is basically just a way to normalize, refine, and study turnover in tech business by managers and CEOs.
I remember when I had my, "a-ha!" moment working at a coffee shop in highschool. "why?" I thought, "would my employer show a blatant disregard for sexual harassment, sexist hiring policies, hazing, poor scheduling, and offer few benefits that attract long term employment?"
Because turnover is good for business. Lower salaries make coffee shop margins possible and fresh faces bring more customers.
Its more like a cargo cult. Its not really actively harmful to talk about misogyny in tech culture. Its just not doing any good. Like wearing coconut headphones. Or an anti-drunk driving campaign by kinder-gardeners targeting other kinder-gardeners.
We should torture in Quaker meeting halls: A modest proposal
We don't keep records. We speak when moved by a greater power. No one knows who "owns" our spaces. Very few attorneys in presence. Holding people for 12-24 hours is common. I think someone died during meeting last week and no one noticed.
A) No c-section to procreate B) Same behaviors (need for affection, size, general behavior) C) Squishy jowly cuteness. Not quite as wide bodied. Many Bostons are built like grey hounds with a chihuahua size...
We bought a boston terrier from a breeder who gave us one she saw was docile and good for a family.
Honestly, that's what's missing from the adoption equation. Not physical characteristics (though I wanted a small dog that wouldn't trample and intimidate my 6 year old) but judgement from the breeder about whether the pet is suitable for your situation.