Generally I'm not a perruser of townhall.com but I ran across this one opinion piece I found worth visiting and relevant to us.
Now, it has spread like a virus, and thanks to the SJW's, is creeping into practically every nook and cranny of the tech industry. But the fact remains that their contentions about sexism in tech do not hold water. Like any other industry out there, women may end up coming across cretins that mistreat them, but there isn't a concerted effort or conspiracy out there preventing women from entering the tech industry. On the contrary, tech giants are bending over backwards to entice women to work for them, and there are organizations doing all they can to encourage more women to enter tech fields.
Why bother reading opinion pieces by Conservatives? Because a closed mind is a waste of brain cells. A hypothesis you refuse to test will forever remain such and never gain theory-hood.
[EiC NOTE: I hesitate on running this. The Fine Article goes down the well trod "complaints about *-ism are overblown and those who complain about *-ism's effects just want special treatment" road that always leads to apologia for a status quo that hurts people. Consider this a test. If we can have a healthy discussion about this, even where we have disagreements, without being inundated with the sort of frat-brogrammer culture that the extremely competent women sitting next to me left their previous departments to get away from or descending into RedPill-style misogynistic wangst, then we will continue to be a community of which I can be proud. -LaminatorX]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @03:30AM
> there isn't a concerted effort or conspiracy out there preventing women from entering the tech industry.
Anyone who legitimately believes that "conspiracy" is the issue under debate has not been paying attention. And if they don't believe it, then why are they proposing a straw-man?
(Score: 4, Informative) by mojo chan on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:33AM
Poor choice of words perhaps, but there is something to it. While the vast majority of real life issues are not a conspiracy, it's certainly true that there are well organized groups opposing any kind of improved equality. Some are based on 8chan, some are conservative political groups.
For the most part it's just lack of awareness though.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @10:27AM
NO WAY!
For reals, though. 8chan consists of many different cultures and groups all using a single platform to discuss their material on a website that they themselves can moderate. Truly vox populi. The fact that everyone seems to think 8chan is some kind of nazi hate machine is kind of a sad thing, really.
Consider this: 8chan is a website where everyone can make a board about anything, as long as it complies with US law. The fact that everyone seems to hate 8chan only signifies that most people are ignorant about the freedoms that they have been given in the United States: true Freedom of speech, not any of that hate-speech censored stuff you get in Europe. [wikipedia.org]
Because silencing a single voice, no matter how hateful, sets a standard for silencing your own.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:56PM
Hate speech, by itself, isn't a problem. Hate speech is just a sign of ignorance and prejudice. The problem comes when people use that hate speech to gather into mobs, or use the hate speech of others as approval for bullying, lynching, discrimination, etc. I imagine the goal of hate speech laws is to prevent the actions listed in my previous sentence, which almost always come together with it, but hate speech is a symptom of a bigger problem (bigotry), and you don't get anywhere just by "treating" symptoms.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @01:34PM
The very use of the term, "hate speech" is an indicator of an immature mind. Its Orwellian, sweeping, and bludgeon-like nature is the last resort of the simpleminded (however passionate).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @09:44AM
It is pretty absurd. Which word is it you don't believe in, or consider to be unknowable about somebody's speech... that it is hateful, or that it is speech?
It seems like a no-brainer to me that some of the time when you hear speech, it is obviously hateful.
Amazing to meet somebody who is old enough to write and has never encountered hateful speech. Especially when their own speech is... noticeably lacking in loving character.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @12:00PM
If you believe that the content/meaning of a message (speech) is constructed by the listener, then the definition of what's "hateful" becomes entirely subjective.
With that premise in mind, we're a short distance away from declaring *all* speech to be "hateful," because anyone can construct whatever meaning they desire. That's fine, but when you get enough people saying something is "hateful," and backed up by the power of law--watch out!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @02:38PM
Do you now see why those hatespeech laws are bad?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @03:37PM
I never said they were a good thing or that I was in favor of them. "[Y]ou don't get anywhere just by 'treating' symptoms," means they're fucking pointless and, at best, only mask a more serious problem, that more serious problem being bigotry.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by mojo chan on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:58PM
Head over to 8chan right now. This moment. Have a look around /gamergate/ and related boards. Most of the things GamerGate accuses its opponents of are being openly discussed as tactics. Doxxing, false flag operations, "ops" against websites that GG dislikes, image manipulation and building up fake stories about GG opponents etc.
I did a quick bit of investigation of those charities that GG claims to have donated to. Strangely none of the mention getting donations from GG on their web sites. You would think that there would be at least a press release for a $16,000 donation... Oh, but of that $16,000 the bulk of it is from two people, the same two people who contribute the bulk of the funding to other GG charity drives. "Lo Ping" is a great guy, donating tens of thousands of dollars to these causes. Interestingly he's also the person who sets these things up, so he's kinda giving money back to himself... Although I'm sure it all goes to the charities, not his bank account, and they just forgot to mention it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 03 2015, @02:45PM
No need for conspiratorial thinking. Charities, being not awful people, don't want the gamergate name associated with them in any way, shape, or form, but some are willing to take the money if donated sufficiently anonymously, because it can do good.
But the fact that the money is going to decent causes doesn't wash away the crimes that were committed and continue to be committed. When it's done specifically to cover for crimes, it comes off even worse: cynical, manipulative, and insincere. The salvation army is a charity, and they're not beyond criticism for their hateful transphobia.
Until the primary point of gamergate ceases to be proving how holy and just gamergate is for hating any discussion of serious social issues in gaming(it's secondary point), it's distant(and clearly manufactured a while after the harassing began) third point of "ethics in gaming journalism" is a fucking joke.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mojo chan on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:01PM
I don't think any money is going to charities. "Lo Ping" set the fundraising up, donated to it himself to get it over the mark in the first hour or two and look successful, and then pocketed any extra other saps gave him. He basically scammed GG idiots out of cash they thought was going to whitewashing GG's image.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:23PM
I generally think allegations of conspiracy need to be justified, which is part of why gamergate started in such a stupid place. They were willing to let loose allegations of misconduct turn into a massive smear campaign.
I don't have to trust the guy myself, but to allege fraud of that sort needs evidence.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @11:37PM
"ethics in gaming journalism" is a fucking joke.
And the punchline is "seven figures in damages" [pando.com] to the corrupt clickbait tabloid Gawker. I'm sure they're laughing.
GamerGate supporters have been some of the nicest, most supportive, charitable, diverse, people I've ever interacted with online. There's a certain culture clash which gets interpreted as harassment if your online life wasn't forged in the crucible of IRC and imageboards. It's regrettable that behavior which is considered normal and non-threatening within our community looks so horrible when it's exported--but that doesn't entitle people to come in from the outside and try to "fix" things.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by arashi no garou on Tuesday February 03 2015, @02:02PM
I don't believe there is a concerted, organized effort behind misogyny in the tech industries (i.e. no "conspiracy" at work). However, in many ways it's like pro sports: Male dominated for no particular reason, and the rest of society just blindly accepts it or refuses to see the problem altogether. It's this blind acceptance that is more harmful (in my opinion, and I could be wrong) than any one individual's or group's efforts to keep women "in their place".
I'm looking forward to the day when it's not considered odd that a woman is a leader in the world of technology, or even a cog in the machine like any other dude. My oldest niece is getting serious about her aspirations to be a game programmer, and I wholeheartedly support her with it. Her challenges should be gender-agnostic, so she can focus on doing what she loves instead of fighting harassment for being "a girl".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @03:35PM
In the tech industry there's a very strong bias for demanding that employees shift work-life balance dramatically in favor of work.
Tech companies tend to go to great lengths to keep employees at work longer, and when you're a techworker for a non-tech company you're probably on-call a lot.
Women are on-average a lot more sensible on where they put their work-life balance then men (as that fits the traditional role more closely)
Older folks also tend to be more sensible about their work-life balance
Consequently you get a tech industry that's dominated by young males
This is not sexism, this is pro-work-only/anti-home-life-ism
(Score: 3, Interesting) by urza9814 on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:25PM
Depends on the company. I was actually explicitly told by my manager just last week that I need to STOP answering my phone and logging on outside of my usual working hours. :)
(Score: 2) by jcross on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:37PM
That's an interesting line of inquiry, and I think we could even take it a little further. I wonder if we in the tech industry are so convinced of its awesomeness that we assume women *should* want to join up. Whereas who's decrying the fact that most sanitation workers (i.e. "garbage men") are men? It's easy to notice that most of the people at the top are men, but harder to notice that most of the people at the bottom are too. We kind of assume that the tech industry is the at "top", and in a money/power sense it's hard to deny the truth of that, but in a quality-of-life sense? Not so much.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday February 03 2015, @03:31AM
GAAK!
Is there a google translate for that?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by LaminatorX on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:38AM
The Red Pill is a Reddit community focusing on the intersection of persecution complexes, resentment, and misogyny. "Wangst" is a portmanteau of "whine" and "angst."
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:06AM
Ah, that explains it.
I've had Reddit on interdict status at the dns level for years.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:38PM
Especially for anything near realtime about the newest 'thing'.
They've got the workaround, fix, info, answer already.
Reddit is as wide and varied as the internet itself. From the best to the worst.
With a pretty average SnR.
It's much like a bigger version of soylent. But everyone has a modpoint to spend on you.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:25AM
Hmm, I had interpreted "wangst" as a portmanteau of "wank" and "angst". I'll concede that "wank" is probably too British to be what this clearly American author intended, though I still feel that my interpretation is a better fit for that particular bunch of wankers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @09:31AM
I followed a similar logic, but had wanger (or whanger) instead of wank. The result was something along the lines of "overarching anxiety concerning ones wobbley-dangley".
(Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday February 03 2015, @11:59AM
> I followed a similar logic, but had wanger (or whanger) instead of wank. The result was something along the lines of "overarching anxiety concerning ones wobbley-dangley".
That's numberwang! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjOZtWZ56lc [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Tuesday February 03 2015, @11:22AM
Thanks! I had mis-read "Wangst" as a portmanteau of "Wang" (the nightmarish minicomputer) and "angst".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mhajicek on Tuesday February 03 2015, @03:35AM
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1883 [smbc-comics.com]
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @03:40AM
Cripes! If you view that site on a tablet, it constantly oscillates between three different resolutions/orientations and the ad banner lags behind scrolling. It gave me a damn seizure.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:27AM
Correlation does not equal causation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @03:46AM
to me, disqualifies this piece from being read as something other than someone preaching to their choir.
From the right, we have "SJW", "low information Obama voters", "feminazis".
From the left, we have "wingnuts", "Tea baggers", "Faux News".
And of course, to those who say, "hold on a sec", they would undoubtedly respond with something like, "That is the reality, it's your fault that you're unable to face it."
In general, I don't object to this kind of opinionated writing in the *comments* to articles. But I think we should think twice when the story itself is written in such a way as to inhibit a wide range of responses.
Besides, the writer of the piece is not even a computer programmer or game designer, she's involved in some documentation and project management type stuff with websites. Easy stuff that anybody with a college education could learn to do within a couple months. That's a big difference between herself and the women who were drawn into #GamerGate.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:05AM
There is more to tech than programming and games. Project management is certainly not something any college educated person can pick up in a couple months. If you believe that to be true, do it yourself and start off making six figures, far more than any programmer starts out at.
(Score: 5, Touché) by keplr on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:08AM
I'm a liberal, left wing, Democratic Socialist, who votes for the Green Party; and I use the term SJW. It's a good term. It accurately captures the self-serving, cloying, holier-than-thou, privileged hipster who latches onto whatever trendy form of offense taking is popular at the moment. But what really clinched it for me was seeing how they treat minorities and women who disagree with them. I've seen too many women and ethnic minorities dog-piled on Twitter by these middle class white urbanites. They treat the people they claim to be fighting for as pets, and when they misbehave, talk down to them in the same infantilizing, chastising, tones.
If you tell a woman expressing her own opinion that's counter to modern gender-feminism that she has "internalized misogyny" you are not a liberal. You're some sort of authoritarian cultist who can't tolerate dissent.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:43AM
I'm a liberal, left wing, Democratic Socialist, who votes for the Green Party
You left out a key detail on that list. Male or female? I'm betting male.
(Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:50AM
I am betting female! Oh, boy! Who wins?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @09:37AM
Well, since the two simple options are already taken, I put my vote on hermaphrodite.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:10AM
> If you tell a woman expressing her own opinion that's counter to modern gender-feminism that she has "internalized misogyny" you are not a liberal.
The implication of this statement is that it is impossible to internalize misogyny and maybe even any sort of societal inequality.
> You're some sort of authoritarian cultist who can't tolerate dissent.
I never understood this attitude. One person speaks and another person criticizes the first's speech and that is intolerance of dissent? Seems like that is the way freedom of expression works. After all, by that very logic accusing someone of being an authoritarian cultist who can't tolerate dissent puts said accuser into the very same category.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by keplr on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:48AM
The implication of this statement is that it is impossible to internalize misogyny and maybe even any sort of societal inequality.
I don't have to commit to that to posit the idea that accusing a women of harboring such thought processes is insulting given the limited knowledge you have of her from a brief Twitter exchange. "Internalized misogyny" is a thought-stopping conversation killer used whenever a SJW is presented with a female who doesn't swallow feminist dogma whole. Oh, you're disagreeing that all women are systematically oppressed by the patriarchy? You must hate secretly hate yourself! It's insulting. I see it all the time.
It's also incredibly alienating to most women, so as an anti-feminist I should encourage people to keep it up. It's a great tool to turn women off from the man-hating brand of ideological feminism ruining our society for men and boys. I actually agree with the stated goals of early feminists, and thankfully society has mostly achieved them. There is recently some worrying roll-back to abortion rights, but as a whole things have only gotten better. Then the third wavers came around and the whole movement became more about revenge and blaming men for all societal ills. I want nothing to do with that.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:29AM
I don't have to commit to that to posit the idea that accusing a women of harboring such thought processes is insulting given the limited knowledge you have of her from a brief Twitter exchange.
Well, if you are going to narrow the scope to a case contrived to the point of removing any general principles then I can totally see where you are coming from.
Oh, you're disagreeing that all women are systematically oppressed by the patriarchy? You must hate secretly hate yourself!
Woah. That you think internalizing misogyny means a woman hates herself really puts your position into perspective. Its just strawmen all the way down with you.
so as an anti-feminist
As an anti-feminist you are definitely in the right place to say what's wrong with feminism. Like an evangelical lecturing people on what's wrong with atheism.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:01AM
Typical, use SJW buzzwords like Strawman, then proudly thump your white male chest as the victor.
Does it feel good? Are you righteous now? Have you righted the wrongs oh great white knight?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:47AM
> SJW buzzwords like Strawman
lol
Why do I get the feeling you get buzzed with that word a lot?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @11:07AM
Because you're a trollish asshole?
Beats me man.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @11:31AM
Typical SJW bro-slang comeback, good one dude!
Got any other nuggets of wisdoms to share with your audience?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:07AM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:44AM
> So, as an anti-racist I can't say what's wrong with racism? That's logical.
As an anti-racist if you go around lecturing racists on how to do racism the right way you aren't going to be taken seriously.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:49AM
Oh, you know who you are. Without a doubt, you know who you are. Do not pretend just for us. Fucking Nazis! Goddamned Republicans! Fricking (only underaged) Berlusconi! Same across the world, same acrossed time, we know who you are, the bastards who think they are priviledged, who think you are above it all. But let my tell you, for every misogynist cunt out there, there is a massive, um, you know, it's what you wanted, anyway. Don't look all surprized now. Buck up, me bonny lad!
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:44AM
If you tell a woman expressing her own opinion that's counter to modern gender-feminism that she has "internalized misogyny" you are not a liberal. You're some sort of authoritarian cultist who can't tolerate dissent.
Isn't calling someone a SJW just another way to silence dissent? If you tell someone expressing their own opinion that's counter to modern anti-feminism that they are a self-serving, cloying, holier-than-thou, privileged hipster who has latched onto whatever trendy form of offense-taking that is popular at the moment you are not a liberal.
See how that works? All you've done is project your own biases on to someone you disagree with and anyone can do that for any position in a debate. Its all about being dismissive so as to avoid addressing ideas that make you uncomfortable (cue I'm not uncomfortable, I'm right!).
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:14AM
Here's what I think of when I hear the SJW term.
Someone that complains using cherry picked biased agreements in a toxic manner.
Basically the same that republicans have done with wealth inequality, aka "class warfare".
SJW don't to fix anything, they just want a platform to stand on and cast blame from. None of them have ever provided any proof nor proposed any strategy or solution of notable worth. It's always the same tune, it's the fault of everyone else and why can't you see how righteous my cause/ (I) am!
This will conitue until we get sick of hearing this and ignore them, they have no interest in improving the lives of anyone but themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @11:22AM
You claim an oppressive bias exists in tech, one that is greater than other industries I take it?
Personnelly I'm confused why this is more of interest than the gender gap in government?
Why is no one talking about that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:44PM
What gender gap in government? The government (US Federal, at least) is always WAY out ahead of everyone with regards to these issues because it is easy for the government to impose these types of things on its own workforce than it is to impose it upon the private sector. It was common in the 60's and earlier for blacks to be hired, and there are women and ethnic minorities spread throughout levels today. Unless you're focusing on the appointed positions, then I don't know anything about that, but I'm talking the millions of civil servants; it is the most diverse workforce you're going to find.
Sorry, this isn't one of the places where you can try to save face in the argument with the "fix your house first" cry. That house was fixed a LONG time ago.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:47PM
You are thinking of the civil service, and I'd wager the GP was thinking of the legislature, or possibly the agency heads. It's what used to be called "the glass ceiling".
OTOH, I have my suspicion that much of the effect derives from two basic characteristics:
1) Women are generally less pushy than men, and
2) People tend to approve more of people who are more like themselves.
IOW, it's systems design, not conspiracy. And the "system design" was mainly unconscious, so not a conspiracy there either, just unnoticed biases.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by mojo chan on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:42AM
SJW is a terrible term. It's always used as an insult and an accusation, and almost always against people who don't fit your description. As an experiment try pointing out that the claims made about Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are false. Even mentioning their names is usually enough for someone to accuse you of being an SJW, because it's a useful way to avoid answering the points directly.
It's so poorly defined no-one can agree exactly what it means anyway.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Informative) by keplr on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:21PM
As an experiment try pointing out that the claims made about Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are false.
Why would I do that? Most of the claims are true. One is a self-admitted emotionally abusive cheater, doxxer, and harasser of the mentally ill. The other is a fraud and a charlatan. [youtube.com] These are horrible people who do not deserve anyone's money or support.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:51PM
Sigs are a waste of time, more so when they do not fit the circumstance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @10:08AM
Right, so you see "SJW" as a stereotype.
So we can hopefully agree it is only useful in fiction, and that as a stereotype it would always be inaccurate and poor communication strategy to use it in reference to an actual human who hasn't consented or agreed to represent the things in your description? Right?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:48AM
What would you like the least to see on SN: the SJW word or "innocent jokes" like (oh, the green horror) this [slashdot.org]?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:15AM
SJW is real [reddit.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:15AM
It's actually worse than this.
On the right we've got people that consider the entire left narcissists, while on the left we've got people considering the entire right sociopaths, the remainder of what both camps right is mostly the same brew of perpetual butthurt.
Fun times.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:50PM
And the horrible thing is that both are right.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @03:49AM
You lay out anti-conservative rants from the outset, throwing in fratboy nonsense for a good measure, and then complain about feasibility of "healthy disuccsion"?
Fuck you.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:16AM
No, you! You conservative, Sith worshipping filth! Just using the SJW acronym makes you a DFC. And a TFA! And even a TSTARTFA! Fratboy nonsense? Wait, aren't all fratboys conservative? The must be, since they have to band together to actually make it through a baccalaureate, which means they are not bright enough to do it all on their own. Skull and Bones, people, Skull and Bones! If they can get a degree for W, they can do it for anyone!
disuccsion
Normally, I would not pick on simple misspellings, but it does seem to reflect a certain intellectual liability of conservativism. Certain you have seen the famous guy in the Cardinals shirt and do-rag with the sign saying,"Get a brain, Morans!" And there are countless Tea party examples, the most entertaining of which are those with errors calling for English to be the official language of the United States. If you want "healthy discussion", don't drop the F-bomb. Friendly advice, reduced to your level for your convenience. Don't fuck it up next time.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Marand on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:26AM
You lay out anti-conservative rants from the outset, throwing in fratboy nonsense for a good measure, and then complain about feasibility of "healthy disuccsion"?
Yep, I noticed that, too. I don't even have any interest in the article or summary, and would normally have skipped it, but I was curious about how people responded to a summary with the bad attitude already baked in. It's a shame the editor can't manage the same standards he expects everyone else to uphold. So far the most inflammatory thing I've seen here has been LaminatorX's condescending flamebait insert, and the commenters on both sides have been even-tempered and civil. I'm actually surprised most of the commenters have ignored it, considering the insulting, holier-than-thou style of it.
IMO, editor notes should be sparingly used, generally short, and should be used for clarification or defusing of potential problems. It's not your personal soap box. Biased, condescending rubbish like this summary's editor note should be placed in a comment where it can be modded flamebait just like everybody else.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 03 2015, @11:52AM
To be fair, the entire submission was flamebait. I knew before I submitted it that the liberals would strongly disagree and the SJWs would be butthurt and ragey. It's articles like this that let you tell them apart.
Further, that we can run multiple stories to the contrary opinion without Ed notes or vehement outrage outlines the limits of our bias and hypocrisy.
Also, I just dig a good argument now and then. Arguments are how I test my own beliefs.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @01:11PM
A discussion requires both sides to be open to changing their minds. This is the kind of article that attracts at least one side whose argument is plugging their ears and going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" I'm happy to see that, so far, most of the thread is actual discussion, but it could be because most people have learned not to bother arguing with ACs on controversial topics like this.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:34PM
Why bother reading opinion pieces by Conservatives? Because a closed mind is a waste of brain cells. A hypothesis you refuse to test will forever remain such and never gain theory-hood.
[EiC NOTE: I hesitate on running this. The Fine Article goes down the well trod "complaints about *-ism are overblown and those who complain about *-ism's effects just want special treatment" road that always leads to apologia for a status quo that hurts people. Consider this a test. If we can have a healthy discussion about this, even where we have disagreements, without being inundated with the sort of frat-brogrammer culture that the extremely competent women sitting next to me left their previous departments to get away from or descending into RedPill-style misogynistic wangst, then we will continue to be a community of which I can be proud. -LaminatorX]
LaminatorX, I think in the future that metacommentary that just doesn't add anything to the story should be excised. Sure, maybe some of us are fragile flowers who can't handle the idea that conservatives might have opinions. But should Soylentnews coddle the weak? I say not! The author can always add back the metacommentary in a post.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by keplr on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:01AM
I've been following the #GamerGate hashtag on Twitter and there are many women, who identify as liberal (social libertarians) who don't like this sort of feminist narrative that women are being kept out of gaming/tech by an entrenched boy's club. If you seriously think you're doing good in the world by pushing affirmative action to help women, or these outreach programs for women in tech, please just try talking to some women who are already there. Ask them how they feel. Ask an actual woman what her experiences have been. You might be surprised what they tell you.
When you actually talk to women in tech who aren't gender-ideologues out to make a profit on their personal brand (see: Anita Sarkeesian), they tell you that they've faced no such discrimination. This is a hysteria fueled by self-serving feminists and their various enablers. If anything, men are eager and thankful to have women around--and often treat them better. I've seen it myself in academia (biology). There are more women here than in other sciences, but it's still mostly male. Men actually enjoy the company of women (who knew?), and welcome female lab-mates. If anything there's an over-correction to help women more than men, probably a misfiring of the natural male instinct to render assistance to females.
This is just the latest unfounded moral panic. There is no crisis. Even if you could demonstrate there was a bias toward men going into tech/sci/gaming you'd still have all your work cut out for you. Why is it wrong that men and women might, of their own volition, choose different paths in life as they pursue happiness? There's no corresponding urgency to shunt men into early childhood education, or psychology. This idea that all differences between men and women are imposed by culture is destroying the happiness of men and women. Healthy co-dependence between the sexes will not be achieved by ignoring the fact that there are fundamental differences between them. There have been injustices on both sides in the past, and great progress has been made correcting them. Women now have full legal rights equal to men (and often are given considerations above men that favor them). But past injustices do not excuse excessive zeal carried into the present after those wrongs have been righted. Modern feminism looks more like revenge than a quest for true equality--which has largely been achieved already.
Men and women compliment each other. What madness has lead us to desire destroying this harmony and flattening the peaks each sex is capable of achieving in the pursuit of a dessicated, leveled, valley of equal mediocrity?
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:41AM
Men and women compliment each other.
Odd, I thought one of the major complaints was that, actually, they don't.
Just saying. :)
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:43PM
Men and women compliment each other.
Odd, I thought one of the major complaints was that, actually, they don't.
Just saying. :)
Mmm, and there was me thinking that the problem was that they did it too much (don't compliment me - that's harassment...)
(Score: 5, Informative) by naubol on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:02AM
Except that nothing you wrote seems to overcome the studies like...
http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf [cornell.edu] -- same resume with female name receives less responses
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract [pnas.org] -- higher ratings for male version of same resume among STEM scientists
There are more, feel free to search google scholar for gender bias and resumes.
It doesn't stop at resumes, but that's a pretty easy experiment to eliminate many other factors since there isn't any face time.
Also, nobody, not the article, not any of the other comments, not what you said, etc, seems to have accurately captured the most common complaints I've heard about being female in a technical role. For instance, I could not find an example of mansplaining. What about salary gaps, chances for women to become managers, etc. Then people might bring up maternity leave, but then not factor in all the studies that try to control for that variable.
Also, basically everything you said is a characterization. "What madness...?" What madness has led you to use the phrase "what madness ... ?" on a site that prides itself on being rational and cerebral?
Moreover, the article that is quoted with its inflammatory title of "Witch Hunt" is not saying to me that the author is attempting to rationally sort through the morass of opinion on the topic. Reading the article feels like it isn't attempting to engage the best arguments, but ones that she, the author, has decided to deal with. It doesn't feel like she has a good grasp of what the most common or persuasive arguments are. It also feels like she has an axe to grind. I don't find her persuasive, as a result.
When science is profuse with reasonable studies showing unreasonable behavior and people are still claiming things are fair, when the article is inflammatory, when the commenters to the story seem to write in such whiney tones about other people's stated problems without themselves seeming to have listened to understand what those other people were concerned about, ... it just feels really disheartening how bad the discourse is.
(Score: 5, Informative) by keplr on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:34AM
Except that nothing you wrote seems to overcome the studies like...
What about them? There are legitimate reasons given our current biological paradigms to prefer a male scientist over an identical female one, if you are considering their possible contributions decades into the future. If you are committing to someone for years at a time, you take the entire person into account. Women simply work less hours per year, and less years per career than men, ON AVERAGE. When it takes 20+ years to train an academic, this matters. Women willing to forgo family and reproduction (and is it even a fair trade?) do about as well as men. This discrimination is an illusion in the literal sense: it disappears the harder you try to see it.
I could not find an example of mansplaining.
Because it's not a real thing, unless what you're doing right now is also called femsplaining, or womoaning. See how horrible that sounds? You're doing the EXACT same thing. That's equality. No one outside of the insular, misandric, gender-studies, community takes this term seriously. Really, you're not going to score a point by bringing this up. Everyone here is just going to roll their eyes at you. This is not a "safe space", friendo. I'm trying to help you do better in future debates. Don't bring up this topic unless you want to embarrass yourself again.
What about salary gaps
What about them? What about how they don't exist when you account for all the factors of a human's life/career. [youtube.com] (and before you bring up the AEI, CSH is a feminist and a liberal democrat, so don't even try that pathetic rebuttal) Men and women get the same hourly rate for the same job. Men fight harder for raises and prioritize money over other intangible benefits like time spent with their children and benefits. Sounds like the men are sacrificing so the women and children they love can live better. Oh the huge-misogyny!
Men and women choose different paths to happiness, and that's OK! This isn't injustice, it's prudence. There's no war on women. There's merely a culture of irrational sameness being hopeless imposed on humanity which contains fundamental contours and differences inimcable to this social engineering project. Men and boys are now lagging behind women in many areas, including college admissions and graduation. Typical boy behavior is being pathologized and treated with medication.
This path is harmful to men AND women.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:55AM
Does it? Does it indeed?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by naubol on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:32AM
Hmm, I feel you did not engage my thesis: which is that the discourse is poor.
In your response you seem to have implied the validity of many complaints I've heard about women in STEM fields. For instance, in response to the resume studies, you've basically seemed to accept the conclusions of the studies and then responded with a social justification for the gender bias. But, your justification does not have any sort of reasoning which is clear enough to reproduce, because it appears to rely heavily on your worldview.
It basically seems like you feel gender bias is permissible because the expected probable outcome of a woman is less than a man's, without giving proof. Even if you had proof, why does that mean that the gender bias should be permissible. Can you imagine what a clever adversary would argue in response? Taken with the later comments regarding gender differences in pursuing happiness, why would women strive so hard to chase a position if it isn't in their interests? Are they stupid as well as unable to know their own interests?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're not persuasive. I was saying that all along. Your arguments are weak. When you responded to my mansplaining comment, you started off by telling me it doesn't exist, but my point wasn't that it existed or not, but that complaints about it are common and they exist and that no one is talking about them here, until I brought it up. In other words, you're just shouting past them (people who appear to be on the other side of your position), with random words in all caps like it doesn't make you look like a looney whose let go of intellectual control of his emotions.
So, you feel the most sound argument is a youtube video? Pretty graphics, rhetoric, and capitalized words wins over stodgy language?
Your posts feel like a potpourri of opinion. You're painting with emotion more than articulating actual thought.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TheRaven on Tuesday February 03 2015, @10:17AM
There are legitimate reasons given our current biological paradigms to prefer a male scientist over an identical female one, if you are considering their possible contributions decades into the future
The interesting results are the studies that ask people to justify their decisions. Given two almost identical CVs, one with a male name and one with a female name, a majority of people (male and female) in hiring positions will pick the male one and have a perfectly rational explanation for doing so. For example, they'll say 'well, the male candidate had more real-world experience' or 'the male candidate had a better academic background'. And they'll give the opposite justification if the CVs are presented with the names the other way around.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @01:21PM
Given two almost identical CVs one with a male name and one with a female name, a majority of people (male and female) in hiring positions will pick the male one and have a perfectly rational explanation for doing so.
So, given two identical, not "almost identical", you feel that "ha[ving] a better academic background" or "more real world-experience" is a "perfectly rational explanation" for preferring a male candidate over a female? How can one have more experience or a better background than the other when their resumes are identical?
You failed to address the point and addressed a different one. I believe thats called a strawman?
(Score: 4, Informative) by TheRaven on Tuesday February 03 2015, @02:12PM
The outcome of the research was that, when CVs only differed by gender and things that were unrelated to the job requirements as stated, people would prefer the male candidate and justify this choice based on the other differences. In a large study group, the same CVs were presented to different people with the names reversed and the majority picked the male candidate. They were not consciously aware of this bias and, in each case, could justify their decision. People who saw the candidates with more practical experience attached to male names would prefer candidates with more practical experience. People who saw the candidates with a stronger academic background attached to male names would prefer the ones with stronger academic backgrounds.
There is a lot of subconscious bias that people then retroactively justify without ever being aware of it. Most of the people who participated in the study were surprised. They all believed that they'd pick the candidate that was most qualified, irrespective of other issues, and, when confronted with equally qualified candidates, would expect to see a random distribution in the ones that they picked. Instead, when there are two equally qualified candidates, they would overwhelmingly prefer the male one, but justify it (to themselves) based on some other factor.
Interestingly, there was no difference between male and female test subjects: they were both equally likely to be biased towards the male candidate.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @03:52PM
Rationalizing your bias is not the same as making a rational choice. Now that its agreed that there is in fact a bias towards men, we can start coming up with ways to fix it. "Affirmative Action"-like plans may not be the best way, but if a lot of the bias is unconscious and due to "tradition" (ie, "its always been this way"), then such a heavy-handed approach may be the quickest way, even if its not the best way.
You can't fix a problem that you don't acknowledge exists though, so its important to make people aware that they may have an unconscious bias towards hiring men. And if the bias is conscious then its just plan ol' misogyny.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdccdevel on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:52PM
Beware "quick fixes", they tend to be neither quick, nor a real fix... especially with issues like this.
"Affirmative Action" doesn't seem to address the underlying issue, which is why I believe it is not the way to go:
- It can tend to alienate some people it is trying to help (Why do I need your help? I can do this myself!)
- It can be seen as a source of conflict (Why do they get help when we don't?)
- And in many ways reinforces the views it is supposed to combat. (They need more help than we do, there must be something wrong with them...)
The last point is especially relevant with "tradition" type biases, as the very existence of the "Affirmative Action" can provide a reason for the "tradition" existing in the first place.
Unfortunately, some issues simply take time to fix. Especially with issues like race and gender bias. So many people tend to get stuck in their ways, sometimes those with the bias simply have to die of old age first.
Exposing the bias is the first step to ensuring that it doesn't get passed to the next generation. Once the bias is exposed, it can, and will, erode away. The trick is to make sure that any "fixes" that we apply don't make the problem worse.
I think the best option would be to remove the source of the bias in the first place.
In the example of the resume, since we know that the bias exists, remove the name and any other gender indication during the selection process. Sort of like a double blind scientific study. This has the added benefit of removing some race bias as well, as the name on the resume can be indicative of that too.
I would suspect that there is still bias at the interview stage, and that would have to be dealt with differently, but it's a start.
(Score: 2) by jdccdevel on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:09PM
Fighting this sort of subconscious bias is just the sort of thing that people interested in TRUE gender equality (i.e. not revenge) need to fight. It's the exact same issue that those working towards race equality are fighting, unconscious bias. Those with conscious bias at this point are either never going to change, or hiding it in the noise. Getting rid of the unconscious bias in everyone else is the best way to make them stand out.
It's not a easy battle, and it's not going to be quick, but bringing unconscious bias's like these to light is the only way to fight them.
However, that being said, there is too much poison on both sides of the debate. Too many people are quick to accuse, easy to anger, and too willing to shut off their brains.
In many ways there's a parallel to terrorism here. I fully understand that some ethnic and religious groups have legitimate reasons to dislike the first world, and the USA in particular. However, once the terrorists take up their cause, it kills all potential for the moderates to make any real progress.
The truly, legitimately passionate advocates for a cause tend to be easy pickings for radicalization. Radicalization on one side emboldens the other side to radicalize too. An encounter with a radical of the opposite view can do the same. This leaves the moderates (who are still a majority numbers wise) without the majority of their strong vocal advocates for change, leaving the impression (in the media and online) that they don't exist.
The phenomena of "Radical Feminism", "SJWs", "The Red Pill", and many others seem to be examples of the exact same sort of radicalization.
It's really hard to find truly passionate, vocal moderates.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:58PM
The phenomena of "Radical Feminism", "SJWs", "The Red Pill", and many others seem to be examples of the exact same sort of radicalization.
Given a person espousing a position using extreme emotion, poor reasoning skills, demagoguery, or other forms of sophistry, especially when they do so unknowingly, makes it easy to claim that their position is radical. But, their position can be quite reasonable. I have observed that the term "radical" is often used to claim someone is a poor thinker, to slander someone with a reasonable position reasonably stated, or to slander a set of people holding a common position by lifting up an obviously poor example to a position of representative.
That said, nothing about most examples of modern feminism or the so-called SJW, which, however apt for a small minority, is often injuriously applied to reasonable advocates, appear to me to be terribly radical positions.
Here are a list of recent topical positions slandered with the pejorative of radical which seem pretty reasonable to me but which are often called radical when spoken by women...
What is important here for each of these points is not that an individual agree with them, rather it is important to understand is that none of them are radical. They're reasonable because they're thought out, do not greatly infringe of the rest of society via their discussion, and do not seek to do immediate harm.
On the other hand, cyber harassment is obviously a radical act and justification of that position is pretty radical. It is also radical to silence your critics instead of allowing them to exist, or to hang them via character assassination in the public forum. These are uncivilized actions which are often cloaked in professional sounding press releases and reasonable sounding talking points, like "we want to foster a harmonious community" or "we're attempting not to take sides".
There have been radical actions and positions on the part of feminists. Certainly there's no shortage of attempts at silencing critics on their part either, but it seems immediately obvious to me that people opposing feminist principles have greatly outnumbered them in this regard. What is tragic is how easy it is for a person in power to commit a radical act and then pass it off as reasonable via soft speech, self-discipline, and aggressive labeling. We are awfully good at rationalizations and as a result we need to work ever harder at puncturing the weak ones.
(Score: 3, Informative) by keplr on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:46PM
Communities (like gaming) should not tolerate death threats, doxxing, rape threats, hate speech, and endless forum posts attacking women.
I'm a supporter of GamerGate and I'm totally on board with that. I've never seen someone say otherwise. In fact GamerGate seems to the only group categorically rejecting doxing as a tactic in all cases, while on the other side... [skepchick.org]
A female who is opportunistic or even a disgusting individual (possibly Zoe Quinn) does not deserve to be cyberbullied
The term cyberbullying is almost perfectly meaningless. People seem to equate bullying with criticism these days. Have thicker skin. If someone is actually committing a crime, we need to get the police involved. Death threats are a crime, btw. Saying, "I wouldn't be sad if someone raped you" isn't only NOT a crime, it's actually protected speech. Deal with it. Our society is better off under the paradigm of radical free expression than trying to engineer safe spaces through censorship or social control.
and we should look on discussions of her sex life with absolute scorn for the participating individuals.
People's sex lives will occasionally be legitimate topics, like when their partners are journalists. That's not slutshaming or invasion of privacy, because it's not the sex we're objecting to, it's the conflict of interest with a public figure. GamerGate is incredibly sex-positive, far more than the mostly repressed SJW crowd.
More can be done to eliminate gender bias (or other forms of bias around arbitrary social attributes), such as double blind resumes/interviews.
As long as I'm still free to pick the best person for the job and am not forced to fill a certain quota of woman, I'm all for things like this. Cognative biases might be keeping us from choosing the best possible candidate, and if we can eliminate those biases, we should. Full support from me, these are good ideas.
Changing how we socialize individuals is key to promoting positive cultural change, as programs of this ilk have strong evidence for their efficacy
Way more harm has been done in the past from people trying to engineer "positive cultural change" than was ever caused by whatever moral panic they claimed to be fighting.
Spending money to eliminate inequality (even via affirmative action programs) can be a net positive gain for everyone.
Citation needed. This is often not only counter productive, it breeds hate and resentment among women and minorities who are already in those spaces and got their on their own merit. These are horrible ideas and always backfire whenever they are tried. Affirmative action is the original sin of the modern left, and we'll probably never live it down. It's going to haunt us forever, and throwbacks trying to bring it back aren't helping.
Talking about inequality with people who do not perceive the inequality is not a waste of time.
Many people believe equality is the same thing as sameness, and pursuing the latter makes us all worse off.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by naubol on Tuesday February 03 2015, @09:56PM
ahh some of your points are quite strong, but I'd like to respond to the ones I feel are problematic....
The term cyberbullying is almost perfectly meaningless.
This is a pretty aggressive sentence in almost any discussion. Meaning is subjective and communication requires effort from both sides. You're basically saying, "I refuse to make the attempt to understand what you're trying to say and it is your fault." To quote Terry Pratchett for amusement, it is "...around Defcon II in the lexicon of squabble" to take up semantic arguments.
Saying, "I wouldn't be sad if someone raped you" isn't only NOT a crime, it's actually protected speech.
I am pro free speech. I'm pro social pressure for the exact same reasons, ie social pressure is free speech, too. I didn't say use legal means to utilize social pressure, I meant use social pressure. IE, what we do when trolls spam on this board and we talk about them disdainfully, instead of calling the cops. I don't have to deal with it because I don't believe social pressure will die as long as we are even slightly human. Acting like people advocating the use of social pressure are advocating the use of legal pressure is a subtle and disingenuous way to make them appear more radical.
People's sex lives will occasionally be legitimate topics, like when their partners are journalists.
Yeah, my problem with this is it is exactly what I was talking about. It sounds reasonable on the surface, but there are three problems which demonstrate how radical the communication was. It appears to be more likely that this activity is done almost exclusively to women. The intentions really appear to be slut-shaming. And, even if neither of the first two were true, there is a tasteful way to talk about this subject. How it has been carried out has been clearly tasteless and we should use social pressure to discourage this. There is no dignity in writing mile long posts about all the people someone slept with and then saying, "Oh but it's okay to talk about her like this because one of the people she is accused of sleeping with is a journalist." Not to mention, he didn't write anything about her after it allegedly happened. It beggars credulity to believe that people are talking about her like this because of some abstract concern for journalistic integrity.
Way more harm has been done in the past from people trying to engineer "positive cultural change"...
I don't buy the premise. Even if I did, I'd argue that this argument would apply to the US founding fathers. At least some of us are glad they attempted to engineer positive cultural change. Colloquially, have to try, have to fail. Moreover, adding quotes around my phrase is well understood as a way of spitting on someone else's concept. Thanks.
Citation needed. This is often not only counter productive,...
I didn't even express agreement with the idea, but rather I'm trying to say that the position isn't radical. Which was the whole point of my post, that reasonable positions are tarnished with the brush of the label "radical". In like manner, I find it an equally not-radical position to say that affirmative action is always bad and should never be used. In fact, you have a number of positions which I do not think are radical. The journalist position isn't one of them, but it was also, amusingly, the most superficially reasonable.
Many people believe equality is the same thing as sameness, and pursuing the latter makes us all worse off.
Hmm, I don't think most feminists want a Kurt Vonnegut world. I definitely do not. Ascribing this equivalence to others is another example of radicalizing them by taking their goal post and moving it 100 yards in another direction. When people speak of equality, they mean things like suffrage, self-determination, right to own property, right to marry, right to adopt kids, equivalent ability to leverage qualifications for a position, etc.
I could flip it around on you and say, for instance, that your sameness concept is indicative of your desire to disenfranchise women, which is at least bad for women, if not men. But, it is a stupid argument. The right argument is that your argument is stupid by virtue of not containing nuance, straw manning the other side, subtly characterizing the other side, and framing the discussion so that it appears the other side does not have a nuanced position.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday February 04 2015, @09:23AM
The intentions really appear to be slut-shaming
I thought that the biggest issue was her hypocrisy. Someone who sleeps around is not news. Someone who publicly claims that cheating on your partner is equivalent to rape, cheats on their partner, and then makes loud and public moral stances on other issues is news.
It's not news if a senator is gay, it is news if a senator who campaigns on platform claiming that homosexuality is a sin is gay. The hypocrisy is the story, not the act.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by naubol on Wednesday February 04 2015, @12:41PM
It's not news if a senator is gay, it is news if a senator who campaigns on platform claiming that homosexuality is a sin is gay. The hypocrisy is the story, not the act.
There's a more tasteful way to do even this story than how it is normally done, but what is important for me in the senator story, the crucial difference if you will, is that the senator has large quantities of legislative power and was using that against the interests of a minority group, whom he secretly was a member. So, it isn't even hypocrisy, itself, that makes that story interesting, but the dichotomy of enacting powerful laws seemingly against his own interests... and mine. Even then, the story isn't interesting except as a way of showing to other people how seriously screwy repression becomes that it can do this to senators.
In this other case, we have someone's relatively private morals (in the sense that they're not becoming the law of the land), an indie game developer, and a big juicy amount of human pulp. It seems to be a simple case of schadenfreude. If I were to take a stand on soylent news of which I was hypocritically not doing what I was saying to do, it would not be appropriate for anyone to start airing all my dirty laundry to prove me wrong. It would be even less appropriate if it was part of a campaign to silence me on tangential issues.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdccdevel on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:52PM
...
What you're encountering is the radicalization process in action, occurring simultaneously on both sides. It's an escalating arms race of extremism. This is the process which is stripping moderate, well thought out positions like the ones you present of their most vocal and passionate advocates through radicalization.
It's entirely natural to respond to vitriol and hate with more of the same, or simply get frustrated and leave the discussion entirely. The former reinforces the views of your attacker, and the latter encourages them through a "victory". What you end up with at the end is two groups of diametrically opposed, radicalized, close-minded individuals, each reinforcing the views of the other.
These groups have no interest in well thought out, reasonable, moderate solutions, since acceptance of them would imply that their extremism is unfounded and unnecessary. They therefore attack the moderates with the same vitriol as everyone else, perpetuating the cycle of radicalization. Some of those attacks are through labelling.
I try to ignore the labels that others try to apply to someone, but the ones that people apply to themselves, those are worth paying attention to. Applying a label to someone can be a way to dismiss them, whereas self-applied labels are usually a way to concisely broadcast your views. SJW seems to be a label that a lot of people are applying to themselves, and that was the context I meant it in.
I would suggest that what you are probably seeing a lot of is boldness on the behalf of the opponents of "Feminism". They feel they have the status quo on their side, but they also feel the momentum of change (i.e. the moderates) is going against them. This gives them a boldness combined with desperation that makes their numbers seem larger than they are.
Puncturing rationalizations is all well and good, but a true extremist is immune to the logic (and lacks the empathy) required for that to be possible. What is needed is a deescalation from both sides, and I don't see how that can be accomplished. I think the best we can try to do is insulate the moderates from them, so they can go about effecting real change.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:36PM
Again, given that women work less hours, take more time off, have more scholarship opportunities, and many leave the workforce in their 20's-40's, those choices are entirely rational. Presented the same amount of experience given in years, males are overwhelmingly more likely to actually have more experience. Given the same amount of education, the male had to be far more motivated to achieve the same results. Women just get more help. They get more scholarships. They graduate college at far higher rates. They are not expected to be workaholics from 22 to the grave like males are.
It is unfortunate for women that are high achievers surely. It isn't fair to men either. The whole thing isn't fair, but it is reality all the same. Hiring managers choosing a male over a female with identical CVs is not only a rational decision, it is the ethical one as their salary and responsibility is to look out for an organization's best interests. Hiring a man gives a likelihood that he has worked more, solved many institutional problems in acquiring a degree that women do not have to face, and will be willing to work 50 hours a week 50+ weeks a year for the rest of his life in an effort to get ahead. The same female candidate is equally likely to not work more than the bare minimum required, will expect more benefits, more time off, will take time off for children, and will retire decades before the male candidate.
With these two choices, it is obvious who should be hired.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:05PM
Increasingly I am of the opinion that the vast majority of us rarely make decisions based on rational evidence. IMHO, mostly we make decisions based at a subconscious level, then rationalize them after the fact. Yes, I am becoming more cynical as I grow older. Or maybe I am just becoming more realistic?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:06AM
Perhaps in some cases people who make decisions do not think that a woman would be a fierce, fearless leader who can take risks, who can lead, and who is willing to work hard? But in other cases [wikipedia.org] women successfully climb to the top rungs of the career ladder.
But, perhaps, other studies are right - women simply are not interested in technical stuff; they are more interested in life. Women and men see the world a bit differently. Not too many women are fascinated with math and electronics; but it's also true that not too many men are fascinated with sewing or knitting or poetry. I can guarantee that I'd hate to be a tailor, for example. (Consider yourself lucky - I don't see much of a difference between the finest suit and the finest burlap sack, as both serve the function.) I wouldn't want to work in HR either.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:21AM
I can guarantee that I'd hate to be a tailor, for example. (Consider yourself lucky - I don't see much of a difference between the finest suit and the finest burlap sack, as both serve the function.)
Ignoring the problem of drawing conclusions from a single self-selected sample, ask yourself why you'd hate to be a tailor. How did you come to that conclusion? Do you have superhuman awareness of all the influences in your life since the pre-consciousness of childhood? Do you remember all of the exposures you had to examples of women sewing? Did anyone ever encourage you to try your hand at it as a child the way mothers stereotypically have done for daughters?
Is black culture in America responsible for the higher crime rates and lower educational achievement in black communities? Could not the same forces of cultural reinforcement shape general preferences in any population?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mojo chan on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:50AM
women simply are not interested in technical stuff
I hear this argument a lot but there is never any evidence for it. There are endless studies showing how society biases each gender from an early age, and past success tells us that we can change that with a little effort.
More over this argument misses the most important, fundamental point. Some women do want to go into CS. A variety of factors put them off. Again, in the past we managed to reduce those factors and more women did CS. We know what the problem is and we know how to fix it, the only impediments are the people screaming reverse-discrimination because some money got earmarked for helping girls.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:08PM
I'd say they're likely saying "reverse-discrimination" because there is discrimination contrary to the popularly expected discrimination. Inequality is inequality. The only place you can make two things equal by adding inequality to one side is in math and people are not numbers. If you want equality, push for equality. When you add inequality you only make things worse and increase the level of hate.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:50PM
It's not discrimination to set up programmes that are for girls. It's correcting discrimination by providing an environment free from the problems that caused the discrimination, with the long term goal of the problem going away as more girls enter the field.
In any case, most of these programmes are not just for girls. They might be marketed towards them, but no-one is stopping a boy from participating. The Google xmas course was like that. While people were screaming blue in the face about how poor white boys were being barred from it and slapped down hard in favour of talentless, uninterested girls they didn't notice that anyone could take the course, no sign up or gender requirements at all.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:58PM
Read the definition of discrimination. If you exclude a class for any reason period you are discriminating. There are exactly zero reasons that make it okay to do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:50PM
This used to be the liberal position but sadly I'm seeing more people talk like the GP and claim they're actually doing good in the world when they're using the same logical trick that the racists and sexists used generations ago.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Tuesday February 03 2015, @10:20PM
If I buy a Valentine's present for my girlfriend, is that discriminating against all the people I didn't buy presents for or is it just me wanting to do something for a specific person?
While technically it fits the dictionary definition of the word, it isn't what most people understand as discrimination against people. The key word is "against". It's not a zero sum game, helping one person does not stop someone else from learning.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 03 2015, @10:34PM
Bloody stupid question. Of course it's discriminating but it's not the gender-based discrimination we're talking about.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Tuesday February 03 2015, @11:38PM
So how do you propose we fix it? Assume there is a problem for a moment.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 04 2015, @12:52AM
You're assuming there is something to fix based on raw statistics. Statistics tell you only what is, they tell you absolutely nothing of why. Since I've seen no real evidence of an especially misogynist or oppressive culture in the tech sector, and I've been in it for quite a long time, I'm not inclined to believe there is anything that needs fixing until shown said proof. So, what would I do? Absolutely nothing except remain vigilant to actual instances of discrimination.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:10PM
This issue was discussed more than once on the green site, and quite a few girls chimed in with this opinion. There is no good way to find the answer without, you know, asking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:22PM
What?!? Talk to the girrrlz?!? We're a bunch of computer nerds. Talking to girrlz isn't what we do around here, unless it is to ask them to show their girly bits on the webcam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @11:28AM
Then blame the hiring managers. THE MANAGEMENT!
Not the other male STEM workers, it's not their fault for existing is it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:23PM
> http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract [pnas.org] [pnas.org] -- higher ratings for male version of same resume among STEM scientists
Uuhhhuhuh. Like, you said pnas. Uhuh. Uhuhuhuhuhuhh. Cool.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:09PM
Scientific evidence posted to support the assertion of a systematic issue: Posted Above.
Scientific evidence cited in the article to support the assertion of no issue: Absolutely None.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:12AM
Tech subculture was the first and possibly is the only subculture that is truly a pure meritocracy.
This has not changed. The way the rest of the world sees us and wants to control us is what has changed.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fadrian on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:03AM
Huh? Meritocracy? I don't think so. Never was. Never will be.
Once a particular (usually relatively low) level of competency is surpassed, it has nothing to do with merit anymore. Merit is a myth we like to tell ourselves because we all overvalue a lot of things we are good at and dismiss those areas we aren't as less useful. In reality, managers' valuation metrics are so multidimensional and so far over the map and so subjective, you'd be better to call it what it is - an employment casino.
That is all.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:48AM
Culture is not employment. Living to work is not living at all. Not understanding the difference is a sign of lacking in merit, as such it is not surprising that the difference is confusing to you.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:37PM
Huh? Meritocracy? I don't think so. Never was. Never will be.
First time I saw the word meritocracy was in a description of the early days of the MIT AI lab. It was THE place on campus to get access to high-end computers, but if you didn't play nice and learn fast, the community would ostracize you. Because MIT was ~95% male (c.1970), the hackers were mostly male. Since then the definition seems to have been watered down.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mojo chan on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:54AM
Tech isn't a pure meritocracy. For example, one of the most effective ways to get more women in your organization is to network better with them. In a shop with mostly men when a new position opens up it often gets advertised to network contacts first via sites like LinkedIn. If most of the contacts are male too then there clearly are not going to be many female candidates applying. Some people say that because no women applied then no women are interested and throw up their hands, but actually all they need to do is make an effort to network with women and get the message out to them a bit better. Then they will have a bigger pool of candidates and can become a real meritocracy where the very best one gets the job, not just the best one out of the subset of people who are similar to the ones they already have.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:40PM
If that happened then it would be showing bias towards women, as more effort is being expended in networking with them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:28PM
Culture is not employment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:46PM
And nobody will know. UNLESS YOU TELL THEM.
You will be judged only by the quality of what you say and what you do.
And a lot of people REALLY hate that.
So used to special treatment they can't actually tolerate true equality.
So they tell you they're white/black/male/female/gay/straight/other trying to get that special treatment back.
Trying to give their message more weight.
And they get shot down and shit on so hard... It's almost comical.
So they need to lash out and blame SOMEONE.
And here we are.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Marand on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:10PM
Yes the internet was one of the first places ever where you can be black/blue/white/green/orange/gay/straight/male/female/other.
And nobody will know. UNLESS YOU TELL THEM.
You will be judged only by the quality of what you say and what you do.
That's something I thought was really awesome about the internet, especially in the 90s when IRC was big and things like Facebook hadn't shown up yet. Very little voice chat, video chat was all but nonexistent, nobody had to know your real name, and you weren't expected to have photographs or real email addresses attached to everything. The result was, especially on IRC, a medium where it truly didn't matter who you were; what mattered was what you said and how you said it.
Unfortunately, not everyone handled that well. Some people seem to base their identities entirely on a checklist of traits, and those types didn't handle that sort (pseudo) anonymous discussion well. When someone's entire personality is built around data points, they have to constantly bring those into every discussion just to have anything to talk about.
(You know the type. Everyone has to be told how they're a vegan, or bisexual, or that they haven't had a cable TV since 2000, etc. Without those data points, they can't even hold a conversation, so it comes up often.)
With the rise of things like Facebook and Twitter, though, we're constantly encouraged to put those data points out front. By removing some (or all) of the anonymity, the data-point personalities can proudly display their oh-so-special traits up front for all to see, and that's exactly what they do. They don't even have to oh-so-subtly bring it up in every conversation any more, because now they can just plaster their data points all over their tumblr or twitter pages for all to see.
There are still places where that old internet remains, where you can still get that same sort of anonymity, but they're the exception now, and even places that start out like that can eventually succumb to a deluge of "Look at me, I'm [data point]!" users.
The anonymity and lack of defined lines (no gender, no ethnicity, etc.) was one of the best things about the internet, IMO, and it makes me sad to see how eager some people are to drag all the shitty real-world baggage and problems into it. We had a medium where racism and sexism didn't exist, your religion didn't matter, etc., and it's all but gone because people couldn't separate the data points from their personality and leave the real-world baggage at the fucking door.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:48PM
You can still contribute by choosing anonymity. Many people will ignore you, ostracize your, or be outright hostile in response (see the signatures of some prominent soylent posters for examples). Still isn't that what we as highly intelligent, rational people have been putting up with our entire lives? That is why most of us are into technology to begin with. It was the only place left we could be ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Wednesday February 04 2015, @03:08AM
You can still contribute by choosing anonymity.
In a way, I already do, because I favour places like this, still use IRC, don't use Facebook/twitter/tumblr, etc. It's not specifically about 4chan-style anonymity, because I have no problems with pseudonyms and usernames, which still let you disassociate from the random traits and just be a person.
Many people will ignore you, ostracize your, or be outright hostile in response (see the signatures of some prominent soylent posters for examples)
That's something I disagree with, which is why I browse at 0, but I get why someone might do it. Some people don't take the occasional trolling and vitriol well, or don't have the patience to skip through the bad stuff. I think others feel compelled to respond to the trolls, which doesn't end well and can eat a lot of time they might not have. There's also the idea that the person you're responding to may never even see it, so it seems like a waste of time; I've seen that mentioned before.
I'm not bothered by the petty trolling, though, so I just ignore it and respond to the interesting comments regardless of whether the person wrote it while logged in or not. I figure if the person put effort into their comment, AC or not, they're probably going to check the tab again later and see if they got a reply. Even if they don't respond again, there's a good chance they (or someone else) will still read it.
Still isn't that what we as highly intelligent, rational people have been putting up with our entire lives? That is why most of us are into technology to begin with. It was the only place left we could be ourselves.
I don't think intelligence was the common factor so much as a sense of isolation. People I talked to went online because they had trouble finding people to relate to where they lived. Sometimes it was intelligence-related, other times it was just unusual hobbies or interests, and some people were just not good at social interaction. Going online increased the pool of people, making it more likely to find people to relate to, and the anonymity let people that were shy or uncomfortable got to act out a bit and learn to be more outgoing, even if only online.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:21PM
(Score: 2, Funny) by cybro on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:30AM
What shred of normality I had in the back of my mind attempted to prevent me from shitting this site up, but it just can't be helped. This article that I just can't help but put in front of you all and draw your attention to totally does that thing that those guys do, you know? It's all that stuff that is a thing that we're all on the same page about and share as a concern, right guys? I mean this rhetoric is like an open sesame command you just have to do what I want when I type these words.
You are my slaves. I am going to test you. If you will obey properly and make it all good like how I like it then I will be happy about that for awhile, scum. Also brogrammer redpillers are shitters, tell me how much you hate them, one of them just picked on me in real life and I need to be consoled by all you people that voluntarily come to this website in search of worthy news a.k.a my desperate slaves and personal army.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:32AM
When young, one has large horizons and wide perspectives over life; as one ages, this large horizon slowly reduces to a point. Well, call it one's Point of View.
I'm old enough. My point of view? The younger generations will sort it out... or they'll will not; I didn't contribute to this problem, I don't want to impose my solution.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:19PM
Young? You're sweet but we can't tip on here, yet.
My observations on the matter are that when you're young, you'll believe bloody stupid things. These may or may not be chased out by logic and reason as you age. Which is why as you age your views become more stable; they've already withstood quite a lot of the arguments that can be thrown at them, either through merit or bloody-minded stubbornness and denial.
Personally, I still want my views tested despite being well into middle-aged because I'm OCD about being right. If I'm wrong, I want to know about it and be able to correct it. If I'm right, I want verification.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:35PM
Don't forget the time, Buzz, don't you forget about it.
What is right/wrong at one time has an awful habit of not staying so as the time passes (and we aren't speaking here about science, but life choices or morals).
If you discard forever what was wrong at certain times, after a while you won't have anything.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 03 2015, @09:14PM
Yep, which is exactly why you gotta stay open to arguments you dislike. It may take decades for the right argument to come to your attention. Don't discount the idea, discount the arguments that fail and know why you're discounting them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 03 2015, @09:30PM
Oh, boy. So many occasions of making choices in life (most of them mistakes in spite of honest attempts to make them "right") that I don't feel that "closing the brain" to a certain discussion means closing one's brain for everything.
I guess I lack a degree of compulsiveness (or could it be the bad back hurting that keeps me from a more dedicated attention to what happens elsewhere?)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 03 2015, @10:39PM
Yeah, no need to let it keep you from making a decision. You gotta be willing to make decisions you could be wrong on or you'll never make any at all. Doesn't mean you quit listening or even that you refrain from telling someone they're a bloody moron, just that you could end up being wrong.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:01AM
The queue is low. Send in your scoops or else it will be more bullshit posts like this one.
(Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:22PM
And the multiple articles we've run from the contra viewpoint aren't bullshit? Guess we know how closed your mind is now and where your beliefs lie.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:41PM
And the multiple articles we've run from the contra viewpoint aren't bullshit? Guess we know how closed your mind is now and where your beliefs lie.
Those other articles don't devlolve into flamebait name calling before the summary is even over.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:01PM
Yes, they most certainly do. See the word misogynist.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:10AM
Bending over backwards, for women in tech? By cretins? Icky! My brain cells are already wasted by the bait and switch in this topic. I at least expected to see Sarah Palin nude. Or her caribou.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:15AM
Feminists and the Sexist Witch Hunt in Tech [townhall.com]
We've had this argument many times here and at the old site:
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:57AM
The problem lies in lack of interest in general. Women know what they want when it comes to their career lives. Science and technology don't top the list, for now.
That sounds suspiciously like what many people said 40 years ago when women compromised roughly 10% of doctors. They simply weren't interested in being doctors. Now the ratio is approaching 50/50 so what changed? Do you think society just naturally evolved without people pushing hard to dismantle societal prejudices?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:21AM
And yet even if the ratio is approaching 50/50, you might note that females choose different specialities than men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:39AM
Women like being around other women. Just like men like being around other men. So when there were zero female doctors, very few women wanted to be doctors. When the first feminists started working as doctors, to prove that they could, we went from zero to a few. That increased the number of women who wanted to be doctors (one other woman at work is better than zero).
As the number of female doctors increased, so did the number of women who didn't write off that career option because of lack of women.
A positive feedback cycle, nothing else.
Once (if) we get past seeing tech fields as nerdy, the same thing may well happen here.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:34PM
There are many negative sterio-types for men in tech, and a few positive ones.
I can only name one or two famous women in tech, but I only learned about them in my early 20s.
Well past the age to affect my preferences.
Women see the negatives first hand in school where these things imprint.
Most girls and boys don't want to be friends with the geeks, that trend follows, and in the future they look down on STEM as a possible career choice.
Solve this social problem in school first.
I don't know the correct way to approach this, however I believe this is where the "problem" starts.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by choose another one on Tuesday February 03 2015, @01:38PM
Whats changed where I am (YMMV) is that years ago junior doctors worked 120hrs a week minimum on call for several years, effectively had no life outside of work, and then had to dedicate themselves to climbing the career ladder to the point where the money made all that worth while.
Now, they are limited to 48hr weeks by the working time directive (with today's older consultants wondering how they will _ever_ see enough to be fully trained to replace them) and although the hours have more than halved the pay has not fallen... and there are more women.
Contrast with computing, back in the 60s there seem to have been plenty of women in computing (eg. just try google images for "1960s mainframe programmer"), and programming was mainly a 9-5 job. Then somewhere in the 80s or 90s programming turned into a job which refers to projects as "death marches", where you work all hours for no overtime, where agile teams "commit" to delivering features in a timeframe whatever happens and leaving work on time is letting the team down, and so on. Games programming in particular has become renowned for long hours and low pay, web N startups pay you in shares that might be worth something one day, or don't pay at all. All this is correlated with an absence of women.
My conclusion: women simply make smarter career choices.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:12PM
what happened is that ...
first the legal barriers disappeared
second lots of women decided that they where gonna become doctors, fuck anyone trying to stop them
third as more and more women became doctors expectations and stereotypes changed
step 2 and 3 are cultural problems not legal ones, you don't change them through reverse discrimination (that backfires) you change them by convincing enough women they should go out and trailblaze
(Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:08PM
That sounds suspiciously like what many people said 40 years ago when women compromised roughly 10% of doctors. They simply weren't interested in being doctors. Now the ratio is approaching 50/50 so what changed? Do you think society just naturally evolved without people pushing hard to dismantle societal prejudices?
There were several factors. For one, the age of female college graduates' first marriage increased by about 2.5 years in the 1970s. Whereas from the 1950s to the early 1970s women had tended to marry a little more than a year after graduation, by 1981 the median age of marriage for college-educated women was 25. So more time to pursue careers instead of families.
The female share of college students has expanded in all 17 member-nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in recent decades, so much so that women now outnumber men in college in almost all rich nations.
So we have more women in college, more going further in college, and more as doctors (and lawyers, etc.). About 60% of college graduates are female and 62% of professional and doctorate degrees go to females. So that explains a lot of it.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:57PM
About 60% of college graduates are female and 62% of professional and doctorate degrees go to females.
Lets unpack that line a bit. Imagine if it were still 60% male. We would hear endless sermons about how the colleges were male dominated bastions of the patriarchy in dire need of some Social Justice and 'Change' and the Feds would have em operating under a Consent Decree. Well as you note it is 60-40 the other way and the we hear endless sermons about how the colleges are male dominated bastions of the patriarchy in dire need of some Social Justice and 'Change' and the Feds essentially do have em operating under a Consent Decree. Because 60% is considered only a 'good start.'
It is at this point that thinking men begin to wonder just what their 'final solution' really is and don't like where the thinking leads, especially those inclined by their indoctrination to agree with the SJWs. And mothers of sons become concerned. Pendulums always swing too far the other way, until they encounter a counterforce. Time to push back now because it is going to take a fair effort over some number of years to slow this thing.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:21AM
A reliably consistent indicator of how women in technical fields are viewed by their male counterparts can be seen by checking out Slashdot, whenever an article that falls into that category appears. The three or four editors are pretty careful to avoid overt sexism, but the posters and moderators are a different matter. It's like a pack of brogrammers in there.
Here's one I remember because I submitted the summary (admittedly it wasn't a great effort). But check out the reaction. It was completely ungracious, and few were even interested in looking at what the girl did:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/05/11/177201/17-year-old-girl-wins-boston-tv-api-programming-contest [slashdot.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:43AM
All I'm seeing is general disinterest in this peace of news, a disagreement with the emphasis on the contestant being a girl, and some mandatory offtopic discussion about censorship. If there are genuinely sexist comments, they've been moderated into oblivion already.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:47AM
Why should anyone be gracious or be interested in what a 17 year-old girl did with an API? The majority of us, men and women, were doing more complex things before we were teenagers. The reason, the only reason why this was a news story was because the winner was a young woman.
Just imagine a news headline: 17 year old boy blocks tweets with an API!
Not so impressive now is it? Worse still, if you actually took the time to look into the subject with any depth, her app doesn't even work yet. "she'll release a version of Twivo that all users will be able to download. She expects to be finished in a few weeks." According to the LA Times. Finally, this was for best in show, not first place. She was pointed out by MotherJones as being the only female developer in the competition, which is not true but has been repeated many times, and emphasized "Jen is going to be the only chick in the room for a very long time, and my responsibility is to give her opportunities that I didn't have."
All for a 150 line plugin that doesn't even work as intended yet. This isn't misogyny. This is an intolerance for bullshit.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by VLM on Tuesday February 03 2015, @01:14PM
This isn't misogyny. This is an intolerance for bullshit.
I disagree with the former, although I agree with the latter.
Lets step away from "contentious" tech and talk about something most folks don't care much about, so its not distracting. I live in a hyper segregated city and the newspaper occasionally reports to their great shock that the black schools occasionally have semi-successful swim teams, heavily pushing the narrative that everyone knows blacks can't swim, and its some form of racial equality progress to be proud of to swim laps as fast as the fastest whites. They're not reporting news of a high school swim meet, they're intentionally as clickbait promoting the stereotype that black folk can't swim (which is statistically true, but whats relevant to the story is the stereotype and how its being applied for profit, not the facts). Naturally the comments are going to be pure BS because its not a propaganda story, its "lets talk about tired racial stereotypes" story. Its backhanded racism, pure and simple. It sells, unfortunately. Frankly I think the newspaper would be improved by blank paper rather than a paternalistic patronizing racist creed, and you can guess how the comments section reacts. Honestly the newspaper has done more to push advertise propagandize the idea of inherent black racial inferiority WRT swimming than the Klan or closet racists ever have.
Obviously its backhanded misogyny, when most of the story is pounding the propaganda into peoples heads that women can't code. Oh and also there was one woman once who was a wanna be coder and isn't she an isolated lone wolf weirdo who didn't really do anything impressive as an exception to the rule that (almost all) women know their place and it isn't coding, but ignore the (wo)man behind the curtain, and stick to the overall societal propaganda narrative that I'm pushing as clickbait. Now everyone reading the article repeat after the article author, "women can't code" (with a side dish of men are evil and all that). That's the message being pushed by that story. No surprise if the message is crap the comments will ... reflect the genre and style of the article.
Nobody wants to be "part of the cool crowd" more than teens, and teen girls, on average. Now why do you think a journalist would push so incredibly hard to portray a young woman who codes as some kind of scarlet letter wearer? Because that journalist is a feminist or is gender blind, or because journalists who push stories like that hate women who code (jealous?) and want all their women readers to know their place which in the opinion of the journalist isn't behind a keyboard?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:54AM
"Teenager writes an app". Nobody cares.
But this teenager is a woman, and everybody knows that women can't code, which makes this woman writing an app something special. Special enough to make a headline, even.
But on a certain tech site, still nobody cares.
I do see a misogynist viewpoint here. It's not those who view her as just another teenager writing an app. It's the people who think that this is worthy of a headline, simply because she's a woman - because "we" all know women can't write code.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:02PM
Or, as TFA stated it:
"People that truly view women as equal do not run around crying that women need special treatment."
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:47PM
I do see a misogynist viewpoint here. It's not those who view her as just another teenager writing an app. It's the people who think that this is worthy of a headline, simply because she's a woman - because "we" all know women can't write code.
Way back in the '80s, there was a new music called rap or hip-hop that white people in the US had a tough time with. There was a derogatory name for it that included the N-word.
Now, the question wasn't whether or not whites could perform this kind of music. Of course they could, there was no biological reason why they couldn't. The questions were more of whether they would want to, and then, whether they could do so in an interesting way.
Then the manager for Run DMZ, who turns out to be a pretty good businessman, decided the group should cover "Walk This Way", a rock hit from the '70s by Aerosmith. It was a smash crossover hit. Then the Beastie Boys came along.
I think where we are with white women coding in the US is roughly where we were in the mid-80s with rap music.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:55PM
Programming is going to get more violent, vitriolic, racist, with a handful of exceptions. Programmers will be murdering each other for cubicle-cred and covering up gang rapes of receptionists. The entire thing culminating in collapse and a loss of identity in 20 years where everyone is going to identify as a programmer but not actually have any talent or ability to program?
The end result seems plausible, but the turbulent times of the '90s r&b scene being mirrored in programming doesn't look like it will happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:05AM
Wait, who's the REAL sexist and misogynist here?
Yup. The exact same kind of arguments the forum posters are still making here [slashdot.org].
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:03AM
Of the non-logic based assumptions made when folks assign more value to the gender/ethnicity/politics/sexual orientation of a commenter than the ideas and arguments themselves.
I find it rather nauseating. It reminds me of a user's sig at that other (and much inferior) place that said something like "Windows is like the faint smell of piss on the subway. It's there and you can't do anything about it."
All this veiled (and not so veiled) bias against those with whom you disagree makes reasonable, rational discourse much more difficult. This goes way beyond SN or the Internet. It's one of the biggest issues we face (IMHO) in trying to address issues that affect *all* of us.
I suspect that my submission [soylentnews.org] which touches on this issue will not be accepted, since arguing *at* and demonizing each other promotes much more fire and zeal than being willing to accept a simple truth: While others may disagree with you, they aren't necessarily evil bastards out to destroy civilization. Most people disagree because they have different ideas about the world, based on their indoctrination^W schooling and life experience.
Sadly, it seems that agreeing to disagree, while attempting to have reasonable, rational discourse using actual, verifiable facts appears to be a dying art. There's a bit more of that here on SN than in most places but, as this thread shows, many are just unwilling to examine their own (I include myself in that as well, BTW) biases.
Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:33AM
Re substance: yay free speech. Love you submission, hope it gets accepted, very thought-provoking.
Re "that other (and much inferior) place": Slashdot isn't Voldemort. You can say its name. Slashdot also isn't Candlejack. You can
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:29AM
Re "that other (and much inferior) place": Slashdot isn't Voldemort. You can say its name. Slashdot also isn't Candlejack. You can
True enough. I never felt it was bad to refer to that place as /., slashdot, or 0x2f 0x2e. Regardless, given the negative experience I had during the last few months I spent over there, I try my best to forget.
So, it's not fear -- It's more loathing and I figure that if I don't mention it by name I'll be much happier. But I *can* do it. Slashdot. Slashdot. Slashdot. [hands shake] Okay, I need a drink or six now. :)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @01:35PM
True enough. ... Okay, I need a drink or six now. :)
-1, Failure to Follow the Jo
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:05AM
Sadly, it seems that agreeing to disagree, while attempting to have reasonable, rational discourse using actual, verifiable facts appears to be a dying art.
The problem is that what qualifies as facts is in dispute. One camp is basically all about scientism the other is not.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:39AM
Sadly, it seems that agreeing to disagree, while attempting to have reasonable, rational discourse using actual, verifiable facts appears to be a dying art.
The problem is that what qualifies as facts is in dispute. One camp is basically all about scientism the other is not.
That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. There are many folks I know who are feminists (I count myself as one, too by the way) who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag.
There are those who routinely use the term "feminazi" who suffer from the same problem.
There are people I know who are on the political (at least from a US perspective) left who have no use for facts, and I know folks on the political right who wouldn't know a fact if it came up and popped them one in the mouth.
Contrariwise, I know people of many different persuasions (political, social, sexual, ethnic, etc.) who have keen minds and know how to use them.
It seems to me that most folks *will* get annoyed when others assume they are either morons or evil proponents of their worst nightmares without even engaging on a substantive level.
I *try* to treat people with respect and listen to them, even if I don't agree. There is, in my experience, a great deal of common ground between most people.
That said, there are closed-minded jackasses of every stripe out there. With those folks, you'd have more luck trying to have a reasonable conversation with a feral cat. But most people are fairly reasonable if they believe that their ideas and points of view are valued, even if they aren't agreed with.
Make sense?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:34PM
Damn, I ran out of mod points farther up in the discussion. Best comment I've seen in ages.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 03 2015, @12:32PM
I actually expect it will be. We run most subs that aren't dupes or spam; at least that's been my observation. Mind you it may get held for when the queue is low and the Eds need to fill a time gap since it's not time-critical, breaking news.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:37AM
...she's one of those "don't call me a chick" chicks?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @01:38PM
How many times have I told you not to call "chicks" "broads"?
(Score: 1) by Hyperturtle on Monday February 16 2015, @03:48PM
"Broads don't belong in... Broadcasting"
When I think back on that, I imagine he takes off his sunglasses and looks straight into the camera, right before he pronounces the elipsis.
That movie was underrated. It was a delightful Supplies if there ever was one!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:52PM
Because you'd need to be conservative to have questions. You were already given your opinions if you were a liberal.
(Score: 3, Funny) by GeminiDomino on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:25PM
Clearly, we can't, since LaminatorX couldn't even keep the bias out of his goddamn addendum to TFS.
Maybe next time.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @12:13AM
Lets get real. ANY field will have more or less representation of various groups. Desire for universal equality is the sign of sick, deranged mind unable to deal with people as they are -- unique and different, in individuals and groups, not universal replaceable widgets.
The entire belief that only discrimination keeps women out of tech fields and computer programming in particular is as stupid as wondering why more rural White guys are not Rap Stars or why Black guys are not Country Stars or why the NBA and NASCAR draw different audiences. (Straight) men don't read Fifty Shades of Grey. Women don't read much military history. This is not a problem -- this is just human beings being diverse, many faceted, and not just some uniform property.
Just because all humans share a universal humanity does not mean they have the same talents, interests, desires, nor should they have uniformity.
I've been a programmer, project manager, and project architect for years. I have NEVER seen "brogrammer" stuff. Wally and Dilbert might not be sexy and dominant (you never see/hear women complain about "bros" in Rap Music, or the NBA, or any other domain of charismatic, dominant, Alpha Male types). But neither Wally nor Dilbert are the kind of guys who say, oppress women. Or keep them out. THAT is the near exclusive province of tribal Muslim rabbles in Pakistan, Rotherham England, or Parisian Banlieus. No one who looked or acted remotely like Wally or Dilbert shot Malala in the head for learning to read. And we never hear women complain about that.
Lets get clear -- the complaints about lack of women in technology is a smokescreen. The real issue is the lack of charisma and dominance among the Wally and Dilberts, given that real, awful, physical violence against women generates not a peep.
And if we are to be brutally honest, women are absent from technology because it changed from a 9-5 Corporate safe job at places like IBM where a woman could raise a family (women news flash like having kids and they preclude the dot-com startup hours) and changed to H1-B type poverty row wages and a few superstar winners. Losers mostly and a few major winners are anathema to women because they prefer safety to poverty and a roll of the dice to win the lottery. Having kids and all.
"Bro" behavior is mostly that of say, Muslim men who have a big problem with unveiled women (see Michelle Obama's reception in Saudi Arabia -- chilly they refused to acknowledge her presence). It is not a problem for the Wally and Dilberts of the world and it is akin to anti-Semitic blood libels to falsely accuse the vast majority of male tech workers with this blood libel. I'm tired of female hate for men who have the original sin of not being sexy. Sorry, we are too busy creating tomorrow to pose as Christian Grey.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Synonymous Homonym on Wednesday February 04 2015, @07:46AM
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-software [linuxjournal.com]
Unfortunately, our society has set girls up to be anything but technologists. My son is in elementary school. Last year, his school offered a robotics class for girls only. When my son asked why he couldn't join, it was explained to him that girls need special help to become interested in technology, and that if there are boys around, the girls will be too scared to try.
My son came home very confused. You see, he grew up with a mom who coded while she breastfed and brought him to his first LUG meeting at age seven weeks. The first time he saw a home-built robot, it was shown to him by a local hackerspace member, a woman who happens to administer one of the country's biggest supercomputers. Why was his school acting like girls were dumb?
Thanks so much, modern-day "feminism", for putting very unfeminist ideas in my son's head.