Slashdot Mirror
A Plan On How To Stop Sexism In Science
StartsWithABang writes: If there's nothing else that science has to offer, it's this elegant notion: that anyone, anywhere, at anytime, can investigate and uncover the mysteries and workings of the Universe simply by asking it the right questions in the right ways, listening to its answers, and putting the pieces together for themselves. Anyone can do it. Only, for various and sundry reasons, not everyone gets to do it. Some people don't have the economic ability, some don't have the sustained drive or interest, and some simply can't cut the mustard. But some people — some really, really good people — are driven from their passions for a sad, simple and completely unnecessary fact: that they were treated in unacceptable ways that they refused to just accept. And in a great many cases, that unacceptable treatment came simply because of their gender. Sexism sometimes looks like what you expect, and sometimes not. Here's one opinion on what we can all do about it to create the world we really want: where science really is for everyone.
For gods sake, this again!
Don't let feminists in?
That feminism is still all about equality of opportunity, and acknowledge that it in fact about equality of outcome, regardless of merit or ability.
Fact of the matter is, most people cannot do science. Yes, that also means most women cannot. That means doing science is for almost nobody. Apparently, some people are pushing for the "skill" and "insight" requirement to be abolished for women. The quagmire that is "gender studies" shows nicely where that will lead.
Also, having been in science for quite a while, I have yet to find the first instance of sexism and none of several female colleagues had any examples for it happening "in science" either or for being held back when doing a PhD. Sure, they all had to do real work and overcome real obstacles, but not in any way different from what male PhD candidates have to do. This whole thing is a transparent move to acquire more power, not to fix any existing problem.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The problem is, nerds don't know what it's like being judged based on your interests, or how you look, or how you talk!
They are the most popular kids on campus, and always have been!
The other fact in this matter is that nerdy guys have always harshly judged women, but not the other way around. All women have ever had for nerdy men is love, and affection, and understanding. By contrast, nerdy guys have always been well known to be violent brutes to women. The phrase "white knight" refers to a nerdy guy who wants to kill all women (referring to the pale skin of a lovely woman, of course).
There is only one way to stop sexism in science. Nerds must be shamed, harshly and often.
Nerd must be shamed:
- for being male;
- for being white;
- for being cisgendered;
- for being american;
- for being educated;
- for being tech saavy;
- for playing video games;
- for playing tabletop games;
- for reading sci-fi;
- for being sighted;
- for having two hands;
- for not getting out enough;
- for getting out enough;
- for having parents;
- for not posting trigger warnings;
- for voting Republican;
- for voting Democrat;
- for voting;
- for not voting;
- etc
Nerds must be shamed for all these and more. Constantly. It is only by breaking the collective morale and free spirit of the Internet generation that we can hope to instill the true sense of camaraderie and globalism that the tech industry needs to grow and profit in the post-digital age. Positive change is only possible through negative reinforcement. You can lead a horse to water, but he must be beaten into drinking it.
Nerds will never become tolerant or accepting on their own. They cannot be saved, and their zealous adherence to outdated concepts of equality, meritocracy, and free speech are holding tech companies back. Shaming is best way of gentling this disgusting race of geeks who currently dominate tech. We must rip open their cozy-caves of childish solice, their fortresses of nerdy solitude, and all their conventions and creative workplaces, and there smear the disinfecting lights of inter-sectionalism, sexual politics, and identity politics all over their protesting bodies, minds, and souls until they have no more energy to resist. Only then will tech be finally free from rape culture.
Because your sarcasm detector needs recalibrating.
> Fact of the matter is, most people cannot do science.
Fact is, most people can do science. While few will have the tremendous insights of an Einstein, most people can observe, record, and _verify_ data, and especially note and report details that don't match the models they understand. That data gathering and verification, and that concern for data that does not fit the model, is a vital part of science that almost every human can participate in.
I would have thought the same too, not long ago. I don't think I've ever seen a woman being cat-called or made to feel uncomfortable by men simply because she's a woman. After all, I live in decent parts of Ontario.
Then a thread on Reddit asked women when they became aware that they were being seen/treated sexually. Most of them were 10-14 years old, and they were being verbally and physically harassed by much older men (sometimes 4-5 times older). Someone compiled the women's ages.
I asked my SO about it. She also grew up in a quiet, relatively safe Ontario town. She confirmed that the same thing happened to her starting around age 12. When she was working in a market, around age 15, middle-aged men would wait until she was walking with big trays of food (and therefore couldn't protect herself) and grope her breasts and ass. This was common, and none of the other people around would say or do anything to help.
So just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not happening. It usually happens specifically when the girls have no one around to stand up for them. Talk to some of the women around you, and get their stories. Maybe things have changed, but I thought they had already changed in the '70s and '80s and I was wrong.
Ah, the old 'we are abused, so we need someone below us in order to feel better!' argument.
That's not what they said. Not at all. What they said is more like a complaint about hypocrisy and double standards. "Why is this stuff only wrong when people like us do it, not when those who aren't like us, including the people who are complaining, do it to us?"
Nobody is out there writing 10 page think pieces on Medium about how we should not stare at overweight people with neck beards and man boobs because it might prevent them from coming out of their shells and pursuing their career in ballet.
Maybe I'll start listening to them when they get more consistent. For now, I just look at the SJW phenomenon as a bunch of privileged, spoiled brats looking for people to blame so that they can be victims and not at all responsible for the sorry condition of their own existence.
It's pretty obvious: They use the bottom 5% of all men to generalize and demand laws to reduce things like male violence and rape--for the other 95%.
They use the top 5% of men to generalize, campaign, and demand laws about reducing men's success--for the other 95%.
If you did that with the genders reversed, it'd be called sexist as hell.
There are strong men, there are weak men, and to assume that every man somehow knows how to negotiate, step up for himself, and get a wall street job is insane. At the same time these feminists are arguing that gender is a spectrum, except when it's "evil men who control everything." It's laughable.
There is a course in men's studies it is called HISTORY.
History is gender neutral. It talks about all things that happen whether women or men were involved. Women's studies specifically studies women in history. Men's studies doesn't exist because there would be outrage.
This is similar to racism. There is Black studies and there is Mexican studies, there is Islam studies, but if there was White studies, there would be outrage.
There are beauty pageants specifically for Blacks and for Latinos, and then there are beauty pageants that must allow everybody. If there was a beauty pageant that only allowed whites, there would be outrage. Same with awards shows.
Racism and feminism are big business. This is why the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson continue to promote and incite racism and racial divisionism in this country. If we could get past the "something bad happened to a black guy" and get it down to "something bad happened to a person", then we would be making real progress, but the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world would be out of business.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
And oddly enough, I see women as privileged.
Guess how well that plays with them?
Absolutely.
For goodness sake people. Grow a bit thicker skin and get on with life. Why would you let what someone says or how they act around you affect what YOU like to do or want to do? This world isn't about acceptance by everyone.
Sure, if someone is going out of their way to discriminate and keep you from employment or getting a job that's against the law.
But not playing nice with you is not the end of the world.
IN the real world, Mommy doesn't catch you when you fall and makes the boo-boo go away. Not everyone gets a trophy for just showing up. And no, not everyone is going to be nice to you and "friend" you on FB or whatever. There are idiots and jerks aplenty in this world, and you really don't have time in this short lifespan to waste effort on them...so, grow some thicker skin and learn to ignore someone that isn't nice or even taunting you. Move on and get things done.
This is nothing new....pretty much human behavior since the dawn of time.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yeah, that's called inertia. In a real meritocracy, there'd be no inertia
Your definition of meritocracy is useless, because that's impossible. Even in the most perfect possible meritocracy, information only travels so fast (speed of light?), so not everybody can dump the erstwhile leader at the same instant. And of course, in reality, it takes much much longer. You don't know that GM's cars have suddenly become worthless for 5 or 6 years, because that's when they start breaking down.
Similarly, you don't know that Japanese cars have dramatically increased in quality because it took 20 years for people to start noticing "Hey there are all these 20 year old Toyota driving around, looking old and boxy, but still running great.. what's up."
How do you think you can get around the fact that measuring quality takes time? How does that fit into your definition of meritocracy having "no inertia?"
If (as you might contend) unions were dragging down the American automakers
No, you misunderstood, I was saying that the (surviving) American car companies showed skill in managing unions and politics. Perhaps that is the meritocracy... not who makes better cars, but who can survive in a hostile world. It takes some kind of skill to get a bailout, which is why Lehman Brothers isn't around, Countrywide isn't around, but Citibank is, Goldman is, etc.
Business isn't all about making the best product, in other words. The guy who makes a great product but can't keep up with his taxes, or mismanages labor and has all his workers go on strike, can still fail. That doesn't violate the concept of meritocracy because those are integral skills in business.
You want to know how to really contribute to the problem? Tell women that their co-workers, who will be largely male, are a horrible bunch of sexists who will mistreat them based on their gender. If they don't quit right there, teach them that any action those men take is a "microaggression" directed at them as a result of their gender. Teach them that the appropriate response to these "microaggressions" is to be extremely upset and angry, possibly to file a complaint with management or HR. Tell them (and convince HR) that a man defending himself from such a complaint is itself sexism and oppression. This will ensure the women always believe they are being oppressed, that they always feel uncomfortable, and that their male co-workers will never feel comfortable with them and will be apprehensive if they are anywhere around.
Then, once you've done this, blame the toxic environment you've created on male sexism. It's a positive feedback loop.
The term "brogrammer" is kind of a shibboleth; if someone seriously talks about "brogramming" or the "brogramming culture", they're completely disconnected from reality. The whole "brogramming" thing was a hoax, an obvious joke based on the juxtaposition of the opposites of "nerds" and "bros". The press and blogs picked up on it as if it were real (it's still not clear which were in on the joke).
There's no "brogramming culture" where coders with popped collars drink Natty Bo and lift weights in one hand while pounding code in the other. There may be a few fake "brogrammers" out there in a life-imitates-art sort of way, and a few legitimate "bros" who are actually programmers, but "brogramming" was never a thing.