Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A 60 Minutes Story on Gender Equality Accidentally Proved the Persistence of Patriarchy (qz.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

Over at Quartz, Ephrat Livni reports that a 60 Minutes story about gender equality accidentally proved the persistence of patriarchy. Reader theodp shares the report: Good intentions are nice, but they aren't enough, the TV news show 60 Minutes recently proved. The show's producers apparently meant well when they decided to do a segment on women in technology and the gender gap, which aired on March 4. But they ended up punching women in the gut, as the founder and CEO of Girls Who Code, Reshma Saujani, puts it in her response to the segment. Ultimately, 60 Minutes featured a man, Code.org CEO Hadi Partovi. His [tech-backed] organization's mission is to expand access to computer science education in schools.

Women technologists like Saujani who were tapped to appear on the show about a year ago and worked with producers to provide research and interviews, ended up on the cutting room floor while Partovi spoke on their behalf. Here is the cruel irony: As a result, 60 Minutes' segment was accidentally exceptionally effective-it proved that women in tech really can't catch a break. [...] Ayah Bdeir, the founder of STEM learning toy company littleBits, also responded to the episode in a Medium post. She noted that she worked with 60 Minutes for a year, planning interviews, providing research, talking to the producers and reporters, telling her story and that of her organization, which is focused on closing the gender gap in technology. Yet producers wrote to her last August to say that the focus of the segment had shifted and that littleBits would no longer be central in the story. In an email, a producer explained to her, 'It's not that the important points you made in your interview are ignored in the story, or that you didn't make them very effectively, they're just made by others'.

82 of 529 comments (clear)

  1. Does this mean.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Orange man bad?

    1. Re: Does this mean.. by WCMI92 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am a white male heterosexual Catholic. This means I am not diversity.

      But wait a minute: Isn't diversity... EVERYONE?

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    2. Re: Does this mean.. by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is too bad, you see reports of inequality with different groups as an attack on the white male.
      There is a Them vs Us mentality that really isn't present.

      The problem is there was a culture of predefined gender roles, which our current economy doesn't support, which we as a culture need to adapt to.

      For some reason people find it difficult to see people who look differently them them as equals and be able to treat them as such.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Does this mean.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sad, there was a time decades ago where some of them at least tried to be professional reporters.

      Not true. 60 Minutes has never been professional journalism. From the beginning they relied on sensationalism, biased reporting, ambush interviews, editing of interviews to swap in different questions that what the interviewee actually answered, and fabricated evidence. They were doing fake news long ago.

      Plenty of examples here.

    4. Re: Does this mean.. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Diversity is Everyone, but to be accepting of diversity also means realizing people who are not in your classification are just as human as you are, with a same sets of problems and needs that you have. But realizing that there are often old laws and cultural norms, that makes it harder for such people to function, as well as you do.
      In America Catholics tend to be looked down on compared to the Protestant majority, however there are so many sects of Protestantism that makes Catholics the largest single sect of Christianity. Which explains how the problem with diversity, it is normally how we classify what group we are in at the current time.

      Back in elementary school we had K-4 in individual local schools, and 5-8 were in a unified (across the district schools).
      In K-4 there was this kid we weren't friends, (we weren't enemies either, we just didn't have any similarities) However when we moved to the fifth grade to a different school, where most of the classmates we never met before, for the first few weeks, we were friends because we were groups as the kids from that elementary school, because that was the biggest form of classification of the time. Later on other factors of our self classification kicked in and we have once again moved apart, as we were just too different.

      We also see a lot of this in the military and during war. In a middle of a war you are classified as a solder for your country as is the other people you are fighting along with. The fact that the other guy may have a different race, religion, sex, political stance... then you really doesn't matter, because during this time, you need each other.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re: Does this mean.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Note that the issue here is not diversity, it's that they were making a TV programme about women in tech and the issues they face, asked women to collaborate and help make the show, and it somehow ended as mostly one guy talking about it.

      The issue is not his gender or race or anything like that, it's not even the guy himself - it's that women made something about women, but instead of letting women talk about issues that directly affect them and that they are directly involved in resolving, they went with this guy. Why can't women speak for themselves about things they have first hand experience of?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re: Does this mean.. by Z80a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The mere act of reducing people into their races and genders end up hurting a lot of people, and that's what those reports, and the political actions created by them end doing.
      You should ALWAYS judge people by their individual lives, even if its more expensive.

    7. Re: Does this mean.. by malkavian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's exactly why I hate Identity Politics. It raises an "us v them" mentality, mandates that any slight, or any perceived wrong (such as being passed over for promotion) has to be because you're a member of group (x). It couldn't be anything other than that.
      Once you start looking through the world from that perspective, everything becomes about that. Despite the extremely high likelihood that you're wrong (occam's razor; the fewer assumptions you make, the more likely you are to have a correct assessment). Assuming (x)ism is one hell of an assumption to make.

    8. Re: Does this mean.. by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, in a program about women in tech, spending a year interviewing women for the program but then deciding "we don't need to put any of the women we interviewed on screen, we are only going to feature men saying that women are underrepresented" is, in fact, a solid statement in favor of the point "women are being ignored".

      If the program were about Catholic males, and they spent a year interviewing Catholic males but then only used footage of a Muslim woman explaining Catholic culture, you might object, too.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    9. Re: Does this mean.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What if the person they used in the segment to talk about the issue presented it better than some of the other people they interviewed to talk about it?

      There's all this assumption about gender and patriarchy - which could be true - but it's not the only explanation. Why are all the other explanations assumed not to be true?

    10. Re: Does this mean.. by colonslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > It is too bad, you see reports of inequality with different groups as an attack on the white male.
      These reports blame men, claiming, like this article, that certain differences are proof of a patriarchy. These reports don't usually talk about male vs. female suicide rates, or imprisonment rates, or the lack of male nurses or teachers, or the lack of female bricklayers or coal miners, or about men falling behind in higher education. That's why these reports are an attack on men - they are not about creating a better society, they just complain that women are behind men in a few cherry picked areas, and they blame men for this.

      I'm all for helping disadvantaged people, regardless of gender. Maybe that could be based on socioeconomic status?

      > For some reason people find it difficult to see people who look differently them them as equals and be able to treat them as such.
      That's exactly what articles like this are doing - feminists wanting women to be treated preferentially. All people should be treated as individuals. Group identity should be immaterial.

    11. Re: Does this mean.. by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a solid statement about them being ignored by THE NEWS MEDIA. It's a pretty blatant example of the media lying to you. Whatever agenda you wand to support beyond that is dubious.

      This is a great example of media bias, not a confirmation of the victim hood narrative.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    12. Re: Does this mean.. by UsuallyReasonable · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Oppressors". Because of their race and skin color. Yeah okay.

    13. Re: Does this mean.. by colonslash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because you bought into the identity politics. It's hard not to - it's pretty pervasive in our culture, and there's a lot of shaming for dissent.

    14. Re: Does this mean.. by UsuallyReasonable · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "White fragility" == reacting appropriately to being told you are a racist when you know you are not.

    15. Re: Does this mean.. by Z80a · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you even have to make a program about women, the situation is already hell.
      You can't fix gender discrimination with more gender discrimination.

    16. Re: Does this mean.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Color-blindness doesn't help solve the problem of systemic oppression though

      Can you give examples of "systemic oppression" in recent decades? Didn't think so.

      t denies the insidious influence of white supremacy, heteronormativity, cissexism, etc. For diversity to be truly meaningful, it needs to actually fight against the oppressors and not just be complacent.

      Well, as a gay man, I find that my "oppressors" these days are found in the progressive movement, the social justice movement, and the Democratic party.

    17. Re: Does this mean.. by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed people today in western majority-white countries are far less racist than other countries, it just happens to be more widely publicised because the media and/or authorities might actually do something about it.
      In many non white countries, racism simply happens and is part of daily life and you have no recourse against it whatsoever.
      It's also mostly white countries that have allowed mass immigration, and mostly white countries where immigrants can gain the same citizenship rights as those born locally.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    18. Re: Does this mean.. by sfcat · · Score: 2

      The issue is not his gender or race or anything like that, it's not even the guy himself - it's that women made something about women, but instead of letting women talk about issues that directly affect them and that they are directly involved in resolving, they went with this guy. Why can't women speak for themselves about things they have first hand experience of?

      But that's only 1 way to look at this. There are others. For instance, the producer of the piece said, "It's not that the important points you made in your interview are ignored in the story, or that you didn't make them very effectively, they're just made by others." You could take that to mean that the man (not all men, just the one in question) they put on perhaps was better at the job of leading this type of organization. Perhaps, these women that were cut from the piece were less effective communicators and got their position by virtue of their gender instead of their qualities and that's why the man's interview was used. That's just one other possible interpretation of this.

      Look, for the last 20 years, we have been trying to close this wage gap in tech. It was a two pronged approach: education and a quota system. The education was advertised greatly. But the quota system wasn't until a couple of years ago. Groups put pressure on large tech companies to show employee demographics and if they don't meet some unpublished standard, pressure is applied to change those demographics. How do you think we do that? Only 1 way to do that, a quota system which is what was put into place. And quota systems have only 1 predictable outcome, the protected groups get promoted and placed into jobs for which they are unqualified (in their defense companies do this anyway all the time...the Peter principle is a thing). Given this history, its not hard to see how some might think that this proves the exact opposite point that many here seem to think it does. Its a bit like survivor bias. If all the bomber planes come back with shot up tails do you want to reinforce the tails? Of course not, you want to reinforce everything but the tails. Your reaction to this smacks of this type of bias.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    19. Re: Does this mean.. by ciaran.mchale · · Score: 2

      It denies the insidious influence of white supremacy, heteronormativity, cissexism, etc. For diversity to be truly meaningful, it needs to actually fight against the oppressors and not just be complacent.

      It seems to me that most people think of different forms of prejudice (racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, ableism and so on) as being distinct problems. I have a different viewpoint, which is that different forms of prejudice are not really distinct problems in their own right, but rather are different symptoms of an underlying problem. I do not say that to dismiss any particular form of prejudice as being "not a problem". Rather, I say it for two reasons.

      First, racism against, say, African Americans probably different to racism against, say, Chinese people. Likewise, deaf people probably experience ableism prejudice differently to blind people, people in wheelchairs, or amputees. It is common for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals to have different experiences of sexuality-based prejudice. So if you tried to count all the different subgroups of people who experience prejudice in different ways, you would end up with thousands or perhaps millions of different kinds of prejudice. Occam's razor suggests that there can't really be that many distinct forms of prejudice. Hence, the many different forms of prejudice are likely to be different symptoms of a more "unifying" problem.

      Second, if you do any reading about psychological biases, you may well get the feeling that some psychological biases offer a (partial) explanation for prejudice. Confirmation bias is a prime example.

      If my intuition is right that most/all forms of prejudice springs from psychological biases, then I don't think it will ever be possible to eradicate prejudice entirely, because psychological biases appear to be fundamental to being human. However, if awareness of psychological biases were to be widely taught, then I think this would help to reduce the severity of multiple forms of prejudice because being aware of one's psychological biases could help to guard oneself against them.

    20. Re: Does this mean.. by Kartu · · Score: 2

      or about men falling behind in higher education

      In US, boys are behind at all stages. And for decades.

    21. Re: Does this mean.. by Kartu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ironic.

    22. Re: Does this mean.. by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      None of the people who visit this website were involved. No male Slashdot readers were consulted prior to the airing of 60 minutes. There is no conspiracy. Some woman thought she was going to be on TV but it didn't happen. If there was a male conspiracy, we would use our power to make you stop guilt tripping us when we just want to read about technology.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    23. Re: Does this mean.. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      There was no evidence given here that the male's presentation was better, the implication was that his was just one of several voices saying the same thing. They just trimmed and cut back on what they were showing, and it was a guy who was left as the primary presenter. The fault here lies with the producers not seeing the obvious problem with the optics.

    24. Re: Does this mean.. by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then why were women overpaid at Google, and why do so many Asian people do so well in technology?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    25. Re: Does this mean.. by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's only an "obvious problem with optics" if you assume that his gender matters. An inherently discriminatory assumption.

  2. Blame it on GitHub! by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Funny

    This male dominated industry never ceases to amaze me with their constant "pull requests".

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:Blame it on GitHub! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      This male dominated industry never ceases to amaze me with their constant "pull requests".

      But... it was just my finger!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Blame it on GitHub! by thomn8r · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually you need to push and merge for 20 minutes or so, and then the pull request

  3. Closing gender gaps selectively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just wondering, wouldn't closing the gender gap on trashmen be as valuable? Or teachers, which at least on my country are almost all women (and reasonably well paid). Oh, is that just chauvinism?

    1. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by green1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nurses are majority female, and there's no talk at all about encouraging more men to join that high paying profession.
      Paramedics are majority male (slim majority, not nearly the imbalance of nurses) and there's constant pressure to "fix" the situation.

      There's never pressure to get more women in to menial or low paying jobs, and there's never pressure to get more men in to any job. There's also no pressure to get more men to win custody battles, or to believe men who have been victims of domestic violence or sexual assault. There's also a gigantic funding difference in research to cure diseases that hit mainly women (i.e. breast cancer) vs those that hit mainly men (i.e. prostate cancer).

    2. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually over here, the predominance of female nurses and teachers is increasingly seen as a social problem (especially regarding teachers), and we recently had some discussion on effecting affirmative action in those professions in order to get more men to sign up.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by dmiller1984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are plenty of programs to try to get more men in nursing (and teaching). Here is just the first Google result I found, but you can find plenty more: https://dailynurse.com/recruit...

    4. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by GuB-42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Male nurses are highly sought after. Though I don't know what kind of incentive they have but if things stay the way they are now, a male nurse will never be without a job.

      Besides diversity, one reason is purely physical. Nursing can require physical strength. That's especially true in psychiatry, where patients are often uncooperative. A burly man will be better off than a small woman. Not only when it comes to resisting physical aggression but also because even madmen may think twice before attacking someone twice their size.

    5. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by Stonent1 · · Score: 3

      I find it interesting that most of the people behind the whole gender wage gap issue are people who are not in the industries they complain about. College professors that mostly exist in the qualitative realm, complaining on jobs that mostly exist in the quantitative realm. Such as sociology, or gender studies professors complaining about microbiology.

    6. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by malkavian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interestingly, under 30, the average pay of a woman is greater than the average pay of a male. This is left out of all the 'gap' stories, as it indicates exactly what the media don't want people perceiving; women aren't oppressed, they're actually doing rather better than average.

    7. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by Evtim · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ha, dream on....

      Did you hear about the particle physics conference dedicated to gender equality (what?!?) where one of the attendants showed clearly by bibliometric data that women in physics are taken into positions with half the credentials of the male candidates. So not only there is no glass roof, but women are promoted unfairly against more competent males.

      Few days later 1600 cunts, most of them men, singed a petition called "Particles for justice"(LOL!) where they condemned "the dehumanization of women" apparently exhibited by that guy. Yes, in fact this is dehumanization as you look at the SCIENTIFIC credentials of the candidates, both male and female. Perefecly fine for males, unacceptable and dehumanizing for females....So what's the alternative? Look at their horoscope?

      BTW, there is nothing worse than a woman who is a dick and man who is a cunt! To"quote the great philosopher Sir Bronn of the Blackwater, "There is no cure for being a cunt".

    8. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by dmiller1984 · · Score: 2

      There is

      Citation? Seriously, I dare you to campaign for it. I dare you. I bet you won't. Because if you do, you'll be labeled a "Mens rights activist", or MRA for short. And you'll have everybody attacking you for being a misogynist. Prove me wrong. I dare you. After all, if things are as you say, you have nothing to fear for campaigning for the courts to treat men and women equally in custody battles.

      First Google result: https://www.verywellfamily.com... There are plenty of men's-advocacy groups when it comes to custody battles.

    9. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by Gavrielkay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For most professions that are classically dominated by women, there is a more highly coveted position that's dominated by men. Men are pushed to become doctors rather than nurses. There are more male college professors than female. Men are pushed to be managers, foremen etc while women are allowed to be satisfied in support positions like secretaries and assistants.

      I think it would be great if people chose what profession they are most excited about and everyone else was happy for them. But it's stupid to pretend that the problem is that there aren't more female trash collectors.

    10. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I appreciate the sentiment because it's what you get in the news, but what you have is a laundry list of ignorance.

      Nurses are majority female, and there's no talk at all about encouraging more men to join that high paying profession.

      Some industries benefit from diversity more than others. For nursing that benefit doesn't exist which is why there's no real push for it. Also where do you live that makes nursing a "high paying professional"?

      You know where there is a problem? Teaching, and unlike the GP's assertion that is constantly at the forefront of principle's minds with male role models predominantly grabbed up by prestigious schools. Pretending like that no one cares about that gender gap is just ignorance.

      Paramedics are majority male (slim majority, not nearly the imbalance of nurses) and there's constant pressure to "fix" the situation.

      Ever wonder why? Here's a hint: The ideal paramedic team is 50:50. The female gender role is a benefit for the same reason female nurses are preferred. THe male gender role is a benefit as paramedics often have physically demanding components to their jobs.

       

      There's never pressure to get more women in to menial or low paying jobs

      There's never pressure to get anyone in low paying jobs. But again observer bias is strong with you. Women are well over represented in many low paying jobs, just take a moment to look at those which don't actually require physical manual labour.

      and there's never pressure to get more men in to any job.

      This is known in traditional English as horseshit, or bullshit in US English.

      There's also no pressure to get more men to win custody battles

      Worth comparing who is leaving whom before you get to claim there is a problem here.

      or to believe men who have been victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.

      That is observer bias since there is pressure in most countries to raise awareness of the issue of domestic violence and sexual assault against males. Hell they ran an a TV campaign about equality in domestic violence in Australia two years ago. Why not more? Well equality given how rare these cases happen against men.

      There's also a gigantic funding difference in research to cure diseases that hit mainly women (i.e. breast cancer) vs those that hit mainly men (i.e. prostate cancer).

      Indeed their is and so there should be given the survival the 5 year survival rate of prostate cancer in men is 100% and 10 year survival rate is 98%. The vast majority (>90%) of diagnosis are at this stage. Go to the doctor no need for major investment, just convince your fellow bros to go get a finger up the bum, and there's a good chance you'll be just fine.

      In the meantime breast cancer spreads quickly to neighboring lymph nodes which means it's very difficult to detect in a non-invasive stage. Got a lump? Good chance it's already to late. 5 year survival rate in the lymph nodes is at 85% and even less if spread to other parts of the body. Only a tad over half of cancers are detected while they are still confined to the breast and even in that case lopping off the tit doesn't give you that wonderful 100% 5 year survival rate enjoyed by men.

      And that's before you consider that the incident rate of breast cancer is roughly double that of prostate cancer too.

      But I'm sure the funding is all because no one likes men.

    11. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by green1 · · Score: 3

      Your ignorance is the problem. You think female nurses are more desirable than male nurses, got any proof for that? or is it just your way of discriminating against men?

      You also claim that domestic violence against men is taken seriously, yet near 100% of domestic violence shelters refuse to accept any men. So obviously that's being taken super seriously.

      You can rationalize your discrimination all you want. But it's still discrimination.

    12. Re:Closing gender gaps selectively by zugmeister · · Score: 2

      Affirmative action is usually about giving selection (hiring, admission, etc.) preference to a certain group.

      Yes, and that preference is usually based on group characteristics rather than, for instance, skill / ability to perform the job in question.

      The fittest individual in the pool should be selected regardless...

      So how is this second quoted statement in any way compatible with your first quoted statement?
      If you give "preference" based on group identity, how is this fair in an otherwise competence based assessment?
      Are you sure you've thought this through?

  4. I have a feeling there's more going on here... by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's be honest, this is about marketing. The interviewed people get named with their companies and their products, correct? How much do you want to bet someone just wanted to have their name front and center and paid a pretty penny for it?

    1. Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know 60 Minutes but from what I read it's a heavyweight long-form bit of journalism, meant to enlighten the viewer and maybe even push the discussion forward a bit by providing a forum to air views on the subject, as well as to investigate.

      So it's kinda sad that it's apparently failing so badly to do that. Society needs good journalism to inform and question and reveal, otherwise it's just partisans on soap boxes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here... by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

      60 Minutes has a long history of bad journalism. They've been busted doing shit like filming different interview questions than the ones the interviewee is answering. They dress it up to look like good journalism, but just like the rest of them they just make shit up.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here... by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The same reason my posts are often marked trolling at random. You have stalkers.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  5. I don't see how.... by aslagle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How does this prove "the patriarchy"? Doesn't it really prove that media organizations don't practice what they preach?

    1. Re:I don't see how.... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All it proves to me is that stories like this sell. Think we'd be discussing this if it was actually a story about women in IT?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:I don't see how.... by Cederic · · Score: 2, Troll

      It doesn't prove "the patriarchy". It doesn't even prove that media organisations are full of shit (which we knew).

      It merely proves that the precious darling bitterly complaining doesn't understand that media organisations are full of shit and that sometimes being a woman isn't enough to get special treatment.

      Sometimes.

    3. Re:I don't see how.... by asdfman2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a story about women's increasing presence in technology they cut all the interviews with women in favor for an interview with a man. It's like doing a documentary about wineries and having as your main interview the CEO of Coors.

      If the point of the piece is about how wineries are unfairly discriminated against in the alcohol industry, then a interview from a direct competitor supporting that point lends more gravitas to the argument.

      It's more a question of "I'm so oppressed, give me money" vs "the oppression is bad enough that even people who gain from it are speaking out" than it is some feminist conspiracy theory of patriarchy.

  6. FFS by Daralantan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is this doing on Slashdot? Is it literally because "Women technologists like Saujani who were tapped to appear on the show-"? I don't not care about issues like this.... It's just stupid that it's on "News for Nerds that Matters." (yes I'm aware more and more often we're getting stuff that doesn't really relate to that.... but FFS) How many people on Slashdot even watch 60 Minutes?

    1. Re:FFS by kackle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like "60 Minutes" and watch it every week. But when I saw the preview for this report, I turned it off. Most have had it up to "here" with such vacuous articles. I have never worked in a place where females weren't welcome. Despite that, I've only worked with 3 coding women over decades.

      Coding (insert other careers here) is often tedious or boring, let alone the fact that most of my exceptional coworkers had a propensity for it when they were young (like I did). I wouldn't blame girls/women if they would rather do something else with their time. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

  7. Well, technically... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    What this means is that whoever makes 60 minutes thought that a report about men in the business sells better than one about women in the business. Or rather that we get a LOT more air time and buzz around a story that is allegedly about women only to be totally about men...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Re:Oh damn by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    You're assuming he's telling the truth. What he probably should have said is "Of course you make good points. But if you make them, nobody gives a shit. If I have a man make them and you get cut, the stink this causes is more free advertising than this report could possibly generate any other way".

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Typical 60 Minutes by tomhath · · Score: 2

    60 Minutes is known for writing the story first, then going out and shooting some video to fill it out; they've been doing it that way for decades.

    It's pretty clear here that the women who were interviewed didn't provide the required sound bites - they probably complained about ongoing discrimination instead of happy talk about all the wonderful opportunities girls have today. 60 Minutes has always pushed their political agenda; it's pretty clear that they didn't want to admit that initiatives which were started over two years ago aren't working...

  10. Meh by fluffernutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Normally I'm all about the big bad corporation but quite frankly, it's possible that the material from the women just wasn't all that compelling or revolutionary enough to be in an hour long news show.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  11. SJW DOT by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MAKE IT STOP

    Slashdot reads like a left-wing propaganda site these days.

    Today's stories include "How you're stupid if you question any vaccine on any level, how using the scientific method to question any aspect of climate change makes you unscientific, ten reasons why you should kneel before Apple and Tim Cook, and the patriarchy - how it's still real, and despite proof that the legal system and the culture in general favor women you need to accept it's because you're the patriarchy, you're evil, and it's your fault for possessing a penis!"

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:SJW DOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is also no place for legitimate scientific discussion of the flat Earth model or evolution.

    2. Re:SJW DOT by Myrdos · · Score: 2

      I agree that this story is an opinion presented as fact, but as to the sciency parts of your post... science makes it possible to know things. Sometimes those things are very simple to discover, like whether pumping carbon into a volume of air will cause it to retain additional heat from sunlight travelling through it. Or whether vaccines cause autism. A simple study of kids with and without vaccines, with a tiny bit of statistical analysis is all that's needed. Very very simple things.

      And yet, a huge number of people disagree with these findings. It's a conspiracy by left-wing types pushing their hidden agendas, and they explain that if we reduce carbon emissions then left-wing types will benefit at the expense of right-wing types, because only left-wing types build hippy electric cars and renewable bullshit. And also the scientists make millions by fooling us in some way. And we'll lose jobs and life will suck and the other side will -win-. Also, vaccines fit in there somehow now.

      As an outside observer who could care less about the left vs right political struggle in the US, (I assume you're from the US?) I'm amazed at this mental thrashing about. Otherwise intelligent people are unable to see that, in spite of everything else, and all of the scandals and conspiracies and scientists making bad predictions, that adding carbon to air causes it to retain more heat from sunlight. And we are adding carbon to our air, and therefore... what? What will happen? This is not a trick question.

      All of the bickering over climate models and jobs and whatever else is just a distraction. It's irrelevant. It doesn't change the physics of very simple experiments like this one. Measuring the carbon in the athmosphere, also not that hard to do: https://commons.wikimedia.org/...

      But enough of this. I think we can both agree on one thing: Apple products are overpriced and overrated, and minor improvements to smartphones aren't real news.

    3. Re:SJW DOT by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's not reading it as a personal attack - he's telling you exactly what is happening. You are too blind to see how correct he is...

      How is laying out facts "responding to a personal attack"?

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:SJW DOT by Mab_Mass · · Score: 2

      he's telling you exactly what is happening.

      Sounds more like your biases line up perfectly with his.

      You are too blind to see how correct he is...

      Kettle, meet pot.

    5. Re:SJW DOT by LordAba · · Score: 2

      ....You do know the history of child custody, correct? Men used to be the primary caregiver until someone made arguments that women are the "natural" caregiver and it snowballed into what it is today. Didn't hear from women wanting an equal split then! So no, in a patriarchy men would still be given preferential treatment.

      Hell, using the same logic I can claim we live in a matriarchy. Men do the dirty jobs, men die in wars, men commit suicide more, men are more likely to live in the streets. Women gain preference in courts and women's issues are aired more than mens. The only reason why some men rise so high is because that's what is expected of them in a matriarchy (not to mention the only way to stand out in the female led dating pool).

    6. Re:SJW DOT by pecosdave · · Score: 2

      Liberal yes.

      Progressive/SJW no.

      Liberal has a proper definition and a soiled definition. Unfortunately so many prefer the soiled definition a new term - Libertarian - had to be invented.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  12. Re:Oh damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quite frankly this sounds as if the producer was too polite to say "you're bad at bringing points across".

    She's the CEO of an activist organization that focuses primarily on gender. What are the odds she's a rabid feminist who's just going to put people off and knows little about technology? Their website makes that pretty clear: gender activism first, coding maybe 3rd if we've got some stock photos left over.

  13. Gender gap? by TimMD909 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Problems with gender equality? You mean like how Google found it was underpaying men? Seems these days that the media is purposefully gas lighting us...

    1. Re:Gender gap? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's ironic how the people who complain the most about any effort to examine or quantify the gender wage gap, are also the first to demand it gets fixed when men are on the losing end.

      Can we at least agree that it's a good thing that feminists pushed for it to be examined, now that it is helping men at Google?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Gender gap? by LordAba · · Score: 2

      Isn't that a bit "cart before the horse" thinking? Maybe the reason Google was underpaying men was because they didn't want to bring down the shame mobs if it was found out that guys made more...

  14. Re:Females are treated a billion times better than by TimMD909 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been treated like shit my whole life... Every time I hear this Jewish bullshit propaganda, designed to make males and females hate each other to further the Jews' plans to exterminate all races except Jews...

    Maybe you're being treated like shit for being an resentful, antisemitic person? It's pretty damn hard to like someone like you who hates another simply for the circumstances of his/her birth.

  15. It all depends on what you measure by chrism238 · · Score: 2

    ...and the number of minutes on television or column inches in the print media is not a valid metric.
    There's many articles demonstrating that if we include health sciences in STEM, that the tables are turned:
    http://www.aei.org/publication...

  16. 0% "proof" of anything by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's ironic but not "proof of" patriarchy. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a redundant interview in a documentary piece is just a redundant interview. If there were five women and five men interviewed, and their inclusion were chosen by coin toss, with a man-heavy lopsided result, would that "prove" the patriarchy of coins? Of statistics?

    This is not by any stretch of the imagination an article about tech. Please keep Slashdot on-topic.

  17. Re:Hypocrisy of the Media by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it doesn't prove anything

    The story only proves that the writers used strong, loaded language. Even the headline "accidentally" is loaded meaning ignorance, "proved" is loaded as an absolute.

    The article is filled with loaded, emotional, and biased terms: "punching women in the gut", "the cruel irony", "proved that women in tech can't catch a break", "tried to rationalize", "accidentally exceptionally effective", and more.

    This bit of writing in the story is a real gem: But ultimately Bdeir felt that she could not explain away the show’s mistake, or blame herself, or her organization’s size, or the fact that English isn’t her first language. She could not ... wait, what? How do you parse that thing? She could not blame herself? She could not explain away how she blames herself? She couldn't explain that English isn't her first language? Everything after the first "or" turns the writing into nonsense.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  18. Re:Oh damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not 60 Minutes, but I've done extensive work with NPR producing programs. Generally the reason someone ends up on cutting room floors (at least on radio) is that they sound bad. The tone or timber of their voice is grating, the pacing of their speech is off, their speech is loaded with ums and uhs, something like that. Not that I've worked in television, but I suspect the methodology is the same - an interviewee doesn't look photogenic, doesn't maintain eye contact with the camera or maintains a kind of psychopathic stare. At NPR we would often interview three or four people who said essentially the same thing, and picked the best one or two to air. The rest is dropped.

    And others have said this as well, but I suspect the real reason the CEO of Littlebits is upset is because she missed out on 3 or 4 minutes of free advertising (albeit with the 60 Minutes demographic, which I think is people over 60, so probably not her target audience anyway).

  19. Parsed: Explain, blame, blame, or blame by tepples · · Score: 2

    "But ultimately Bdeir felt that she could not explain away the showâ(TM)s mistake, or blame herself, or her organizationâ(TM)s size, or the fact that English isnâ(TM)t her first language." She could not ... wait, what?

    Wrapping each noun phrase in a variable:
    "she could not explain away A, or blame B, C, or D"
    Distributive law:
    "she could not explain away A, or blame B, or blame C, or blame D"

    Thus I parse it as Bdeir having felt that she could not do any of these:
    - explain away the show's mistake
    - blame herself
    - blame her organization's size
    - blame the fact that English isn't her first language

  20. Meanwhile, in the real world: by jbssm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men as It Addresses Wage Equity https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...

  21. It's lauded discrimination ..... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    "Gender equality" should be something encouraged by ensuring both genders have the same OPPORTUNITIES to better themselves. If you're trying to give one gender additional opportunities not given to the other one? That's about artificial (and discriminatory) manipulation of the outcome.

    No different, really, than situations like McDonalds recently announcing they're donating a large sum of money to help give black kids scholarships to colleges and universities. As a private business, McD can spend its money any way it wishes. But let's call it what it really is; discriminatory favoritism purposely given to a group that's perceived as needing more financial help to pay for higher education. If this was REALLY about promoting equality, the scholarships they fund wouldn't have one's skin color as a prerequisite. What about the poor white kid who lives in an inner city, who could excel in college if he/she was only given the opportunity? Clearly, McDonalds thinks it's more beneficial to ignore that kid because he/she is "too white" to make them look good.

  22. It doesn't, it's click bait by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a massive SJW backlash on the Internet right now. It's generating a ton of advert revenue. This is just more false controversy drummed up for clicks. Like the Captain Marvel/Rotten Tomatoes story. They're winding us up and sending us off to make money off our eyeballs.

    The same thing's been going on with the YouTube skeptic community. A bunch of skeptic channels I rather liked became 24/7 rants about SJWs and feminism because the anti-Homeopath and pro-vaccine stuff they were running wasn't paying the bills...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  23. Re: Hypocrisy of the Media by houghi · · Score: 2

    I don't get all Thai s. I learned long ago that the stronger gender the is actually the weaker ine because of the weaknes of the stronger gender for the weaker one.

    (This applies, no matter what gender is what. I like Apache helicopters)

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  24. They're just after clicks by rsilvergun · · Score: 3

    and you fell for it by clicking. The reason you're seeing so much SJW crap is that it gets clicks and comments. You got a +5, meaning at least 3 other folks looked at your comment and moderated it, meaning community engagement which in turn means more content generation for /. (which is the point of /.).

    Go find the /. thread about Captain Marvel. I complained about the same thing there. It hit 800+ comments. YouTube is awash in anti-SJW sentiment because those videos get clicks.

    If you want to make this stop start ignoring it. SJWs aren't like the White Supremacists. They're poorly organized and fight among themselves. They're mostly a few angry college chicks who grow out of it after graduation.

    Left alone the SJW crowd is mostly harmless. Yes, there are exceptions, there are exceptions to everything in this wide world, but the harm from obsessing over them is far, far greater. While you're focusing on this the wealthy are packing the courts with pro-corporate judges and doing things like forced arbitration, letting companies get away with putting lead in your air and water and stripping you of access to education and healthcare.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  25. Re:TFS is utter bullshit by lgw · · Score: 3

    Doesn't that mean the wage gap that exists is even more of an issue?

    Well, women who have the same seniority and work the same hours only make a little bit more than men, so the wage gap isn't too big of an issue right now.

    Or did you mean to suggest that women should be paid the same as men even if they choose to work fewer hours, or choose less demanding work? Sort of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" sort of thing?

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  26. Re:TFS is utter bullshit by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Businesses are out to make profit...
    If it were possible to pay women less than men but otherwise achieve the same standard of work, don't you think that all companies would be exclusively hiring women?

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  27. This tired, sexist bullshit by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

    "The patriarchy" as feminists mean it is trivial to prove or disprove. Just do the following: Perform a randomized cross-society poll. Ask these questions:in a random order: Is it ever acceptable for a man to hit a woman?
    Is it ever acceptable for a man to hit a woman?
    Would you like to contribute to the Women's March?
    Would you like to contribute to the Men's March?
    How do you feel about the recent murder of 500 girls in Afghanistan? Is that something Congress should act on immediately?
    How do you feel about the recent murder of 500 boys in Afghanistan? Is that something Congress should act on immediately?
    If The Patriarchy is real obviously people will choose to help and protect men at the expense of women. Tell the above to a feminist and she'll start talking about systems of power and oppression, but it's just more bullshit. Pin them down on one definition and the definition will change. Feminism is female supremacy and it needs to die.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  28. Your segment got cut. Sorry your grapes went sour by sabbede · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "Patriarchy"? I just looked it over - three interviewees plus kids. Two interviewees were women, one was the Code.org guy.

    The topic was "closing the gender gap", not "talking to women in tech". I see no reason to only interview women for the segment. Anybody engaged in bringing women into tech fields is a valid guest. Blaming some phantom power structure looks like little more than sour grapes.