Countless other stories published in the past few years.
The problem is that blogging in recent years pushes the narrative of harassement, but is it really there ? So sure you can link a ton of stuff (and seriously, #metoo is the WORST example you could come up with, talk about a massive witch hunt), but is it just strawmans or actual harassement ?
There was a metric ton of articles in 2013 and again in 2015 recounting how poor Sarah Sharp was "abused" on the LKML. Then it ended up being that she was just being a drama queen and created the whole situation herself by being a combative jerk.
Articles that push the narrative offer little if any evidence the harassement is even occuring. Another great example ? Anything Anita Sarkeesian. Literally pick ANYTHING in her entire career. Including that time she cancelled a talk over "threats" that were deemed completely uncredible.
Or someone self-identifies (by supplying their first name, as you do in informal settings), and suddenly people start behaving differently (and not in a good way) because that first name contained the information that that someone is female.
Which one is more likely, you think?
Any proof this is actually happening, or is that just a strawman ?
Sarah Sharp ring any bells ? She tried to make things about her and her feelings, basically telling everyone else they were the problem, instead of realising that maybe she was the problem.
No one cared about her being "Sarah" and submitting code to the Kernel. People cared when she started making a fuss over the community being "toxic" and "unwelcoming to women".
The problem is not you, me, or any other guy that understands this and looks beyond wheter a developer is male or female; the problem are all those butt-hurt basement-dweller child-men that don't.
Except I have yet to see these "basement-dweller child-men". I see a whole lot of women trying to use their gender as a shield against criticism of their work though, and then calling their critics "Sexists" and "Mysoginists".
Are there men who still think women are simply incapable of coding ? I'd believe it if you showed me a mailing list or forum post.
Are these men an actual systemic or even individual problem at all ? I personally don't think so, and the fact it's always even hard to get any evidence of their existence reinforces that there isn't a need to have these "discussions" in the first place and that they are ultimately a huge waste of time to everyone involved.
Given, gender/sex is the vector by which it is put in effect, but stuff like this shouldn't even be discussed. Find the hotpotters, kick them out, no reimbursement, if they raise a stink, call the police and press charges.
Overreact much ?
This is exactly what the trolls want. Whatever happened to "Do not feed the Trolls".
Proof is necessary if she accuses someone in particular. A discussion of harassment in general is perfectly possible without making a court case out of it.
I'm not going to have a discussion about harassement that is not occuring. That's a waste of everyone's time.
People discuss tons of topics every day without having to offer proof for their assertions, I don't see why this topic has to be held to a different standard.
Call it the "Is this really an issue" standard. Yes, every topic is weighted against it.
By holding discussion of this topic to a different standard, you're trying to stifle the discussion.
Except we're not stiffling discussion by holding it to a different standard. We don't want to talk about things that simply do not happen, and thus require no tangible action or discussion.
Show us why it's a problem, and then we'll talk about it.
Are you really suggesting that the people who created these wifi networks are just worried about the Code of Conduct that didn't exist (it says so right in the summary)?
Are you really suggesting that the people who created these wifi networks were threatened by women contributing to open source ?
What a dumb question. I'm talking of the overall climate brought by "activists" in the general of OSS software, just as you were with your "Threatened" comment.
It's really sad how some guys feel so threatened by women wanting to write software
Except it's not that people are threatened by women wanting to write software. They are threatened by activists trying to shoehorn "equality of outcome", often using forced affirmative action type policies that completely go counter to the merit based systems we have.
If women want to write software, they are welcomed to do so.
If they want to talk about how OSS is unfriendly to them wanting to impose Codes of Conduct and forced equality of outcome on dev rosters, they are free to do so. But we're also free to tell them they are full of it.
Women aren't beyond criticism simply because they are women.
Yet you have no trouble calling her a liar without offering any evidence of your own.
Using your reasoning: because of Hans Reiser's murder conviction, any programmer who claims to be not guilty of murder is lying.
There was proof that Hans Reiser murdered is wife.
You know, what people keep asking for. Evidence. Proof.
That's the beauty of innocent until proven guilty. No one is guilty of murder unless you can prove that they are actually guilty of it.
Same for harassement. No one is guilty of harassement until we get proof of harassement. She might or might not be lying, that's besides the point. The point is harassement needs evidence of it existing.
So, when John Smith, Paul Jones, and Vincent Miller contribute to an open source project, it's no big deal; when Sarah Brown contributes, having a feminine name is "trying to get attention" and polarizing and political
You missed the point if that is what you got out of my post.
If vmiller@, pjones@, jsmith@ or sbrown@ all submit patches, the only important thing is the content of the patch. If sbrown@ also includes a rant about how *SHE* struggles to get patches accepted because "BROGRAMMERS HATE MY GENITALS", she's going to get push back and is just an attention seeker looking to deflect what is probably very bad code (and even if it isn't, she's being a drama queen and thus toxic to the project's community).
This would be the same if vmiller@, pjones@ or jsmith@ launched into a tirade about "MALE ALLIES NEED TO DO MORE". They would be treated the same : toxic elements just trying to stir up controversy.
Even when there's gendered drama, the Gender of the troll inciting it doesn't matter.
Not talking about a problem doesn't make it go away. And as this article, and many like it, show, a problem DOES exist.
My point is talking about it creates the problem in the first place. "Oh we have a problem because there's not 50% women on your OSS project". No we don't.
Want to submit a patch ? Go ahead. Want to submit a rant about how sexist our hetero-normative patriarchal developer roster is ? Go elsewhere, you're a troll.
Want to get a talk going about the struggles of women in OSS ? Hint : Talk about code instead. Women would do better in the coding arena if they spent their "Con" time discussing code and coding related solutions, instead of discussing how hard a time they have getting accepted. Hint : you're not getting accepted because you're not bringing the code to the table.
The only "whoops" is that it shows a gap in experience and skill of applicants of minority group, which means that they are getting jobs based on their minority status, rather than their actual experience/skillset.
This is actually a good proof that Affirmative Action is indeed bad overall and more proof that pure meritocracy (and thus equality of opportunity) is the stronger model.
Want to compete ? Do it on skills and experience, not on skin color and genitals.
Ridiculing the bad behavior works much better. I don't know how many women were at this conference, but I would spread the word around to the ladies that they were to connect only to the "Feminism Sucks" WiFi, and leave the Shut the Fuck Up wifi to the men. Put it in a few PowerPoints, and print out some notes to sit at the tables.
Bullies wither when under ridicule
Or you know, instead, join in on the fun. Make up your own WiFi SSIDs like "NoPatriarchyAllowed" and "ArmPitHairisGreat" and poke fun both at the concept of using SSIDs to discuss and poke fun at yourself, showing you're actually open to exchange.
You'll get more people on your side if you stop being combatitive and instead act as if you're "part of the group". The more you push back against people, even by trying to "ridicule them", the more push back you'll suffer yourself.
Where did you see the words 'all men' anywhere in the summary or article? You seem to be inventing a claim that was never made so you don't have to listen.
Wait, why does he have to listen in the first place ? He doesn't have to listen, and he doesn't need a reason to not care or listen.
Do all open source developers have the maturity of two year-olds?
What's wrong with a little immature fun once in a while ? If professional related functions were all drab and boring all the time, people would stop going. Hint : you can join in on the immature fun too. Or ignore it.
Remember the last person who took massive offensive at Dongles at PyCon. Don't be a square.
Or it's just like the commenters [slashdot.org] who see someone reporting harassment and immediately bleat "that can't possibly be true" based on a few examples of people making false claims.
Everyone and anyone can report harassement. If it's true, you'll have no issues producing evidence of it. And if you're being exposed as a massive fraud over something, people will have no qualms in assuming you're also lying about the harassement claim you're using to deflect from the valid criticism you're receiving.
...is to stop talking about gender and "gendered" issues as if they are not just created by this polarizing talk of gender all the time. Gender doesn't matter. Only code does. No one online knows you're a man, woman, brown, red, purple, with 1 leg or a missing eye until you bring it up.
Let's face it, "Women in Open Source" as a talk is like a magnet to anyone looking to troll you and just get a rise out of you. Same as bringing in any other physical carateristics you have. People just perceive it as you trying to get attention, and the people who are more apt at giving you attention won't give you the positive kind.
If you send a patch to a Open source projet with your e-mail being vthakker@something.com, no one can even tell if you're a man or woman unless you bring it up.
They're on those servers to return to the era when the game was played by people who's goal wasn't the collection of stuff and end-game play.
So basically, they want to play a game that never existed. WoW has always been about collection and end game play. "The game starts at max level" is something that's been a mantra since even the days of Vanilla.
Don't kid yourself. People who play on those servers just are to cheap for a monthly sub and just want to play for free.
Kids knew it. People in the industry knew it. Advertisers knew it but tried to hide it while using it. People like our parents and grandparents however, unfortunately, not only did not know it, but also literally can't believe the notion. The vast majority of the voting public in fact can't react maturely to this revelation. They will simply think the concept is too absurd to happen in real life. And that's why it worked.
I'm honestly more puzzled why Twitter/Facebook don't just cut out the middle man and do it Loot box style.
I am not sure why it is funny. But Trumps only policy is what seems to Trump up Trump. He isn't a conservative or liberal, he is Trump who just wants himself to look good. He will stick with the people who likes him and complements him, and will betray anyone who makes him seem less then he thinks he is.
This makes him easily manipulative. I have worked with personalities like this in the past, just as long as you weather the temper-tantrums, you can get the person to do whatever you want.
Your psychoanalysis of a man you've never met and don't actually know beyond a newspaper byline is interesting and all, but I don't see what it has to do with my comment about Ajit Pai.
> We are slowly moving towards acceptance. First it was "this never happened", then it was "the posts only reached a few hundred people", after that "no one was actually influenced by this stuff".
We're still firmly at the "this never happened" stage. The piece of extremely light on details. What kind of events ? What people were reached ? How many actual Americans ? What influence did it have ? All those same questions we had before this article, we have after. It's a CNN.com puff piece. CNN and MSNBC do more to influence Americans by pretending their stuff is news than a few "fake protests".
And frankly, you should know these protests were more likely to be promoting left wing and anti-Trump causes than pro-Trump ones. If the goal is to sow division in the United States, you attack core values of Americans : Freedom of speech, traditional family and capitalism.
The TrumpShutdown Hashtag got far more Tweets than SchumerSchutdown
They changed the Trending section LAST NIGHT. That was BEFORE the #trumpshutdown had more tweets than #Schumershutdown.
This is also in keeping with the fact that more Americans blame the Republicans than the Democrats for the shutdown
Let me guess, that poll is D+23 ? D+30 ?
but given that the Republicans control the House, the Senate
I guess you didn't take a Civics class to learn what is a Super majority. The Republicans DON'T control the Senate, which is why we're here.
Trump explicitly said repeatedly during the Obama administration that any shut down would be the President's fault
Because in 2013, in that case, it literally was. The Republicans at the time voted AGAINST the bill because it contained OBAMACARE financing. The contents of the actual CR was the issue that caused the shutdown, and it was all in order for sitting President at the time to pass his legislative agenda.
Yesterday's bill was different. It had none of Trump's agenda even in it. The Democrats even got a bone in the form of 6 years of CHIP financing.
#TrumpShutdown makes a fair bit of sense anyhow.
It doesn't because the Democrats did not vote against the contents of the bill. They voted because the bill didn't contain non-CR, non-related items, mostly Amnesty for a bunch of illegal aliens.
Maybe you should ask yourself why the Democrats voted against 6 years of CHIP funding and an open governement, to try and force Amnesty of some 3M illegal aliens. Seems mighty Anti-american to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you believe that the sexes should be treated equally, that women should have the same political, legal, social and economic rights as men?
Yes or no will do.
Yes
Do you believe that the sexes should have 50% equal representation in every political, legal, social, economic sector of activity ?
Yes or no answer will do.
Countless other stories published in the past few years.
The problem is that blogging in recent years pushes the narrative of harassement, but is it really there ? So sure you can link a ton of stuff (and seriously, #metoo is the WORST example you could come up with, talk about a massive witch hunt), but is it just strawmans or actual harassement ?
There was a metric ton of articles in 2013 and again in 2015 recounting how poor Sarah Sharp was "abused" on the LKML. Then it ended up being that she was just being a drama queen and created the whole situation herself by being a combative jerk.
Articles that push the narrative offer little if any evidence the harassement is even occuring. Another great example ? Anything Anita Sarkeesian. Literally pick ANYTHING in her entire career. Including that time she cancelled a talk over "threats" that were deemed completely uncredible.
Or someone self-identifies (by supplying their first name, as you do in informal settings), and suddenly people start behaving differently (and not in a good way) because that first name contained the information that that someone is female.
Which one is more likely, you think?
Any proof this is actually happening, or is that just a strawman ?
Sarah Sharp ring any bells ? She tried to make things about her and her feelings, basically telling everyone else they were the problem, instead of realising that maybe she was the problem.
No one cared about her being "Sarah" and submitting code to the Kernel. People cared when she started making a fuss over the community being "toxic" and "unwelcoming to women".
The problem is not you, me, or any other guy that understands this and looks beyond wheter a developer is male or female; the problem are all those butt-hurt basement-dweller child-men that don't.
Except I have yet to see these "basement-dweller child-men". I see a whole lot of women trying to use their gender as a shield against criticism of their work though, and then calling their critics "Sexists" and "Mysoginists".
Are there men who still think women are simply incapable of coding ? I'd believe it if you showed me a mailing list or forum post.
Are these men an actual systemic or even individual problem at all ? I personally don't think so, and the fact it's always even hard to get any evidence of their existence reinforces that there isn't a need to have these "discussions" in the first place and that they are ultimately a huge waste of time to everyone involved.
Given, gender/sex is the vector by which it is put in effect, but stuff like this shouldn't even be discussed. Find the hotpotters, kick them out, no reimbursement, if they raise a stink, call the police and press charges.
Overreact much ? This is exactly what the trolls want. Whatever happened to "Do not feed the Trolls".
Proof is necessary if she accuses someone in particular. A discussion of harassment in general is perfectly possible without making a court case out of it.
I'm not going to have a discussion about harassement that is not occuring. That's a waste of everyone's time.
People discuss tons of topics every day without having to offer proof for their assertions, I don't see why this topic has to be held to a different standard.
Call it the "Is this really an issue" standard. Yes, every topic is weighted against it.
By holding discussion of this topic to a different standard, you're trying to stifle the discussion.
Except we're not stiffling discussion by holding it to a different standard. We don't want to talk about things that simply do not happen, and thus require no tangible action or discussion.
Show us why it's a problem, and then we'll talk about it.
Are you really suggesting that the people who created these wifi networks are just worried about the Code of Conduct that didn't exist (it says so right in the summary)?
Are you really suggesting that the people who created these wifi networks were threatened by women contributing to open source ?
What a dumb question. I'm talking of the overall climate brought by "activists" in the general of OSS software, just as you were with your "Threatened" comment.
It's really sad how some guys feel so threatened by women wanting to write software
Except it's not that people are threatened by women wanting to write software. They are threatened by activists trying to shoehorn "equality of outcome", often using forced affirmative action type policies that completely go counter to the merit based systems we have.
If women want to write software, they are welcomed to do so.
If they want to talk about how OSS is unfriendly to them wanting to impose Codes of Conduct and forced equality of outcome on dev rosters, they are free to do so. But we're also free to tell them they are full of it.
Women aren't beyond criticism simply because they are women.
Yet you have no trouble calling her a liar without offering any evidence of your own.
Using your reasoning: because of Hans Reiser's murder conviction, any programmer who claims to be not guilty of murder is lying.
There was proof that Hans Reiser murdered is wife.
You know, what people keep asking for. Evidence. Proof.
That's the beauty of innocent until proven guilty. No one is guilty of murder unless you can prove that they are actually guilty of it.
Same for harassement. No one is guilty of harassement until we get proof of harassement. She might or might not be lying, that's besides the point. The point is harassement needs evidence of it existing.
So, when John Smith, Paul Jones, and Vincent Miller contribute to an open source project, it's no big deal; when Sarah Brown contributes, having a feminine name is "trying to get attention" and polarizing and political
You missed the point if that is what you got out of my post.
If vmiller@, pjones@, jsmith@ or sbrown@ all submit patches, the only important thing is the content of the patch. If sbrown@ also includes a rant about how *SHE* struggles to get patches accepted because "BROGRAMMERS HATE MY GENITALS", she's going to get push back and is just an attention seeker looking to deflect what is probably very bad code (and even if it isn't, she's being a drama queen and thus toxic to the project's community).
This would be the same if vmiller@, pjones@ or jsmith@ launched into a tirade about "MALE ALLIES NEED TO DO MORE". They would be treated the same : toxic elements just trying to stir up controversy.
Even when there's gendered drama, the Gender of the troll inciting it doesn't matter.
Not talking about a problem doesn't make it go away. And as this article, and many like it, show, a problem DOES exist.
My point is talking about it creates the problem in the first place. "Oh we have a problem because there's not 50% women on your OSS project". No we don't.
Want to submit a patch ? Go ahead. Want to submit a rant about how sexist our hetero-normative patriarchal developer roster is ? Go elsewhere, you're a troll.
Want to get a talk going about the struggles of women in OSS ? Hint : Talk about code instead. Women would do better in the coding arena if they spent their "Con" time discussing code and coding related solutions, instead of discussing how hard a time they have getting accepted. Hint : you're not getting accepted because you're not bringing the code to the table.
The only "whoops" is that it shows a gap in experience and skill of applicants of minority group, which means that they are getting jobs based on their minority status, rather than their actual experience/skillset.
This is actually a good proof that Affirmative Action is indeed bad overall and more proof that pure meritocracy (and thus equality of opportunity) is the stronger model.
Want to compete ? Do it on skills and experience, not on skin color and genitals.
Ridiculing the bad behavior works much better. I don't know how many women were at this conference, but I would spread the word around to the ladies that they were to connect only to the "Feminism Sucks" WiFi, and leave the Shut the Fuck Up wifi to the men. Put it in a few PowerPoints, and print out some notes to sit at the tables.
Bullies wither when under ridicule
Or you know, instead, join in on the fun. Make up your own WiFi SSIDs like "NoPatriarchyAllowed" and "ArmPitHairisGreat" and poke fun both at the concept of using SSIDs to discuss and poke fun at yourself, showing you're actually open to exchange.
You'll get more people on your side if you stop being combatitive and instead act as if you're "part of the group". The more you push back against people, even by trying to "ridicule them", the more push back you'll suffer yourself.
Where did you see the words 'all men' anywhere in the summary or article? You seem to be inventing a claim that was never made so you don't have to listen.
Wait, why does he have to listen in the first place ? He doesn't have to listen, and he doesn't need a reason to not care or listen.
Do all open source developers have the maturity of two year-olds?
What's wrong with a little immature fun once in a while ? If professional related functions were all drab and boring all the time, people would stop going. Hint : you can join in on the immature fun too. Or ignore it.
Remember the last person who took massive offensive at Dongles at PyCon. Don't be a square.
Or it's just like the commenters [slashdot.org] who see someone reporting harassment and immediately bleat "that can't possibly be true" based on a few examples of people making false claims.
Everyone and anyone can report harassement. If it's true, you'll have no issues producing evidence of it. And if you're being exposed as a massive fraud over something, people will have no qualms in assuming you're also lying about the harassement claim you're using to deflect from the valid criticism you're receiving.
...is to stop talking about gender and "gendered" issues as if they are not just created by this polarizing talk of gender all the time. Gender doesn't matter. Only code does. No one online knows you're a man, woman, brown, red, purple, with 1 leg or a missing eye until you bring it up.
Let's face it, "Women in Open Source" as a talk is like a magnet to anyone looking to troll you and just get a rise out of you. Same as bringing in any other physical carateristics you have. People just perceive it as you trying to get attention, and the people who are more apt at giving you attention won't give you the positive kind.
If you send a patch to a Open source projet with your e-mail being vthakker@something.com, no one can even tell if you're a man or woman unless you bring it up.
They're on those servers to return to the era when the game was played by people who's goal wasn't the collection of stuff and end-game play.
So basically, they want to play a game that never existed. WoW has always been about collection and end game play. "The game starts at max level" is something that's been a mantra since even the days of Vanilla.
Don't kid yourself. People who play on those servers just are to cheap for a monthly sub and just want to play for free.
Kids knew it. People in the industry knew it. Advertisers knew it but tried to hide it while using it. People like our parents and grandparents however, unfortunately, not only did not know it, but also literally can't believe the notion. The vast majority of the voting public in fact can't react maturely to this revelation. They will simply think the concept is too absurd to happen in real life. And that's why it worked.
I'm honestly more puzzled why Twitter/Facebook don't just cut out the middle man and do it Loot box style.
I am not sure why it is funny. But Trumps only policy is what seems to Trump up Trump. He isn't a conservative or liberal, he is Trump who just wants himself to look good. He will stick with the people who likes him and complements him, and will betray anyone who makes him seem less then he thinks he is.
This makes him easily manipulative. I have worked with personalities like this in the past, just as long as you weather the temper-tantrums, you can get the person to do whatever you want.
Your psychoanalysis of a man you've never met and don't actually know beyond a newspaper byline is interesting and all, but I don't see what it has to do with my comment about Ajit Pai.
Next up : You can buy Reddit upvotes and Facebook likes. Sky is blue, more at 11.
At least it's consistent with his usual positions of "Less governement".
> We are slowly moving towards acceptance. First it was "this never happened", then it was "the posts only reached a few hundred people", after that "no one was actually influenced by this stuff".
We're still firmly at the "this never happened" stage. The piece of extremely light on details. What kind of events ? What people were reached ? How many actual Americans ? What influence did it have ? All those same questions we had before this article, we have after. It's a CNN.com puff piece. CNN and MSNBC do more to influence Americans by pretending their stuff is news than a few "fake protests".
And frankly, you should know these protests were more likely to be promoting left wing and anti-Trump causes than pro-Trump ones. If the goal is to sow division in the United States, you attack core values of Americans : Freedom of speech, traditional family and capitalism.
Well, unfortunate, because there's a crushing amount of evidence.
Too bad you omitted to add any in your post.
But I guess I must be a Russian bot *beep* *boopski* *Comrade*.
The TrumpShutdown Hashtag got far more Tweets than SchumerSchutdown
They changed the Trending section LAST NIGHT. That was BEFORE the #trumpshutdown had more tweets than #Schumershutdown.
This is also in keeping with the fact that more Americans blame the Republicans than the Democrats for the shutdown
Let me guess, that poll is D+23 ? D+30 ?
but given that the Republicans control the House, the Senate
I guess you didn't take a Civics class to learn what is a Super majority. The Republicans DON'T control the Senate, which is why we're here.
Trump explicitly said repeatedly during the Obama administration that any shut down would be the President's fault
Because in 2013, in that case, it literally was. The Republicans at the time voted AGAINST the bill because it contained OBAMACARE financing. The contents of the actual CR was the issue that caused the shutdown, and it was all in order for sitting President at the time to pass his legislative agenda.
Yesterday's bill was different. It had none of Trump's agenda even in it. The Democrats even got a bone in the form of 6 years of CHIP financing.
#TrumpShutdown makes a fair bit of sense anyhow.
It doesn't because the Democrats did not vote against the contents of the bill. They voted because the bill didn't contain non-CR, non-related items, mostly Amnesty for a bunch of illegal aliens.
Maybe you should ask yourself why the Democrats voted against 6 years of CHIP funding and an open governement, to try and force Amnesty of some 3M illegal aliens. Seems mighty Anti-american to me.