The article you linked to does not support your assertion. She is talking about the past, when we know things were better because more women went into CS. The internet was a different place back then... She went on to IRC, where as these days it would be Google and StackExchange.
As she says in the article, girls today won't have her experience. Their parents have been warned about the internet, and while it's mostly nonsense we can't discount the experiences of people like Brianna Wu or Zoe Quinn, or the girl's own experiences when they want to play on XBOX Live etc. It's also interesting that even in her account the people on IRC assumed she was male.
I remember what it was like back then. People were nicer, there was more of a community feel to the net. The numbers confirm it - more women went into CS back then.
I agree that misogyny on the internet isn't some kind of apocalypse. It's a problem, sure, but the reasons why girls are not going into CS are deeper and more subtle.
What's happened is that nerd/tech/CS has become mainstream business, and the general sexism of business has taken it over. Take "Mad Men", add 40 years of technological development.
By trying to exclude the boys from the team, Google and the Democrats are telling the world that it is okay to discriminate against the boys
Discrimination is nothing new for the Democrats. When its not about color or sex, its about class. Always defining a divide. Always pitting groups against each other.
Meaning, "the Democrats refuse to let white Christian heterosexual English-speaking men who own some property run everything like God intended".
Whether you like it or not, discrimination against boys is discrimination
By trying to exclude the boys from the team, Google and the Democrats are telling the world that it is okay to discriminate against the boys
And while they're at it end the discrimination that keeps boys out of girls' rest rooms.
Why is it that folks who are against one type of discrimination are always in favor of the other?
News item last week: 10% of the population consumes 50% of the alcohol.
When you read the "police blotter" columns in the paper, you see what studies confirm; the folks who get into DUI crashes, as well as the folks who just get caught DUI, tend to have all sorts of pathologies; no license, no registration, no insurance, a history of alcohol and drug abuse, multiple arrests, often violence; as well as typically a blood alcohol level 2 or 3 times the legal limit.
It's hard to just treat the drunk driving aspect of this. They don't have a straight and narrow path to get back on.
"How about make bars (& liquor stores) responsible, period."
Because that's not how a free society works, period. No one if forcing me to buy or consume the hooch.
Yes, after all, all those commercials you watch since infancy showing people having more fun than you've ever had in your life because they drink ______ all tell you to "drink responsibly", whatever that means. They wouldn't run those commercials if they actually led to overconsumption of alcohol, under a free society that would be immoral.
Alcoholism will shorten your life considerably, and make what's left of it unpleasant. As with other addictions. If that doesn't convince people to avoid it, it's unlikely that adding a penalty will.
I think at this point in technology we could develop an instrument that could determine from your behavior behind the wheel (i.e. wandering around lanes, sudden swerves, unconsciousness, etc) your degree of inebriatedness. This would have the advantage of finding those who were actually risky for any reason, including medication or sleepiness or a stroke because it evaluated the actual behavior that needed evaluating.
Of course, nobody would want one of these because everybody reserves the right to drive around when they're incompetent to do so, if they "need to".
1) we have a society which views going to a bar and drinking as a normal experience, even as part of the daily trip home from work.
2) we have a society which views driving your car as the normal means of transportation, including to activities such as #1 above.
What could go wrong?
Those darn negroes. If they're not killing their unborn children for birth control, they're making trouble because their born children are being killed over misdemeanors. Just no pleasing them. You never see white people complaining that a cop shot their 12 year old for playing with a toy gun, now do you? I swear, sometimes I think we should have kidnapped and enslaved a better class of people. One which would be grateful for the opportunity.
Selling loose cigarettes clearly requires the death penalty. Making millions of dollars growing tobacco and/or manufacturing cigarettes, however, makes you southern royalty. Extra points if the family made the money with slave labor.
Here are some cases it should know how to deal with:
Between numbers (note that slashdot eats some of these characters; the numbers below all have different dashes or related symbols between "555" and "1000"):
"Pages 555–1000 discuss this matter" (this should be an internumeral dash, which is typically an en dash, U+2013).
"Her phone number is 5551000" (this should be a figure dash, U+2012).
"There were actually a lot more of them than the estimated 555—1000, to be precise" (this should be an em dash, U+2014).
"The teacher asked me to solve 5551000. I told him negative 455 was the answer." (this should be a minus sign, U+2212)
Between letters/words you have a similar problem: even if you know it shouldn't be a minus sign (which symbolic algebra makes tough to know for sure, but suppose you could surmount that), you generally have no idea what kind of dash or hyphen it should be turned into.
I say they're all - and I say to hell with them all.
The main lesson spanking and other punishments done on an interpersonal basis teaches, is that "it's you vs me, kid, and I have the advantage of size and strength". The kid learns to behave, when in your sight and within your reach. If you want the kid to learn the consequences of behavior, you need to convince him/her that those consequences occur even when you aren't around.
The only time that kind of direct interpersonal punishment is appropriate is when the behavior is actually interpersonally bad, like when the kid tries to hit you. You don't smack the kid back, necessarily, you can just pick him/her up and stick him wherever for a time out. Most healthy kids will attempt to assume dominance now and then; that's not the same thing as trying to do something despite knowing you don't want them to, and needs to be addressed as such. If the rest of your child rearing is going well, you're generally convincing the kid that you are wise and your advice is generally the best option, and to obey you because that's what works best in the world; this in your face stuff is where the "i'm your parent and that's that" is appropriate.
While she was in the kitchen? She couldn't keep the kid from climbing the gate, heading to the stove and planting his hands on the open oven door? That situation needs more to fix it than spanking the kid. And if spanking the kid would teach him to not plant his hands on the open oven door, then the minute she wasn't in the kitchen, what do you think the kid would do?
Spanking is useful sometimes, not as a punishment, but to break a kid's focus from some undesirable behavior; the childhood equivalent of that slapping the hysterical person thing. "Thanks, I needed that!". It's not spanking in the sense of painful punishment, it's as you say, a swat on the rear, not even painful but enough to get their attention. Not clear how it would have worked in this situation you describe. But if you were holding the kid, and he was actively struggling trying to get away and completely focused on planting his hands onto the oven door, then that's when a swat on the rear to break his focus would be appropriate, so you could reach his brain again.
It probably has more to do with torturing people, blowing up innocent women and children via drones, 100+ years of interference in other governments (including supporting drug smugglers, funding violent overthrow of democratically elected leaders, funding oppressive regimes, funding death squads), domestic police murdering people, and generally being a dick that sees no wrong with itself.
How many people do you know that actually do that? Small number right? How many people do you know that just go along with that and don't question anything? Large number right? That last group is the "everyone's a winner" crowd.
And all the people who neither do that, nor just go along with it, but in fact vociferously support it in comments columns and editorials and TV "news", vote for politicians who approve it, fight any attempt to prosecute it; that apparent 50% of the population are the "everyone's a winner" crowd? Not the "small government, lower taxes, Obama's a socialist" crowd?
I don't think the reason large portions of the world don't "like us" is because "everyone's a winner". It probably has more to do with torturing people, blowing up innocent women and children via drones, 100+ years of interference in other governments (including supporting drug smugglers, funding violent overthrow of democratically elected leaders, funding oppressive regimes, funding death squads), domestic police murdering people, and generally being a dick that sees no wrong with itself.
Now, stop whining or I'll give you something to cry about!
Don't know why so many people on slashdot are misunderstanding the gist of this article as sheltering or babying kids and instead are in favor of making kids suffer for the sake of suffering. Perhaps these are people who suffered so much as kids themselves and are defending this as a way to justify their own upbringing?
Because today's rightwing is all about bullying and hurting people. The government can't be trusted to regulate the environment, but they're to be trusted with the ability to lock you up and/or kill you. Sending foreign aid is a waste of money, conducting foreign wars is necessary. Sometimes prisoners need torturing, if they're innocent, bad luck. And, clearly, the authors of this piece are "liberals" and thus their point of view is just WRONG.
"In my country, we have saying: Your father, he may beat you; your father, he may rob you; your father, he may humiliate you..."
"Yes, and...?"
"That's it".
Exactly. Far too many children are coddled and protected far too much growing up. Kids need to learn that not every day is happy sunshine fun land while they're kids. Yeah, it's no fun being punished/disciplined for screwing up, or failing at something, but when you're a kid the stakes are low. I see far too many young people where I work (college) that are on their own for the first time and have never worked at anything in their whole life, never had someone not holding their hand and wiping their nose. What happens? They fall flat on their face and then howl that it's not fair.
Better to learn early how to struggle and persevere and succeed than to coast into failure later.
Kids today! When I was a kid, your parents would shoot at you just for fun! And we loved it!
I think what they really want are children who are so unruly that their parents can't control them, and they can't function in society. They make for perfect lemmings fully dependent on the government.
If you honestly think it's a government conspiracy then you are at least a little bit "broken, psychotic, or socially maladjusted".
It's an interesting theory. Since the folks running this thing are obviously "liberal", i.e. don't want to hurt people, even their own children, then they must be secretly plotting for socialist takeover; therefore, working backwards from this conclusion, the mechanism must be that rebellious people are more easily controlled by the government. On the other hand, if they were teaching the kids not to play with guns, then the mechanism would be that compliant people are more easily controlled by the government. Either way, Benghazi! That darn Obama, am I right?
Kids, and mammals in general, are capable of learning basic laws of nature on their own; such as the law of gravity, and what it feels like when you try to violate it. The trick in parenting is to convince the kid (or other mammal) that what you want to teach it is a law of nature, and not a law of you. Because kids (and mammals in general) will only obey your laws under threat of duress, and that engenders rebellion and resentment to a large or small degree, and not belief in the rule you are trying to teach them.
This requires you to be smarter than the kid (or other mammal), which is surprisingly rare even in the case of the other mammals. The people who spend half an hour chasing their kid or dog around while screaming "come here! come here right now!" and finally when they catch him/her/it, punish it, for instance. (See also the current national inability to understand that if police have a slight tendency to kill certain segments of the population when they apprehend them, members of that segment will attempt to avoid apprehension.)
Sometimes you have to pick your battles, obviously. It's better to ignore the kid running wildly than to try to capture him/her/it and demonstrate your inability to do so. So the being smarter than the kid requires you to have enough forethought to not get into that situation in the first place. You teach things gradually, at a pace where the kid will learn successfully and not get frustrated and doubt that it's possible to learn stuff, and don't give the kid anything they can't handle. That's how you create a kid with a good attitude and confidence and the ability to regulate behavior without building up resentment.
However, the other side of being smarter than the kid is knowing what is actually good for the kid; obviously raising a little psychopath is not good (although that may be more genetic than anything you do), but on the other hand it's not entirely clear that raising a kid who is so well behaved that you never have any difficulties as a parent results in a kid who is optimally equipped to compete in society.
Slashdot Mirror
The article you linked to does not support your assertion. She is talking about the past, when we know things were better because more women went into CS. The internet was a different place back then... She went on to IRC, where as these days it would be Google and StackExchange.
As she says in the article, girls today won't have her experience. Their parents have been warned about the internet, and while it's mostly nonsense we can't discount the experiences of people like Brianna Wu or Zoe Quinn, or the girl's own experiences when they want to play on XBOX Live etc. It's also interesting that even in her account the people on IRC assumed she was male.
I remember what it was like back then. People were nicer, there was more of a community feel to the net. The numbers confirm it - more women went into CS back then.
I agree that misogyny on the internet isn't some kind of apocalypse. It's a problem, sure, but the reasons why girls are not going into CS are deeper and more subtle.
What's happened is that nerd/tech/CS has become mainstream business, and the general sexism of business has taken it over. Take "Mad Men", add 40 years of technological development.
By trying to exclude the boys from the team, Google and the Democrats are telling the world that it is okay to discriminate against the boys
Discrimination is nothing new for the Democrats. When its not about color or sex, its about class. Always defining a divide. Always pitting groups against each other.
Meaning, "the Democrats refuse to let white Christian heterosexual English-speaking men who own some property run everything like God intended".
Whether you like it or not, discrimination against boys is discrimination
By trying to exclude the boys from the team, Google and the Democrats are telling the world that it is okay to discriminate against the boys
And while they're at it end the discrimination that keeps boys out of girls' rest rooms. Why is it that folks who are against one type of discrimination are always in favor of the other?
News item last week: 10% of the population consumes 50% of the alcohol.
When you read the "police blotter" columns in the paper, you see what studies confirm; the folks who get into DUI crashes, as well as the folks who just get caught DUI, tend to have all sorts of pathologies; no license, no registration, no insurance, a history of alcohol and drug abuse, multiple arrests, often violence; as well as typically a blood alcohol level 2 or 3 times the legal limit. It's hard to just treat the drunk driving aspect of this. They don't have a straight and narrow path to get back on.
"How about make bars (& liquor stores) responsible, period."
Because that's not how a free society works, period. No one if forcing me to buy or consume the hooch.
Yes, after all, all those commercials you watch since infancy showing people having more fun than you've ever had in your life because they drink ______ all tell you to "drink responsibly", whatever that means. They wouldn't run those commercials if they actually led to overconsumption of alcohol, under a free society that would be immoral.
Alcoholism will shorten your life considerably, and make what's left of it unpleasant. As with other addictions. If that doesn't convince people to avoid it, it's unlikely that adding a penalty will.
I think at this point in technology we could develop an instrument that could determine from your behavior behind the wheel (i.e. wandering around lanes, sudden swerves, unconsciousness, etc) your degree of inebriatedness. This would have the advantage of finding those who were actually risky for any reason, including medication or sleepiness or a stroke because it evaluated the actual behavior that needed evaluating. Of course, nobody would want one of these because everybody reserves the right to drive around when they're incompetent to do so, if they "need to".
1) we have a society which views going to a bar and drinking as a normal experience, even as part of the daily trip home from work.
2) we have a society which views driving your car as the normal means of transportation, including to activities such as #1 above.
What could go wrong?
The only benefit to this is for parents using school as a babysitter.
i.e. people who have jobs.
Homework is just the result of the school day being shorter than the kids' work day.
Those darn negroes. If they're not killing their unborn children for birth control, they're making trouble because their born children are being killed over misdemeanors. Just no pleasing them. You never see white people complaining that a cop shot their 12 year old for playing with a toy gun, now do you? I swear, sometimes I think we should have kidnapped and enslaved a better class of people. One which would be grateful for the opportunity.
Selling loose cigarettes clearly requires the death penalty. Making millions of dollars growing tobacco and/or manufacturing cigarettes, however, makes you southern royalty. Extra points if the family made the money with slave labor.
where's his stockholders? who's his CEO? what lobbyists does he hire?
Propose such a "simple" perl script.
Here are some cases it should know how to deal with:
Between numbers (note that slashdot eats some of these characters; the numbers below all have different dashes or related symbols between "555" and "1000"): "Pages 555–1000 discuss this matter" (this should be an internumeral dash, which is typically an en dash, U+2013). "Her phone number is 5551000" (this should be a figure dash, U+2012). "There were actually a lot more of them than the estimated 555—1000, to be precise" (this should be an em dash, U+2014). "The teacher asked me to solve 5551000. I told him negative 455 was the answer." (this should be a minus sign, U+2212)
Between letters/words you have a similar problem: even if you know it shouldn't be a minus sign (which symbolic algebra makes tough to know for sure, but suppose you could surmount that), you generally have no idea what kind of dash or hyphen it should be turned into.
I say they're all - and I say to hell with them all.
Let me see how well behaved said neuroscientist's kids are. If their kids act like total brats, then clearly their method doesn't work.
Of course, we've all seen how well children of religious authority figures behave, as well as cops' kids.
There is nothing hypocritical about ordered social hierarchies. I can't fire my boss, but my boss can fire me. It's a natural part of society.
Typically, your boss doesn't beat it into you, though. And in situations where that is the norm, there tend to be sudden instabilities.
The main lesson spanking and other punishments done on an interpersonal basis teaches, is that "it's you vs me, kid, and I have the advantage of size and strength". The kid learns to behave, when in your sight and within your reach. If you want the kid to learn the consequences of behavior, you need to convince him/her that those consequences occur even when you aren't around. The only time that kind of direct interpersonal punishment is appropriate is when the behavior is actually interpersonally bad, like when the kid tries to hit you. You don't smack the kid back, necessarily, you can just pick him/her up and stick him wherever for a time out. Most healthy kids will attempt to assume dominance now and then; that's not the same thing as trying to do something despite knowing you don't want them to, and needs to be addressed as such. If the rest of your child rearing is going well, you're generally convincing the kid that you are wise and your advice is generally the best option, and to obey you because that's what works best in the world; this in your face stuff is where the "i'm your parent and that's that" is appropriate.
While she was in the kitchen? She couldn't keep the kid from climbing the gate, heading to the stove and planting his hands on the open oven door? That situation needs more to fix it than spanking the kid. And if spanking the kid would teach him to not plant his hands on the open oven door, then the minute she wasn't in the kitchen, what do you think the kid would do? Spanking is useful sometimes, not as a punishment, but to break a kid's focus from some undesirable behavior; the childhood equivalent of that slapping the hysterical person thing. "Thanks, I needed that!". It's not spanking in the sense of painful punishment, it's as you say, a swat on the rear, not even painful but enough to get their attention. Not clear how it would have worked in this situation you describe. But if you were holding the kid, and he was actively struggling trying to get away and completely focused on planting his hands onto the oven door, then that's when a swat on the rear to break his focus would be appropriate, so you could reach his brain again.
It probably has more to do with torturing people, blowing up innocent women and children via drones, 100+ years of interference in other governments (including supporting drug smugglers, funding violent overthrow of democratically elected leaders, funding oppressive regimes, funding death squads), domestic police murdering people, and generally being a dick that sees no wrong with itself.
How many people do you know that actually do that? Small number right? How many people do you know that just go along with that and don't question anything? Large number right? That last group is the "everyone's a winner" crowd.
And all the people who neither do that, nor just go along with it, but in fact vociferously support it in comments columns and editorials and TV "news", vote for politicians who approve it, fight any attempt to prosecute it; that apparent 50% of the population are the "everyone's a winner" crowd? Not the "small government, lower taxes, Obama's a socialist" crowd?
I don't think the reason large portions of the world don't "like us" is because "everyone's a winner". It probably has more to do with torturing people, blowing up innocent women and children via drones, 100+ years of interference in other governments (including supporting drug smugglers, funding violent overthrow of democratically elected leaders, funding oppressive regimes, funding death squads), domestic police murdering people, and generally being a dick that sees no wrong with itself.
Now, stop whining or I'll give you something to cry about!
Why do you hate America? Terrorist!
Don't know why so many people on slashdot are misunderstanding the gist of this article as sheltering or babying kids and instead are in favor of making kids suffer for the sake of suffering. Perhaps these are people who suffered so much as kids themselves and are defending this as a way to justify their own upbringing?
Because today's rightwing is all about bullying and hurting people. The government can't be trusted to regulate the environment, but they're to be trusted with the ability to lock you up and/or kill you. Sending foreign aid is a waste of money, conducting foreign wars is necessary. Sometimes prisoners need torturing, if they're innocent, bad luck. And, clearly, the authors of this piece are "liberals" and thus their point of view is just WRONG.
"In my country, we have saying: Your father, he may beat you; your father, he may rob you; your father, he may humiliate you..." "Yes, and...?" "That's it".
Exactly. Far too many children are coddled and protected far too much growing up. Kids need to learn that not every day is happy sunshine fun land while they're kids. Yeah, it's no fun being punished/disciplined for screwing up, or failing at something, but when you're a kid the stakes are low. I see far too many young people where I work (college) that are on their own for the first time and have never worked at anything in their whole life, never had someone not holding their hand and wiping their nose. What happens? They fall flat on their face and then howl that it's not fair. Better to learn early how to struggle and persevere and succeed than to coast into failure later.
Kids today! When I was a kid, your parents would shoot at you just for fun! And we loved it!
I think what they really want are children who are so unruly that their parents can't control them, and they can't function in society. They make for perfect lemmings fully dependent on the government.
If you honestly think it's a government conspiracy then you are at least a little bit "broken, psychotic, or socially maladjusted".
It's an interesting theory. Since the folks running this thing are obviously "liberal", i.e. don't want to hurt people, even their own children, then they must be secretly plotting for socialist takeover; therefore, working backwards from this conclusion, the mechanism must be that rebellious people are more easily controlled by the government. On the other hand, if they were teaching the kids not to play with guns, then the mechanism would be that compliant people are more easily controlled by the government. Either way, Benghazi! That darn Obama, am I right?
Kids, and mammals in general, are capable of learning basic laws of nature on their own; such as the law of gravity, and what it feels like when you try to violate it. The trick in parenting is to convince the kid (or other mammal) that what you want to teach it is a law of nature, and not a law of you. Because kids (and mammals in general) will only obey your laws under threat of duress, and that engenders rebellion and resentment to a large or small degree, and not belief in the rule you are trying to teach them. This requires you to be smarter than the kid (or other mammal), which is surprisingly rare even in the case of the other mammals. The people who spend half an hour chasing their kid or dog around while screaming "come here! come here right now!" and finally when they catch him/her/it, punish it, for instance. (See also the current national inability to understand that if police have a slight tendency to kill certain segments of the population when they apprehend them, members of that segment will attempt to avoid apprehension.) Sometimes you have to pick your battles, obviously. It's better to ignore the kid running wildly than to try to capture him/her/it and demonstrate your inability to do so. So the being smarter than the kid requires you to have enough forethought to not get into that situation in the first place. You teach things gradually, at a pace where the kid will learn successfully and not get frustrated and doubt that it's possible to learn stuff, and don't give the kid anything they can't handle. That's how you create a kid with a good attitude and confidence and the ability to regulate behavior without building up resentment. However, the other side of being smarter than the kid is knowing what is actually good for the kid; obviously raising a little psychopath is not good (although that may be more genetic than anything you do), but on the other hand it's not entirely clear that raising a kid who is so well behaved that you never have any difficulties as a parent results in a kid who is optimally equipped to compete in society.