you can't honestly deny that it is at least presented in a clam and careful manner,
Oh, yes it is very well presented and calm (assuming typo) careful manner. Not going to deny that.
using examples and rational argument to make points
And this is the hilarity. Seriously, you have to be some conspiratorial nut to follow her rational. Sexists developers make sexist games make sexist gamers. Mind you with zero supporting evidence aside from cherry picking and opinion filled fluffy dialogue. Let's also not forget using "research" as in, trying to use scientific words to give credence to her opinion pieces. Her "research" doesn't pass any level scientific scrutiny or competence.
"players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality"
About Hitman, a sandbox game where you do't have to do any of that. In fact, the game punishes you for it. Sexual arousal connected to your choice of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality when you the player chooses to be abhorrent??? Is she upset you were given the choice but then "players are meant"? How in the blue fuck is that rational?
Honestly, all she deserves is snarky youtube videos. You don't need anything else to debunk her. That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. She cherry picks evidence or makes shit up. Either way her opinion is overrated Jack Thompson 2.0.
Thunderf00t does exactly the same thing, except he has a giant neck and not an attractive liberal female feminist. I have heard Anita's ideas debunked numerous times. I haven't seen TF's rebuttals to her debunked. All I see is character assassination attempts and ignoring the ideas he presents.
Thunderf00t probably could have done without the company page and I think it wasn't the best of moves but...
Perhaps you think it was all coincidental that her business just happened to get blasted the day Thunderf00t made his video?
Bad reading comprehension is bad.
I love how you say his followers "contact a business" as if they're just leaving friendly notes about the unethical actions of their vice president, by the way. They are pretty clearly seeking to lower the business's rating, not just make contact
Yes, just like her letters tried to get him jailed and/or fired. People, when anonymous are dicks; Do you need a lesson in the Eternal September? Perhaps you don't understand the language I was using or why I thought it was a stretch to call it "tacit endorsement".
Let me reiterate the points:
Thunderf00t probably could have done without the company page...I think that is a little bit of a stretch. He used what she gave publicly against her. Does this post tacitly endorse doxxing? I think not.... Would the outcome have been different if at the end of the video he said "Don't contact her or her business"? I don't think so.
According to one feminist (Steph Guthrie), he was justified. I think to everyone else: She made the bed she lay in. Thunderf00t probably could have done without the company page and I think it wasn't the best of moves but... If you don't like shit flung at you, don't fling it around to begin with. (and her 'come at me bro' wasn't in good taste either, remember these letters were sent in January, nothing would have happened if LW had just left it as is instead of prodding TF with rumors)
tacitly endorsed.
I think that is a little bit of a stretch. He used what she gave publicly against her. Does this post tacitly endorse doxxing? I think not. When you get to the realm of subtleties nothing is simple. Would the outcome have been different if at the end of the video he said "Don't contact her or her business"? I don't think so.
Thunderf00t was demonstrating, or performing a way to challenged Laughing Witch's IRL campaign. Thunderf00t couldn't control what people did. But he could model the type of engagement he wanted and hope to see if others followed.
His lead/model, was using Laughing Witch's own words against her and posting a video about it. Perhaps, others would find her leadership objectionable. What part of his lead "controlled" people to contact a business with an unethical Vice President?
Sarkeesian has a well developed argument based on careful research.
No, she has opinions that she makes up and cherry picks. Her quality of "research" is something an ideologue does. Do you actually think her "research" would come up with something other than a feminist narrative?
everyone who wants to participate has the opportunity to do so without having to put up with bullshit due to their gender/age/race/sexuality/etc.
Break out the champagne. For the most part that has been achieved. A few ass holes != industry standard. That doesn't even address the ability to avoid said ass holes by forking and starting your own committee around a project.
Small % of women in open source != less opportunity and more bullshit because gender.
Your so called "segregated software projects" are not segregated at all. There are no rules or laws that bar certain genitalia from committing code. But you want rules on genitals in places where genitalia doesn't matter.
Just curious, what is your end game, or victory condition? a 50/50 split? or more women than men? Is that victory in-achievable if there is an ass hole on the internet?
There is nothing stopping anyone from starting or contributing to an open source project and you know it. A code commit doesn't have your gender assigned to it.
In the EU we have food mountains. We don't actually need genetically modified foods to feed our people. Why don't you send some of that food to people who need it then? Or what about the environment and farmers?
not analogous to banning computers to control Microsoft
Yes, it is. You are blaming a technology because of a company. You even said in your own post.
real concern is with countries becoming indebted to undemocratic corporations like Monsanto.
That is not a problem of GMO.
It's really very little to do with GMO foods themselves. Monsanto are the assholes in all this.
See, you even said it yourself. Stop trying to ban/blame a technology because company is an asshole.
Why don't you make the same case with bandages, antibiotics, pesticides, fertilizers, construction equipment, medicines, doctors, clothes, shoes or anything that extends life? You know why, it all costs money. To your specific example, is there a precedent for the government taking a patent (that has not expired) from a private entity to release in the public domain? I have not heard of it. If you were a company doing GM RnD, why would you continue that investment if there were a strong possibility that the government would take your patent away and the profit you expected to pay back investors and continue other RnD efforts? If you have a better idea that would keep companies investing in that RnD (it is very expensive) for patent law while servicing more people, lets see it.
Monsanto does some crappy things(I think below in the thread talks about that more and better), but that doesn't undermine the utility of GM (the point of this thread). The utility of GM to stop people starving is there regardless of the actions of the entity that currently markets them. The real harm is the misinformation spread about GMO,
It is the failure to do something like this which makes people extremely suspicious.
It has more to do with FUD and you know it. GGGP made arbitrary lines in taxonomy to promote his political agenda because he doesn't understand species. GP misunderstood endogenous retroviruses and how much of our DNA is from "foreign" sources or how much DNA we share with other species not even closely related to us.
. If you want to talk about specific ecological effects, or copyright, or monopoly on agriculture then I am all ears. But to say "this potato plant with a specific jellyfish DNA sequence is bad" is just as dumb as saying a tangelo is not GMO. It is an arbitrary line that he created to suit his political compass.
What happens when a GMO is released into the wild is irreversible genetic pollution of non-modified organisms.
Your reading comprehension seems poor. Emphasis added.
Lets talk about what is on the table. On the one hand you have the ecological factor of pesticide producing plants and the pests that grow resistant to them. On the other hand you have limited pesticides to give to various populations. In one decision people are fed and in future generations of pests they might become more resistant to modern pesticides, but people do not starve to death. On the other hand, crop yields are halved because no good access to pesticides, people starve to death.
Which would you choose? Save thousands now for an unknown. Or risk the unknown and let thousands die? Before you make a decision starve yourself for 2 weeks and then tell me about your pompous opinion.
As if our DNA does not have the remnants of endogenous retroviruses
As for your reductio ad absurdum argument about the non-dangers of "foreign" DNA: how does such an argument stack up against "foreign DNA" when it's wrapped up inside "invasive species"?
Holy reading comprehension... What the fuck do you think an endogenous retrovirus is you twat? Where did I say "non-dangers"? No technology is prefect. But let's not forget that the same virus that causes aids could be used to cure leukemia. But who cares right? Fuck gene therapy because scary GMO.
You underestimate how many people starve to death, how many people have been fed because of modern advances to agriculture, how every technological advancement to agriculture resulted in a population boon, how many more people could be saved with GMO, and the amount help the environment could get from GMO.
If you actually provide scientific evidence for ecological damage or some kind of "consequence" then DO IT. Just remember your belly is full because GM has increased the food supply. That is a fact.
It's a mad world we live in. My wife and I avoid anything that is labeled non-GMO. We didn't realize how bad it was until we saw pink Himalayan rock salt was labeled as non-GMO.
He is making a line you can't cross in the taxological tree because reasons. Why can we manipulate the genes in species but not Kingdom? Oh, I know... God did it, right? That was the whole point of OP when he said: "It's a very hazy line there... is it just stuff made by Monsanto or *all* GM stuff, like... say just about *all* corn that's grown on the planet?" There are concerns with Monsanto, (see below in thread) that seem legitimate. But to label "ALL GM is bad" is proclaiming ignorance. Just like the GP misunderstanding what a species is.
"DNA that's totally foreign." What is foreign? When do you define DNA as foreign? How far up the taxological tree do you have go when it becomes foreign? how far back in evolutionary history do you have to go? How do you define that line in taxonomy? As if our DNA does not have the remnants of endogenous retroviruses, or the 60% of DNA we share with a banana plant.
The misinformed nature of his post is modded (as of now) +4 informative. It just shows you that the anti-GMO camp is mostly uninformed. If you want to talk about specific ecological effects, or copyright, or monopoly on agriculture then I am all ears. But to say "this potato plant with a specific jellyfish DNA sequence is bad" is just as dumb as saying a tangelo is not GMO. It is an arbitrary line that he created to suit his political compass.
It's only a thin line if you want to be a facetious ass and make it one...They're crops that have had their DNA altered with DNA from other species. Cross pollinating a grapefruit with a tangerine to make a tangelo is not GM...
Tangerines and grapefruit are the same species? Got it.
Tell me how is tangelo not a GMNO when it is the combination of DNA from 2 species and by your own definition makes it a GMO?
Perhaps, you should use the correct terminology before you express your outrage on something before contradicting yourself and appearing as an uninformed ass.
the point is, there is no additional barriers women face in IT. subtle social misgivings is not a barrier.
and the above post was before my morning coffee so I have no guarantee of readability of it. besides this thread has gone on for days on a tangent that may or may not be pertinent to the thread at hand.
There is equal opportunity. If I have that "validation" then women have it as well.
Subtle social pressure is not a loss of opportunity. Being in the same class room as a female does not create active barriers for that female to be successful at CS.
And you missed the part that even in countries that are more pro-women with more progressive policies to push women into stem than that of the US they still choose not to go into stem.
It's not about you, it's about numbers going from close to 50% to close to zero.
It's not about forcing women to do anything. It is about letting women decide what they want. They choose not IT.
You assume a lot like women will not choose fields they enjoy because if it is not 50/50 it is a systemic "push". I disagree.
I could care less what others think of the type of work I do or what others think of me. I enjoy my work and I do not need the validation of others to be successful at it.
instead of "more oppressive" substitute "just about everywhere else outside of the middle east"
I said: "oppressive regimes like China and Iran "... What part of China is in the middle east? Did I miss something?
I'm sure if you try hard you can come to some answers that you will believe instead of a kneejerk denial just because someone over 25 suggested it.
Kneejerk denial? No. I don't care how old you are TBH, I am over 25 and it has no bearing on the conversation. Or should I get off your lawn?
Your point is predicated on us fucking something up and women not choosing for themselves. I disagree. I have worked with plenty of women in IT that had no issue. I have seen other industry cultures that were 10x worse than IT by any measure and women do just fine. Why is IT so different? Why do they need special treatment? What did we do while staring at computer screens that was so terrible that women now need special treatment?
The sad part. You are the one who thinks that merely having a boy in a class room is a barrier to a girl.
At what point are you going to argue we segregate the work force because men can be a potential rapist to those poor women that need coddling and special treatment? The worst enemy of feminism is feminists.
Which is, as you already know, perfectly ridiculous. The instructors actions are irrelevant.
Not it is not ridiculous. The instructors actions are very relevant because they are the adult and moderators of the fucking classroom. If the other students had behaved inappropriately and the instructor did nothing, you would be outraged.
Did she suffer harassment?
Obviously. RTFA
The daughter said: " Everyone in the class was a boy and nobody was like me and now I hate computers even more.". That is not harassment by any measure stop making it out to be anything more than what it is.
You also missed the other daughter FTFA: "Alba’s daughter had a more straightforward experience making an app. "
Out of 2 girls. 1 had a straightforward experience 1 had a negative experience because she was different. Doesn't sound like extra barriers.
No where does it say she was harassed or "made" to feel unwelcome. She felt unwelcome because she was different, yet Alba's daughter did not. It doesn't matter if there is equal opportunity if ONE girl has a bad feeling therefore we must do anything to help her and coddle her... But if it is a boy, tough shit grow a pair. You don't even care if the other students felt the unwelcome. If they were able to get over why can't this girl do the same? You assume so much by making the argument "she felt uncomfortable therefore extra barriers".
. Let's say the other kids didn't ostracize or otherwise harass the girl, but she felt uncomfortable anyway because she was the only girl
Then case closed there is no extra barriers just like Alba's daughter. Get over it.
Well, that's a barrier, far worse than the one imposed by that girls classmates.
No where in the TFA did it say that the other classmates imposed anything on her. Stop saying that.
You want equal outcome and not equal opportunity. You have not demonstrated any extra barrier this girl faced. She had a bad feeling because she was different... So what? That is called life. Why should we change the rules because a minority of girls feel uncomfortable and need special treatment? That isn't a problem with CS, the camp, the other students, the teacher, her mother, or society. It is on her.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not soon enough!
roflmao! Thank you for that laugh.
you can't honestly deny that it is at least presented in a clam and careful manner,
Oh, yes it is very well presented and calm (assuming typo) careful manner. Not going to deny that.
using examples and rational argument to make points
And this is the hilarity. Seriously, you have to be some conspiratorial nut to follow her rational. Sexists developers make sexist games make sexist gamers. Mind you with zero supporting evidence aside from cherry picking and opinion filled fluffy dialogue. Let's also not forget using "research" as in, trying to use scientific words to give credence to her opinion pieces. Her "research" doesn't pass any level scientific scrutiny or competence.
"players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality"
About Hitman, a sandbox game where you do't have to do any of that. In fact, the game punishes you for it. Sexual arousal connected to your choice of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality when you the player chooses to be abhorrent??? Is she upset you were given the choice but then "players are meant"? How in the blue fuck is that rational?
Women are just trophies for sex because men saving them demand sex!
There are no strong female game characters!
Honestly, all she deserves is snarky youtube videos. You don't need anything else to debunk her. That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. She cherry picks evidence or makes shit up. Either way her opinion is overrated Jack Thompson 2.0.
Thunderf00t does exactly the same thing, except he has a giant neck and not an attractive liberal female feminist. I have heard Anita's ideas debunked numerous times. I haven't seen TF's rebuttals to her debunked. All I see is character assassination attempts and ignoring the ideas he presents.
Thunderf00t probably could have done without the company page and I think it wasn't the best of moves but...
Perhaps you think it was all coincidental that her business just happened to get blasted the day Thunderf00t made his video?
Bad reading comprehension is bad.
I love how you say his followers "contact a business" as if they're just leaving friendly notes about the unethical actions of their vice president, by the way. They are pretty clearly seeking to lower the business's rating, not just make contact
Yes, just like her letters tried to get him jailed and/or fired. People, when anonymous are dicks; Do you need a lesson in the Eternal September? Perhaps you don't understand the language I was using or why I thought it was a stretch to call it "tacit endorsement".
Let me reiterate the points:
Thunderf00t probably could have done without the company page ...I think that is a little bit of a stretch. He used what she gave publicly against her. Does this post tacitly endorse doxxing? I think not.... Would the outcome have been different if at the end of the video he said "Don't contact her or her business"? I don't think so.
Did you show the same outrage to Steph Guthrie?
According to one feminist (Steph Guthrie), he was justified. I think to everyone else: She made the bed she lay in. Thunderf00t probably could have done without the company page and I think it wasn't the best of moves but... If you don't like shit flung at you, don't fling it around to begin with. (and her 'come at me bro' wasn't in good taste either, remember these letters were sent in January, nothing would have happened if LW had just left it as is instead of prodding TF with rumors)
tacitly endorsed.
I think that is a little bit of a stretch. He used what she gave publicly against her. Does this post tacitly endorse doxxing? I think not. When you get to the realm of subtleties nothing is simple. Would the outcome have been different if at the end of the video he said "Don't contact her or her business"? I don't think so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Thunderf00t was demonstrating, or performing a way to challenged Laughing Witch's IRL campaign. Thunderf00t couldn't control what people did. But he could model the type of engagement he wanted and hope to see if others followed.
His lead/model, was using Laughing Witch's own words against her and posting a video about it. Perhaps, others would find her leadership objectionable. What part of his lead "controlled" people to contact a business with an unethical Vice President?
Sarkeesian has a well developed argument based on careful research.
No, she has opinions that she makes up and cherry picks. Her quality of "research" is something an ideologue does. Do you actually think her "research" would come up with something other than a feminist narrative?
Obligatory. If you go back far enough the land always belonged to someone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
everyone who wants to participate has the opportunity to do so without having to put up with bullshit due to their gender/age/race/sexuality/etc.
Break out the champagne. For the most part that has been achieved. A few ass holes != industry standard. That doesn't even address the ability to avoid said ass holes by forking and starting your own committee around a project.
Small % of women in open source != less opportunity and more bullshit because gender.
Your so called "segregated software projects" are not segregated at all. There are no rules or laws that bar certain genitalia from committing code. But you want rules on genitals in places where genitalia doesn't matter.
Just curious, what is your end game, or victory condition? a 50/50 split? or more women than men? Is that victory in-achievable if there is an ass hole on the internet?
I thought you wanted segregation?
There is nothing stopping anyone from starting or contributing to an open source project and you know it. A code commit doesn't have your gender assigned to it.
In the EU we have food mountains. We don't actually need genetically modified foods to feed our people.
Why don't you send some of that food to people who need it then? Or what about the environment and farmers?
not analogous to banning computers to control Microsoft
Yes, it is. You are blaming a technology because of a company. You even said in your own post.
real concern is with countries becoming indebted to undemocratic corporations like Monsanto.
That is not a problem of GMO.
It's really very little to do with GMO foods themselves. Monsanto are the assholes in all this.
See, you even said it yourself. Stop trying to ban/blame a technology because company is an asshole.
If this is not about starving people Why would people reject food during a famine?
Why don't you make the same case with bandages, antibiotics, pesticides, fertilizers, construction equipment, medicines, doctors, clothes, shoes or anything that extends life? You know why, it all costs money. To your specific example, is there a precedent for the government taking a patent (that has not expired) from a private entity to release in the public domain? I have not heard of it. If you were a company doing GM RnD, why would you continue that investment if there were a strong possibility that the government would take your patent away and the profit you expected to pay back investors and continue other RnD efforts? If you have a better idea that would keep companies investing in that RnD (it is very expensive) for patent law while servicing more people, lets see it.
Monsanto does some crappy things(I think below in the thread talks about that more and better), but that doesn't undermine the utility of GM (the point of this thread). The utility of GM to stop people starving is there regardless of the actions of the entity that currently markets them. The real harm is the misinformation spread about GMO,
It is the failure to do something like this which makes people extremely suspicious.
It has more to do with FUD and you know it. GGGP made arbitrary lines in taxonomy to promote his political agenda because he doesn't understand species. GP misunderstood endogenous retroviruses and how much of our DNA is from "foreign" sources or how much DNA we share with other species not even closely related to us.
While they are comfortable with full bellies spreading misinformation about GM, that crap influences governments all around the world to reject GMO all this despite the good they can do to the environment and farmers.
. If you want to talk about specific ecological effects, or copyright, or monopoly on agriculture then I am all ears. But to say "this potato plant with a specific jellyfish DNA sequence is bad" is just as dumb as saying a tangelo is not GMO. It is an arbitrary line that he created to suit his political compass.
What happens when a GMO is released into the wild is irreversible genetic pollution of non-modified organisms.
Your reading comprehension seems poor. Emphasis added.
Lets talk about what is on the table. On the one hand you have the ecological factor of pesticide producing plants and the pests that grow resistant to them. On the other hand you have limited pesticides to give to various populations. In one decision people are fed and in future generations of pests they might become more resistant to modern pesticides, but people do not starve to death. On the other hand, crop yields are halved because no good access to pesticides, people starve to death.
Which would you choose? Save thousands now for an unknown. Or risk the unknown and let thousands die? Before you make a decision starve yourself for 2 weeks and then tell me about your pompous opinion.
As if our DNA does not have the remnants of endogenous retroviruses
As for your reductio ad absurdum argument about the non-dangers of "foreign" DNA: how does such an argument stack up against "foreign DNA" when it's wrapped up inside "invasive species"?
Holy reading comprehension... What the fuck do you think an endogenous retrovirus is you twat? Where did I say "non-dangers"? No technology is prefect. But let's not forget that the same virus that causes aids could be used to cure leukemia. But who cares right? Fuck gene therapy because scary GMO.
You underestimate how many people starve to death, how many people have been fed because of modern advances to agriculture, how every technological advancement to agriculture resulted in a population boon, how many more people could be saved with GMO, and the amount help the environment could get from GMO.
If you actually provide scientific evidence for ecological damage or some kind of "consequence" then DO IT. Just remember your belly is full because GM has increased the food supply. That is a fact.
Cherry-picking or bad science. or you are just a conspiracy nutter.
I go with all of the above.
It's a mad world we live in. My wife and I avoid anything that is labeled non-GMO. We didn't realize how bad it was until we saw pink Himalayan rock salt was labeled as non-GMO.
His point doesn't address what the OP said.
He is making a line you can't cross in the taxological tree because reasons. Why can we manipulate the genes in species but not Kingdom? Oh, I know... God did it, right? That was the whole point of OP when he said: "It's a very hazy line there... is it just stuff made by Monsanto or *all* GM stuff, like... say just about *all* corn that's grown on the planet?" There are concerns with Monsanto, (see below in thread) that seem legitimate. But to label "ALL GM is bad" is proclaiming ignorance. Just like the GP misunderstanding what a species is.
"DNA that's totally foreign." What is foreign? When do you define DNA as foreign? How far up the taxological tree do you have go when it becomes foreign? how far back in evolutionary history do you have to go? How do you define that line in taxonomy? As if our DNA does not have the remnants of endogenous retroviruses, or the 60% of DNA we share with a banana plant.
The misinformed nature of his post is modded (as of now) +4 informative. It just shows you that the anti-GMO camp is mostly uninformed. If you want to talk about specific ecological effects, or copyright, or monopoly on agriculture then I am all ears. But to say "this potato plant with a specific jellyfish DNA sequence is bad" is just as dumb as saying a tangelo is not GMO. It is an arbitrary line that he created to suit his political compass.
It's only a thin line if you want to be a facetious ass and make it one...They're crops that have had their DNA altered with DNA from other species. Cross pollinating a grapefruit with a tangerine to make a tangelo is not GM...
Tangerines and grapefruit are the same species? Got it.
I guess we should update wikipedia: C. paradisi vs C. tangerina
Tell me how is tangelo not a GMNO when it is the combination of DNA from 2 species and by your own definition makes it a GMO?
Perhaps, you should use the correct terminology before you express your outrage on something before contradicting yourself and appearing as an uninformed ass.
Right, you are correcting me. When the topic has been lost. Congrats. Trollololololol.
if that is not the point then what is the point of segregation?
You don't like to give up do you?
the point is, there is no additional barriers women face in IT. subtle social misgivings is not a barrier.
and the above post was before my morning coffee so I have no guarantee of readability of it. besides this thread has gone on for days on a tangent that may or may not be pertinent to the thread at hand.
There is equal opportunity. If I have that "validation" then women have it as well.
Subtle social pressure is not a loss of opportunity. Being in the same class room as a female does not create active barriers for that female to be successful at CS.
You missed that there is a trend elsewhere.
And you missed the part that even in countries that are more pro-women with more progressive policies to push women into stem than that of the US they still choose not to go into stem.
It's not about you, it's about numbers going from close to 50% to close to zero.
It's not about forcing women to do anything. It is about letting women decide what they want. They choose not IT.
You assume a lot like women will not choose fields they enjoy because if it is not 50/50 it is a systemic "push". I disagree.
I could care less what others think of the type of work I do or what others think of me. I enjoy my work and I do not need the validation of others to be successful at it.
instead of "more oppressive" substitute "just about everywhere else outside of the middle east"
I said: "oppressive regimes like China and Iran "... What part of China is in the middle east? Did I miss something?
I'm sure if you try hard you can come to some answers that you will believe instead of a kneejerk denial just because someone over 25 suggested it.
Kneejerk denial? No. I don't care how old you are TBH, I am over 25 and it has no bearing on the conversation. Or should I get off your lawn?
Your point is predicated on us fucking something up and women not choosing for themselves. I disagree. I have worked with plenty of women in IT that had no issue. I have seen other industry cultures that were 10x worse than IT by any measure and women do just fine. Why is IT so different? Why do they need special treatment? What did we do while staring at computer screens that was so terrible that women now need special treatment?
The sad part. You are the one who thinks that merely having a boy in a class room is a barrier to a girl.
At what point are you going to argue we segregate the work force because men can be a potential rapist to those poor women that need coddling and special treatment? The worst enemy of feminism is feminists.
Which is, as you already know, perfectly ridiculous. The instructors actions are irrelevant.
Not it is not ridiculous. The instructors actions are very relevant because they are the adult and moderators of the fucking classroom. If the other students had behaved inappropriately and the instructor did nothing, you would be outraged.
Did she suffer harassment?
Obviously. RTFA
The daughter said: " Everyone in the class was a boy and nobody was like me and now I hate computers even more.". That is not harassment by any measure stop making it out to be anything more than what it is.
You also missed the other daughter FTFA: "Alba’s daughter had a more straightforward experience making an app. "
Out of 2 girls. 1 had a straightforward experience 1 had a negative experience because she was different. Doesn't sound like extra barriers.
No where does it say she was harassed or "made" to feel unwelcome. She felt unwelcome because she was different, yet Alba's daughter did not. It doesn't matter if there is equal opportunity if ONE girl has a bad feeling therefore we must do anything to help her and coddle her... But if it is a boy, tough shit grow a pair. You don't even care if the other students felt the unwelcome. If they were able to get over why can't this girl do the same? You assume so much by making the argument "she felt uncomfortable therefore extra barriers".
. Let's say the other kids didn't ostracize or otherwise harass the girl, but she felt uncomfortable anyway because she was the only girl
Then case closed there is no extra barriers just like Alba's daughter. Get over it.
Well, that's a barrier, far worse than the one imposed by that girls classmates.
No where in the TFA did it say that the other classmates imposed anything on her. Stop saying that.
You want equal outcome and not equal opportunity. You have not demonstrated any extra barrier this girl faced. She had a bad feeling because she was different... So what? That is called life. Why should we change the rules because a minority of girls feel uncomfortable and need special treatment? That isn't a problem with CS, the camp, the other students, the teacher, her mother, or society. It is on her.