Would you expect a kid, any kid, to do well in an environment where they're made to feel unwelcome and unwanted? It's supposed to be a fun activity, and this kid was excluded, bullied, and made to feel subhuman.
I guess I should have been clear and included what I said in other comments. If the behavior is deemed unacceptable by the instructor; the instructor should take disciplinary action. If that did not occur it seems to me that the "offending" behavior is blown out of proportion. Was she "made" to feel that way by the other kids or did she just feel that way because only girl? No instructor or teacher is going to let a student get harassed by others. It is the teachers job to ensure the learning environment for all pupils. If the teacher saw she was not enjoying herself why didn't the teacher do something to engage her further?
This happens all the time (not exclusive to gender, girls, and CS) but in this instance we want segregation!?!? Over reaction much? Why is it in this instance we say that girls need special treatment and coddling?
If the girl felt unwelcome because she was the only girl in the classroom and the other kids did nothing wrong? Then no, that is not a barrier.
When she's the only girl, and suffers from that harassment,
Again that second part is the important part. Did she suffer harassment? Was the instructor aware of this? Why didn't the instructor take action to stop the offending behavior?
The total number has been relatively the same. So that number is a small overall percentage.
Some time between 1985 and now we've fucked things up and a bit of repair makes sense.
You assume this. But this is happening in all western countries where women have freedom and choice and other progressive measures to promote women. But in more oppressive regimes like China and Iran women make up a larger percentage in CS. Why is that? Why do you assume we fucked things up when women have the freedom to choose and decide for themselves? There is nothing legally stopping them. They can choose any career path they want yet they don't choose CS. You say we fucked something up. I say women are using their independence and freedom.
there are extra barriers to entry because there are extra barriers to entry
Wow, bullet proof logic there
Yes, yes it is. Care to take a shot at it?
The homeless are homeless because they are homeless.
If you would like to list those barriers I am all ears. Claiming they exist because they exists and others say the exist does nothing. So far the only example I have is "feeling unwelcome" FTA. That isn't a barrier.
I stated, quit explicitly, that it is a likely explanation for your absurd behavior.
My absurd behavior of having an opinion online? Oh the humanity, it's so absurd! You have no idea how I behave. You know nothing about me except for an opinion I have.
Sorry, but the worst enemy of feminism today is feminists. Your absolutist explanations of my "absurd behavior" fail to account for anything beyond the rose colored glasses of ideology.
how many students graduate high school outside of the specified state-mandated kindergarten start date of their age cohort? Maybe a few percent at most? There may be some mixture of ages in higher grades, but mostly students are stuck in a group of students who are within one year of their age... regardless of intellectual level. Yes -- it's possible in most schools to move out of that system for particular students, but it is considered abnormal (and thus introduces excessive social problems often because it is considered so abnormal).
the ages is the simplest net to catch the largest group for education. Kids will have similar education , maturity, and age related factors that make it easier for educators and the students to learn. It is not perfect and if there is a better way then by all means lets hear it. The small percentage is by definition abnormal so it is reasonable to assume that they are going to have other social problems by being abnormal in this regard (I am not advocating for it but if you have a better idea to account for the 1%). Kids are not nice and are not nice to their youngers. The age groups, while not perfect, does protect the youngest. Not every kid is a special little snow flake that should advance to 12th grade by 12. It is rare and the stats (I don't have them but I would agree with you that is very substantial) reflect it.
Note that these are precisely the same claims that were made when white and black schools were deliberately segregated. Segregation is almost always justified as being helpful to the those who are forced to be segregated -- blacks were considered inferior, and thus obviously it would be easier on them and on their teachers to separate them out.
But your missing the point that in special cases those age limits can be ignored. What special cases would racial segregation be ignored? Calling those age groups segregation is disingenuous. The ages are not as cut and dry as racial segregation and did not have the same consequences when ignored.
Our rather rigid age segregation in most public schools results in a lot of harm, in my opinion. Look at studies, for example, on students who are born in spring vs. fall. Just because students start kindergarten at roughly 5.5 years instead of roughly 5 years often makes a large developmental difference in outcomes, even as late as high school. Then look at the outliers and see how they are affected. Age segregation may be the "best" system of segregation for educational purposes, but I think the evidence is far from as conclusive as you act.
Nothing is perfect. But name a different system that can account for the majority of kids that protect the youth, account for maturity, education, intelligence (for the most part), interests, etc... If we can identify areas of improvement then by all means lets do so and try something. What can we do to account for fall DOBs?
I said NO SUCH THING.
Yes, you are right. You didn't say that. I was not implying you directly said those exact words. My statements were more of my opinion on general of sex segregation. Read 'you' as a general in that statement'
When you say: "the argument that the studies I mentioned make is basically that girls often mature a little faster and could benefit from being separated from a bunch of disruptive male idiots who are still too immature to allow a place for the wisdom of their female counterparts in their (segregated) age cohort."
It sounds like the scientific racism before Brown v Board of Education. I am not going to deny the validity of those studies or whether they are right or not. But In the real world, men and women have to work together. They need to learn that somewhere and at early ages. I do not think women and girls need to be coddled and have special treatment to be successful. If that were the case why are so many successful today? Women make up the majority of college enrollment and co
there are extra barriers to entry because there are extra barriers to entry
Wow, bullet proof logic there. Care to list those barriers or is that just fuzzy feel good listen and believe bullshit?
Reality doesn't care about your fantasies.
Reality also doesn't care about your feelings.
girls in the class were targeted and made to feel unwelcome
Then the instructor should have intervened if the behavior was deemed unacceptable. If the instructor felt it was unnecessary to intervene I can infer the behavior was not as bad as many make it out to be.
You mention lots of evidence... Feeling unwelcome is not evidence. It is impossible to make everyone feel accepted, welcome, good, w/e.
You can list your evidence for actual barriers but minor social inconveniences are not evidence. Feeling bad is not enough because anyone can feel anything with any circumstance. If it is actual harassment then yes let the instructor deal with it. If it is legal then yes let us amend the law.
That you insist on conflating the two indicates that you are perfectly aware of the reality here, but have some other interest tangential to the issue here. A vested interest in maintaining the status quo or a general resentment toward women seem likely possibilities.
No. I think meritocracy is a good thing. I also do not think that we need to coddle people any more than we are. I find it hilarious that you infer I have a resentment toward women because I think women do not need coddling or special treatment. My wife agrees with me.
I have a suggestion for you. It works trust me. Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it. It does wonders for achieving your goals.
Those girls had to overcome significant barriers not faced by their male counterparts. Imagine a race where half the runners had to wear a heavy pack. Not terribly fair, is it? You're saying that there's no imbalance because one of the disadvantaged runners managed to finish the race.
You imply because it is not 50/50 that there are extra barriers of entry. That is false. You also imply that if someone mistreats you (which is bad and should be punished) that the barriers to entry increase. This is not necessarily true while it can be it is not an exclusive thing. Feeling like an outsider in a group is not mistreatment.
It's flawed on its face
Saying it is doesn't make it so.
ignore the issue and quibble of semantics.
Not quibbling but I do not think the issue is as big as most seem to think it. It seems to me that females do not prefer CS as much as their male counter parts. That is not an issue if the barriers of entry are the same. There are legal frameworks in place to protect those barriers of entry and we have in fact skewed in favor of females many things in academia.
One rich woman spending $1k a week to train her daughter to like CS is not evidence that there are barriers of entry for her daughter in CS. In fact, she is more privileged than most by being in a socioeconomic class that allows for that kind of lavish expenditures on her education.
What legalities disadvantage her daughter from entering CS?
Sorry, but that's just meaningless drivel. It's not just about how hard you work or how strong your will to overcome adversity it. It's about the amount of adversity you fact too, and the fact that people with privilege often forget that others are not so lucky when judging them.
Yes, why try and overcome adversity when you can sit back play identity politics and complain about the white man holding you back? I never said forget the struggles of those individuals... Quite the contrary, let me remind you " It [privilege argument] reduces individuals to the identity of a group. The individual either adopts the problems or benefits of the group. It also doesn't address what the individual has done for themselves."
IOW, Yes, those that are not in your privilege groups have struggles to overcome. Guess what... Some of them do overcome adversary. Just like those that are in your privileged groups have adversary to overcome as well. And guess what Some of them do not overcome it. We all have struggles to deal with. Bitching about how oppressed you are as opposed to actually trying to overcome your adversary garners no sympathy from me. I like a strong work ethic. I have seen the good it does for people in my life. I have seen what happens when someone sits back and complains and has no work ethic.
No, they don't. Privilege is just reminding some people that they have greater opportunity simply because they don't have to put up with the shit others do by nature of their gender, race, sex, sexuality or whatever.
Yes, because only certain races, genders and identity have shit to deal with. Obviously you missed the point about why I think the privilege argument is lazy. Because you ignore the individual. Who cares about the individual because your arbitrary quotas are not met.
The point is in the eyes of the law we are all equal shit lords. If there is a legal right that one group has that another is denied for arbitrary reasons (like gay marriage)... then yes. Lets identify it and addressed so long as it is measurable and has objective goals. But to say "privilege classes should be less privileged' is meaningless bullshit that is arbitrary.
When you quoted me it would be nice if you actually had the second part... Here: "Hard != impossible. There maybe some issues that could be refined but the point is: anyone is can take them. There isn't a rule for AP enrollment that says if DOB in Sept, Oct, Nov then deny else accept."
IOW, there is probably some things they can do to make it more accessible to those people that fall in those birthday areas, but they do not explicitly reject fall DOB applicants. Additionally: "Yes, each district has their own rules for skipping grades. ". I could have been more clear. Districts make many of their rules for class skipping and AP classes.
My whole argument is that generally speaking, AP classes are not exclusive to one group or another. yes the people that take AP classes will have more opportunity but they do not restrict AP classes to CIS white males. Any one can get in there for the most part. Each district has its own rules and issues that could be addressed accessibility to AP classes.
This is a really dishonest way to have a discussion. You should question whether you are using reasoning to support your conclusion, or vice versa.
How is it dishonest? Please, enlighten me. OP was arguing for segregation to help girls with issues. Why can't those girls overcome those issues without segregation? There are already a number of girls and women that do just fine without segregation, but now it's different. Why? What is different between these girls that need segregation and the women that succeed in CS?
I am not calling girls weak. The people arguing for segregation are making that claim. Segregation presupposes an inability to compete and interact with another group. The article is about the need for a safe space for girls to learn CS because they can't do that in integrated environments. It is based on that assumption that girls are not capable of overcoming those challenges without segregation. Who is calling girls weak when asking for segregation???
Why don't you actually argue the point or actually demonstrate why my logic is flawed instead of a subtle suggestion?
district don't generally skip students ahead if there's any way of avoiding it.
Yes, each district has their own rules for skipping grades. There is liability to do this so they want to cover their ass if something happens. Go figure.
As for AP classes, good luck getting into those if you have a September, October or November birthday. The standards you have to meet in order to get in are massively higher than for people with spring or summer birthdays. And if you don't get in before your 8, the likelihood of getting in at all is greatly reduced.
Hard != impossible. There maybe some issues that could be refined but the point is: anyone is can take them. There isn't a rule for AP enrollment that says if DOB in Sept, Oct, Nov then deny else accept.
The worst thing is that the students who get into AP or equivalent classes aren't necessarily any smarter than the students that don't.
You are right, usually AP classes usually mean more work. But some are also more advanced concepts. So, I guess it just depends on the AP class you are taking.
they get increased opportunities, they wind up doing better academically.
Until adulthood. Children can't be held to the same standards of behaviour that adults can be. Once they become adults, if they made women feel unwelcome then they will be expected to correct the behaviour. Of course it's not a binary thing that flips at age 18, it happens gradually over the teenage years, I'm just stating the principal.
If only there was a place to learn how to deal with these social interactions. With authority figures to guide and discipline bad behavior that is not conducive to learning/working... Like a school! If the boys made the girls feel uncomfortable, then discipline accordingly. Just like the real world. The difference you won't lose your job or face a law suit.
Wrong metric. What is important is the number of scholarships going to each gender, and the effect that has on the number of students of each gender. Until men are getting less than 50% of all available scholarships and are achieving less than 50% of the academic success (number of graduates, grade averages or whatever it is you use in the US) then women-only scholarships are just reducing men's privilege, not disadvantaging them compared to women.
No, you made this about girls. when you said: "Segregation is the answer." and the segregation was for the sexes and how you feel girls need a safe space to learn CS from those icky boys because privilege... Context is king.
white students have privilege (they are rarely affected by racism)
When it comes to the privilege argument, I find it intellectually lazy. It reduces individuals to the identity of a group. The individual either adopts the problems or benefits of the group. It also doesn't address what the individual has done for themselves.
There are places in the US where white is a minority but white is privilege. That might fall into your rarely category but who cares about the individual so long as you can reduce them to a group and pile on all the shit of that group, who cares right? Everyone has their own problems to overcome, regardless of race.
It is not about the problems we face it is about how we overcome those problems that determine our character.
The biggest problem people face in the US, regardless of race, is socioeconomic IMO. Poor people are disadvantage because in the world of capitalism if you have capital you can do more. Poor have more confrontations with the police and are more likely to get shot. Poor do not get the education they deserve. Regardless of race. There are races that make up more of the poor. It has been ~50 years since the civil rights movement; The real question is do those individuals of those races have the same opportunity to break from the poor?
Not really, high school and middle school are made up of different age ranges. Those ranges have more to do with protecting the younger from the older and reflect the physiological differences in the ages because of puberty.
We segregate by ability level...
AP classes and skipping grades. Anyone can do that so long as they excel as opposed to what is in their pants (or lack there of).
Grouping by age is easy and accounts for 90% of students ability. For the car analogy, think Henry Ford. It is more efficient to teach the same stuff to similar education levels. However, someone can break the grouping of their assigned age if the student can excel at the higher age groups/higher learning.
It isn't segregation it is grouping to help students and educators. Those groupings can be ignored for special cases.
Segregating by sex is a different beast. What you are saying is that girls are too weak to be in the same class room as boys to enjoy CS. I call bullshit.
No, it isn't. In the real world men and women have to work and compete together. How far into adulthood are you willing to coddle these children? We have safe spaces in college, we should expand that. It is totally normal for an adult to run from their problems and revert to a child-like state hugging a stuffed animals to cope with all the potential rapists/murderers/men and scary ideas, right?
Company's should be segregated too because safe spaces. How else can these employees work when there are different ideas in the same work environment?
It doesn't disadvantage boys...
Tell me more about all those male-only scholarships.
...it merely helps girls get past some issues they face
Because girls are too weak to overcome those "issues" without segregation? Good job modern feminism; arguing like the KKK because women are weak.
The list has articles and users that were deleted and the day they were deleted. It is called Orangemoody because according to FTA
This post is to inform the English Wikipedia editing community that the Checkuser team has identified a very large group of socks creating promotional articles, inserting promotional external links, and otherwise editing disruptively on this project. The investigation is named "Orangemoody" because this was the first sock identified.
"One of the biggest growth industries in Britain today is the computer games industry... but nobody is going to play a game designed by a spotty nerd. "
Is it just me, or do these two ideas seem contradictory?
Honestly, I don't know how to take your posts seriously... I thought the first one was a poe and then this out from left field. What is your point? What point of mine are you trying to address in your reply?
GG and women in STEM because evil white men!! Have I got it right or did I miss something when you changed subjects?
that's because Gamergate wasn't about ethics in game journalism, hilarious memes be damned. it was PRECISELY about white men continuing to be gatekeepers against gaming opening up to other people, including women. in sum, get your paranoid persecution complex out of here.
What? How did the white man keep you from playing/making games you want? No one stopped my wife. No one stopped the people in #notyourshield. So.... Please, tell me how the white man oppresses you in the 1st world video game industry through hot coffee mods and NPC's.
Like it or not, GG has influenced ethics in game journalism. A number of sites have updated their ethics policy in response to GG.
Or perhaps advertisers look at the revenue of those ads and act accordingly.
...it's not a good thing.
Why is it not a good thing? You mean, ads follow market forces which is made up of individuals that act on their own accord and interests? How in the hell is that not a good thing? individuals may act against their own interests... but are you going to be the good dictator and ensure that everybody does what is best for them?
Slashdot Mirror
Would you expect a kid, any kid, to do well in an environment where they're made to feel unwelcome and unwanted? It's supposed to be a fun activity, and this kid was excluded, bullied, and made to feel subhuman.
I guess I should have been clear and included what I said in other comments. If the behavior is deemed unacceptable by the instructor; the instructor should take disciplinary action. If that did not occur it seems to me that the "offending" behavior is blown out of proportion. Was she "made" to feel that way by the other kids or did she just feel that way because only girl? No instructor or teacher is going to let a student get harassed by others. It is the teachers job to ensure the learning environment for all pupils. If the teacher saw she was not enjoying herself why didn't the teacher do something to engage her further?
This happens all the time (not exclusive to gender, girls, and CS) but in this instance we want segregation!?!? Over reaction much? Why is it in this instance we say that girls need special treatment and coddling?
If the girl felt unwelcome because she was the only girl in the classroom and the other kids did nothing wrong? Then no, that is not a barrier.
When she's the only girl, and suffers from that harassment,
Again that second part is the important part. Did she suffer harassment? Was the instructor aware of this? Why didn't the instructor take action to stop the offending behavior?
The total number has been relatively the same. So that number is a small overall percentage.
Some time between 1985 and now we've fucked things up and a bit of repair makes sense.
You assume this. But this is happening in all western countries where women have freedom and choice and other progressive measures to promote women. But in more oppressive regimes like China and Iran women make up a larger percentage in CS. Why is that? Why do you assume we fucked things up when women have the freedom to choose and decide for themselves? There is nothing legally stopping them. They can choose any career path they want yet they don't choose CS. You say we fucked something up. I say women are using their independence and freedom.
there are extra barriers to entry because there are extra barriers to entry
Wow, bullet proof logic there
Yes, yes it is. Care to take a shot at it?
The homeless are homeless because they are homeless.
If you would like to list those barriers I am all ears. Claiming they exist because they exists and others say the exist does nothing. So far the only example I have is "feeling unwelcome" FTA. That isn't a barrier.
I stated, quit explicitly, that it is a likely explanation for your absurd behavior.
My absurd behavior of having an opinion online? Oh the humanity, it's so absurd! You have no idea how I behave. You know nothing about me except for an opinion I have.
Sorry, but the worst enemy of feminism today is feminists. Your absolutist explanations of my "absurd behavior" fail to account for anything beyond the rose colored glasses of ideology.
how many students graduate high school outside of the specified state-mandated kindergarten start date of their age cohort? Maybe a few percent at most? There may be some mixture of ages in higher grades, but mostly students are stuck in a group of students who are within one year of their age... regardless of intellectual level. Yes -- it's possible in most schools to move out of that system for particular students, but it is considered abnormal (and thus introduces excessive social problems often because it is considered so abnormal).
the ages is the simplest net to catch the largest group for education. Kids will have similar education , maturity, and age related factors that make it easier for educators and the students to learn. It is not perfect and if there is a better way then by all means lets hear it. The small percentage is by definition abnormal so it is reasonable to assume that they are going to have other social problems by being abnormal in this regard (I am not advocating for it but if you have a better idea to account for the 1%). Kids are not nice and are not nice to their youngers. The age groups, while not perfect, does protect the youngest. Not every kid is a special little snow flake that should advance to 12th grade by 12. It is rare and the stats (I don't have them but I would agree with you that is very substantial) reflect it.
Note that these are precisely the same claims that were made when white and black schools were deliberately segregated. Segregation is almost always justified as being helpful to the those who are forced to be segregated -- blacks were considered inferior, and thus obviously it would be easier on them and on their teachers to separate them out.
But your missing the point that in special cases those age limits can be ignored. What special cases would racial segregation be ignored? Calling those age groups segregation is disingenuous. The ages are not as cut and dry as racial segregation and did not have the same consequences when ignored.
Our rather rigid age segregation in most public schools results in a lot of harm, in my opinion. Look at studies, for example, on students who are born in spring vs. fall. Just because students start kindergarten at roughly 5.5 years instead of roughly 5 years often makes a large developmental difference in outcomes, even as late as high school. Then look at the outliers and see how they are affected. Age segregation may be the "best" system of segregation for educational purposes, but I think the evidence is far from as conclusive as you act.
Nothing is perfect. But name a different system that can account for the majority of kids that protect the youth, account for maturity, education, intelligence (for the most part), interests, etc... If we can identify areas of improvement then by all means lets do so and try something. What can we do to account for fall DOBs?
I said NO SUCH THING.
Yes, you are right. You didn't say that. I was not implying you directly said those exact words. My statements were more of my opinion on general of sex segregation. Read 'you' as a general in that statement'
When you say: "the argument that the studies I mentioned make is basically that girls often mature a little faster and could benefit from being separated from a bunch of disruptive male idiots who are still too immature to allow a place for the wisdom of their female counterparts in their (segregated) age cohort."
It sounds like the scientific racism before Brown v Board of Education. I am not going to deny the validity of those studies or whether they are right or not. But In the real world, men and women have to work together. They need to learn that somewhere and at early ages. I do not think women and girls need to be coddled and have special treatment to be successful. If that were the case why are so many successful today? Women make up the majority of college enrollment and co
there are extra barriers to entry because there are extra barriers to entry
Wow, bullet proof logic there. Care to list those barriers or is that just fuzzy feel good listen and believe bullshit?
Reality doesn't care about your fantasies.
Reality also doesn't care about your feelings.
girls in the class were targeted and made to feel unwelcome
Then the instructor should have intervened if the behavior was deemed unacceptable. If the instructor felt it was unnecessary to intervene I can infer the behavior was not as bad as many make it out to be.
You mention lots of evidence... Feeling unwelcome is not evidence. It is impossible to make everyone feel accepted, welcome, good, w/e.
You can list your evidence for actual barriers but minor social inconveniences are not evidence. Feeling bad is not enough because anyone can feel anything with any circumstance. If it is actual harassment then yes let the instructor deal with it. If it is legal then yes let us amend the law.
That you insist on conflating the two indicates that you are perfectly aware of the reality here, but have some other interest tangential to the issue here. A vested interest in maintaining the status quo or a general resentment toward women seem likely possibilities.
No. I think meritocracy is a good thing. I also do not think that we need to coddle people any more than we are. I find it hilarious that you infer I have a resentment toward women because I think women do not need coddling or special treatment. My wife agrees with me.
I have a suggestion for you. It works trust me. Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it. It does wonders for achieving your goals.
Those girls had to overcome significant barriers not faced by their male counterparts. Imagine a race where half the runners had to wear a heavy pack. Not terribly fair, is it? You're saying that there's no imbalance because one of the disadvantaged runners managed to finish the race.
You imply because it is not 50/50 that there are extra barriers of entry. That is false. You also imply that if someone mistreats you (which is bad and should be punished) that the barriers to entry increase. This is not necessarily true while it can be it is not an exclusive thing. Feeling like an outsider in a group is not mistreatment.
It's flawed on its face
Saying it is doesn't make it so.
ignore the issue and quibble of semantics.
Not quibbling but I do not think the issue is as big as most seem to think it. It seems to me that females do not prefer CS as much as their male counter parts. That is not an issue if the barriers of entry are the same. There are legal frameworks in place to protect those barriers of entry and we have in fact skewed in favor of females many things in academia.
One rich woman spending $1k a week to train her daughter to like CS is not evidence that there are barriers of entry for her daughter in CS. In fact, she is more privileged than most by being in a socioeconomic class that allows for that kind of lavish expenditures on her education.
What legalities disadvantage her daughter from entering CS?
Sorry, but that's just meaningless drivel. It's not just about how hard you work or how strong your will to overcome adversity it. It's about the amount of adversity you fact too, and the fact that people with privilege often forget that others are not so lucky when judging them.
Yes, why try and overcome adversity when you can sit back play identity politics and complain about the white man holding you back? I never said forget the struggles of those individuals... Quite the contrary, let me remind you " It [privilege argument] reduces individuals to the identity of a group. The individual either adopts the problems or benefits of the group. It also doesn't address what the individual has done for themselves."
IOW, Yes, those that are not in your privilege groups have struggles to overcome. Guess what... Some of them do overcome adversary. Just like those that are in your privileged groups have adversary to overcome as well. And guess what Some of them do not overcome it. We all have struggles to deal with. Bitching about how oppressed you are as opposed to actually trying to overcome your adversary garners no sympathy from me. I like a strong work ethic. I have seen the good it does for people in my life. I have seen what happens when someone sits back and complains and has no work ethic.
No, they don't. Privilege is just reminding some people that they have greater opportunity simply because they don't have to put up with the shit others do by nature of their gender, race, sex, sexuality or whatever.
Yes, because only certain races, genders and identity have shit to deal with. Obviously you missed the point about why I think the privilege argument is lazy. Because you ignore the individual. Who cares about the individual because your arbitrary quotas are not met.
The point is in the eyes of the law we are all equal shit lords. If there is a legal right that one group has that another is denied for arbitrary reasons (like gay marriage)... then yes. Lets identify it and addressed so long as it is measurable and has objective goals. But to say "privilege classes should be less privileged' is meaningless bullshit that is arbitrary.
I should pay attention to the replay lines... My bad apparently I am too excited to leave work to notice whether a reply is toward me or not.
When you quoted me it would be nice if you actually had the second part... Here:
"Hard != impossible. There maybe some issues that could be refined but the point is: anyone is can take them. There isn't a rule for AP enrollment that says if DOB in Sept, Oct, Nov then deny else accept."
IOW, there is probably some things they can do to make it more accessible to those people that fall in those birthday areas, but they do not explicitly reject fall DOB applicants. Additionally: "Yes, each district has their own rules for skipping grades. ". I could have been more clear. Districts make many of their rules for class skipping and AP classes.
My whole argument is that generally speaking, AP classes are not exclusive to one group or another. yes the people that take AP classes will have more opportunity but they do not restrict AP classes to CIS white males. Any one can get in there for the most part. Each district has its own rules and issues that could be addressed accessibility to AP classes.
This is a really dishonest way to have a discussion. You should question whether you are using reasoning to support your conclusion, or vice versa.
How is it dishonest? Please, enlighten me. OP was arguing for segregation to help girls with issues. Why can't those girls overcome those issues without segregation? There are already a number of girls and women that do just fine without segregation, but now it's different. Why? What is different between these girls that need segregation and the women that succeed in CS?
I am not calling girls weak. The people arguing for segregation are making that claim. Segregation presupposes an inability to compete and interact with another group. The article is about the need for a safe space for girls to learn CS because they can't do that in integrated environments. It is based on that assumption that girls are not capable of overcoming those challenges without segregation. Who is calling girls weak when asking for segregation???
Why don't you actually argue the point or actually demonstrate why my logic is flawed instead of a subtle suggestion?
You're going to eat your broccoli and you're going to like it or else you're grounded!
district don't generally skip students ahead if there's any way of avoiding it.
Yes, each district has their own rules for skipping grades. There is liability to do this so they want to cover their ass if something happens. Go figure.
As for AP classes, good luck getting into those if you have a September, October or November birthday. The standards you have to meet in order to get in are massively higher than for people with spring or summer birthdays. And if you don't get in before your 8, the likelihood of getting in at all is greatly reduced.
Hard != impossible. There maybe some issues that could be refined but the point is: anyone is can take them. There isn't a rule for AP enrollment that says if DOB in Sept, Oct, Nov then deny else accept.
The worst thing is that the students who get into AP or equivalent classes aren't necessarily any smarter than the students that don't.
You are right, usually AP classes usually mean more work. But some are also more advanced concepts. So, I guess it just depends on the AP class you are taking.
they get increased opportunities, they wind up doing better academically.
Work hard = more opportunities? Seems legit.
Until adulthood. Children can't be held to the same standards of behaviour that adults can be. Once they become adults, if they made women feel unwelcome then they will be expected to correct the behaviour. Of course it's not a binary thing that flips at age 18, it happens gradually over the teenage years, I'm just stating the principal.
If only there was a place to learn how to deal with these social interactions. With authority figures to guide and discipline bad behavior that is not conducive to learning/working... Like a school! If the boys made the girls feel uncomfortable, then discipline accordingly. Just like the real world. The difference you won't lose your job or face a law suit.
Wrong metric. What is important is the number of scholarships going to each gender, and the effect that has on the number of students of each gender. Until men are getting less than 50% of all available scholarships and are achieving less than 50% of the academic success (number of graduates, grade averages or whatever it is you use in the US) then women-only scholarships are just reducing men's privilege, not disadvantaging them compared to women.
Congrats, we have beyond FTM ratio in colleges. Those scholarships have done their job. Lets reverse it as you say. Males don't have the privileged in the university because they are no longer > 50%... They also make up more of the grads too!!! Academic success
See how you made that comment about girls
No, you made this about girls. when you said: "Segregation is the answer." and the segregation was for the sexes and how you feel girls need a safe space to learn CS from those icky boys because privilege... Context is king.
white students have privilege (they are rarely affected by racism)
When it comes to the privilege argument, I find it intellectually lazy. It reduces individuals to the identity of a group. The individual either adopts the problems or benefits of the group. It also doesn't address what the individual has done for themselves.
There are places in the US where white is a minority but white is privilege. That might fall into your rarely category but who cares about the individual so long as you can reduce them to a group and pile on all the shit of that group, who cares right? Everyone has their own problems to overcome, regardless of race.
It is not about the problems we face it is about how we overcome those problems that determine our character.
The biggest problem people face in the US, regardless of race, is socioeconomic IMO. Poor people are disadvantage because in the world of capitalism if you have capital you can do more. Poor have more confrontations with the police and are more likely to get shot. Poor do not get the education they deserve. Regardless of race. There are races that make up more of the poor. It has been ~50 years since the civil rights movement; The real question is do those individuals of those races have the same opportunity to break from the poor?
We segregate by age...
Not really, high school and middle school are made up of different age ranges. Those ranges have more to do with protecting the younger from the older and reflect the physiological differences in the ages because of puberty.
We segregate by ability level...
AP classes and skipping grades. Anyone can do that so long as they excel as opposed to what is in their pants (or lack there of).
Grouping by age is easy and accounts for 90% of students ability. For the car analogy, think Henry Ford. It is more efficient to teach the same stuff to similar education levels. However, someone can break the grouping of their assigned age if the student can excel at the higher age groups/higher learning.
It isn't segregation it is grouping to help students and educators. Those groupings can be ignored for special cases.
Segregating by sex is a different beast. What you are saying is that girls are too weak to be in the same class room as boys to enjoy CS. I call bullshit.
Segregation is the answer.
No, it isn't. In the real world men and women have to work and compete together. How far into adulthood are you willing to coddle these children? We have safe spaces in college, we should expand that. It is totally normal for an adult to run from their problems and revert to a child-like state hugging a stuffed animals to cope with all the potential rapists/murderers/men and scary ideas, right?
Company's should be segregated too because safe spaces. How else can these employees work when there are different ideas in the same work environment?
It doesn't disadvantage boys...
Tell me more about all those male-only scholarships.
...it merely helps girls get past some issues they face
Because girls are too weak to overcome those "issues" without segregation? Good job modern feminism; arguing like the KKK because women are weak.
It was aliens.
The list has articles and users that were deleted and the day they were deleted. It is called Orangemoody because according to FTA
This post is to inform the English Wikipedia editing community that the Checkuser team has identified a very large group of socks creating promotional articles, inserting promotional external links, and otherwise editing disruptively on this project. The investigation is named "Orangemoody" because this was the first sock identified.
The list of deleted accounts also are under the Orangemoody name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
the list of articles that were deleted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"One of the biggest growth industries in Britain today is the computer games industry... but nobody is going to play a game designed by a spotty nerd. "
Is it just me, or do these two ideas seem contradictory?
So, your idea is to spam and anyone that doesn't like it or criticize your spam is a sock-puppet???
You sir are a special kind of stupid. Honestly, I could care less about technical validity if you present yourself like a warthog in heat.
Why would anyone choose an anti-spam/maleware/phish solution that markets itself by spam/maleware/phish?
The only claim I made was that GG has influenced ethics in game journalism because a number of sites have updated their ethics policy. A quick Google search and the first link says that kotaku and polygon will: " post public messages about how they will handle disclosure between the relationships of journalists and developers from now on."
Honestly, I don't know how to take your posts seriously... I thought the first one was a poe and then this out from left field. What is your point? What point of mine are you trying to address in your reply?
GG and women in STEM because evil white men!! Have I got it right or did I miss something when you changed subjects?
that's because Gamergate wasn't about ethics in game journalism, hilarious memes be damned. it was PRECISELY about white men continuing to be gatekeepers against gaming opening up to other people, including women. in sum, get your paranoid persecution complex out of here.
What? How did the white man keep you from playing/making games you want? No one stopped my wife. No one stopped the people in #notyourshield. So.... Please, tell me how the white man oppresses you in the 1st world video game industry through hot coffee mods and NPC's.
Like it or not, GG has influenced ethics in game journalism. A number of sites have updated their ethics policy in response to GG.
Honestly, I can't tell if this is a Poe or not.
Perhaps a package deal is in order... buy /. get SF free!
Or perhaps advertisers look at the revenue of those ads and act accordingly.
...it's not a good thing.
Why is it not a good thing? You mean, ads follow market forces which is made up of individuals that act on their own accord and interests? How in the hell is that not a good thing? individuals may act against their own interests... but are you going to be the good dictator and ensure that everybody does what is best for them?