You've missed the point. This has nothing to do with "the right to never be offended" at all. This is simply about social consequences for offensive speech.
Had Hunt said something like "I hate seeing filthy n**** in the lab." or "gays are ruining science" and people and related organizations denounced him and disassociated themselves from him, would you still think this is about "the right to never be offended"? Of course not. You'd realize that people and organizations generally don't want to be associated with bigots. They're under no obligation to continue their association.
Say any idiotic thing you want. Just don't expect that you won't have to face any social consequences for that speech. It could be as simple as a verbal thrashing, or as serious as a lost career.
You're not entitled to anything. And neither is anyone else due to the color of their face, their sexual orientation, their gender, [..] You are NOT entitled of better or preferred treatment because of belonging to your fucking minority group!
They also don't deserve unequal treatment. Which is precisely what they get from people like you.
Do you know why disadvantaged groups receive "special treatment"? Because they deserve the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as everyone else. Equality is something that we, as a society, have to work to achieve. We have to work particularly hard, because people like you would deny others the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities that you enjoy.
Equality, yes. And I will gladly fight for it, even if I don't belong to your minority group because I do think people have the right, the absolute and unalienable right, to be treated the SAME way as everyone else independent of anything you could think of.
Would you? Because everything in your post up to this point explicitly denies that. I can only assume that you don't know what equality actually means.
Sir Tim’s claims that his remarks were an “idiotic joke” and not meant to be taken seriously.
Ah, I see. Hilarious! How did I miss that?
Here's a good one for you: "Blacks are such an inconvenience in the summer. Maybe we should have separate water fountains? What we really need to do is start hanging more of them."
That's a real side-splitter right there! Oh, boy! I can't take many more of these "jokes", I'll bust a gut!
What you're trying to tell me here is that girls simply can't learn along side boys, which is complete and utter bullshit.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. How did you get that?
If you want girls to feel just as empowered as boys then you have to allow them to overcome the same obstacles.
The problem, as I've stated many, many, times already is that girls face significantly more obstacles than boys do. If they only faced the same obstacles, there wouldn't be a problem.
Nothing I've written in this post should surprise you. I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse.
That's why this is going to be a tough sell. Android developers are used to disasters and atrocity, having developed android applications.
Honestly, Google, what was the Android team smoking? When working on a Blackberry port feels like a breath of fresh air, you know you've made some serious mistakes.
So you agree there is inequality, you just don't care. You don't care that women face more obstacles than men do, as you don't think they're significant enough to warrant action. You'll find that many women in tech -- including successful women -- completely disagree.
Sadly, I can't make you understand or care.
Society does not owe you any favors to end peer pressure or negative stereo types. Because the way to end stereo types is to not care and ignore them and change them yourself.
Yet you'll deride anyone who makes an effort to improve things? When people take action and work to change those expectations and stereotypes, you cry foul!
The women in the article are doing exactly what you suggest they should do. They're working to change those attitudes and negative stereotypes.
Why bother to fight them? Do you have some vested interest in maintaining the status quo? Are you afraid you can't compete? Are you afraid that your attitudes and values won't be socially acceptable should they succeed? What's your stake in this?
If you deny any of these real problems exist, I can't help you.
You deny that the social consequences that specifically affect girls interested in technology are far more serious that those that affect boys.
The social consequences for boys, obviously, are minimal to non-existent! Let's try a related example: A teenage boy can like playing video games. That is considered normal. It is not considered normal for a girl, on the other hand, even though more women than men play video games. To admit to liking video games, the girl is subject to all sorts of criticism from her peers. (Think: "she's only looking for male attention" and other ridiculous nonsense.)
When subjects like technology are generally understood as being "for boys", it directly harms interested girls. They're not as free, socially, as boys to pursue those interests.
You deny that those social factors which inhibit young adult and adult women from perusing careers in technology matter because "they'll have to face them eventually". Well, guess what? Those factors STILL negatively affect women interested in technology!
If we, as a society, change our attitudes and prejudices and eliminate those absurd gender stereotypes women won't have to face those problems ever. They won't have to worry about sitting in a male dominated classroom or workplace. They won't have to deal with ridiculous attitudes about their competence or ability simply because they're women.
If it was simple, it wouldn't be an issue. yes, men and women face obstacles. Life is full of them. An ability to overcome those obstacles is a good thing, IMHO.
I'm repeating myself here. When it comes to cultivating an interest in technology, women and girls face significantly more obstacles than boys.
Imagine two Olympic sprinters in a race. The first runner is wearing running shoes and a track-suit. The second is carrying a 30-pound pack and wearing heavy boots and ankle weights. Are you seriously saying that the second runner is at no disadvantage and should be grateful for this additional burden?
What you want is equal outcomes, not opportunities.
No. I want equal opportunity. Everything I've said here indicates that. You simply don't want to believe it.
But I don't like it when a boy now has less formal choices
\ What? How does offering a girls-only class deprive boys of formal opportunities? That doesn't make any sense. Did they take something away from the boys? Nope. We've just make things a bit easier for the disadvantaged group.
Back to our runners, if we allow the second runner to remove the heavy pack before the race, did we disadvantage the first runner? Of course not! We've simply taken a step toward equality.
If the first runner were posting here, I suspect we'd see complaints about how the first runner now has less of a chance of victory, and so we should feel sympathetic. "The first runner is the true victim!", I'd hear the masses cry. Even though it's clear that the second runner is still at a significant disadvantage!
Peer influence and negative stereotypes are mentioned specifically, and are significant obstacles with this age group. By providing positive female role-models and an environment where it's acceptable for them to indulge in those interests eliminates those barriers that boys don't have to face. This wouldn't be the case in a co-ed classroom.
Though it's not exactly difficult to think of issues that would keep otherwise interested women out of technology -- or which drive women out of technology -- that their male counterparts simply do not face. Just facing a male-dominated classroom, where they're very likely to be subjected to unwanted comments and advances, can be intimidating. It's certainly not conducive to learning.
That you can't find a single legitimate reason for 'girls only' programs tells me that you don't understand the issues at all. Really, it's quite simple: women and girls face significant obstacles that men and boys don't. If that's not inequality, I don't know what is! By reducing those barriers, we help to give them equal opportunity.
Perhaps, someday, if we can eliminate the sigma, stereotypes, and outright hostility toward women interested in technology, these kinds of programs won't be necessary. Until that time, however, they're essential.
So you now assume that any unattractive, short, homosexual, coloured male has the same privilege as good-looking, tall, straight, white males?
Of course not. Gender is just one of many reasons that I enjoy privilege.
The only differentiator from the "men-are-privileged" mob is the sex.
Well, it is true that gender is a factor. Depending on the circumstances, it can be quite significant. For example, people are generally more receptive to male speakers than female speakers.
So you're denying that I enjoy privilege because of my physical appearance and gender?
If I were a poor black girl, raised by a single mother, and attended an inner-city school that I would have had to work just as hard? That I would have just assumed I'd be able to go to college, instead of that being a foolish pipe dream? That in a professional context people would automatically listen when I spoke, on the assumption that I'm competent and capable?
We don't even have to go that far. If I were simply ugly, short, and fat I know that I wouldn't get the same consideration.
I think it's pretty obvious that I enjoy privilege. I'm having a very difficult time understanding why you believe me to be a victim!
I can recognize the privilege I enjoy by being a good-looking, tall, straight, white, male or a healthy normal weight. I know (to some degree) the advantages those qualities have granted me both personally and professionally. Let's also not forget my upbringing: a middle-class family, an essentially crime-free neighborhood, an excellent school district, and parents that supported and encouraged our interests and paid careful attention to our education.I started live on easy mode.
I had to work, sure, but not nearly as hard as someone not so advantaged.
Because I recognize that privilege, I don't blame my mistakes and failures on the poor, minorities, immigrants, or women. I also don't see efforts to "level the playing field" like this as threatening.
Slashdot Mirror
You've missed the point. This has nothing to do with "the right to never be offended" at all. This is simply about social consequences for offensive speech.
Had Hunt said something like "I hate seeing filthy n**** in the lab." or "gays are ruining science" and people and related organizations denounced him and disassociated themselves from him, would you still think this is about "the right to never be offended"? Of course not. You'd realize that people and organizations generally don't want to be associated with bigots. They're under no obligation to continue their association.
Say any idiotic thing you want. Just don't expect that you won't have to face any social consequences for that speech. It could be as simple as a verbal thrashing, or as serious as a lost career.
You're not entitled to anything. And neither is anyone else due to the color of their face, their sexual orientation, their gender, [..] You are NOT entitled of better or preferred treatment because of belonging to your fucking minority group!
They also don't deserve unequal treatment. Which is precisely what they get from people like you.
Do you know why disadvantaged groups receive "special treatment"? Because they deserve the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as everyone else. Equality is something that we, as a society, have to work to achieve. We have to work particularly hard, because people like you would deny others the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities that you enjoy.
Equality, yes. And I will gladly fight for it, even if I don't belong to your minority group because I do think people have the right, the absolute and unalienable right, to be treated the SAME way as everyone else independent of anything you could think of.
Would you? Because everything in your post up to this point explicitly denies that. I can only assume that you don't know what equality actually means.
Sir Tim’s claims that his remarks were an “idiotic joke” and not meant to be taken seriously.
Ah, I see. Hilarious! How did I miss that?
Here's a good one for you: "Blacks are such an inconvenience in the summer. Maybe we should have separate water fountains? What we really need to do is start hanging more of them."
That's a real side-splitter right there! Oh, boy! I can't take many more of these "jokes", I'll bust a gut!
What you're trying to tell me here is that girls simply can't learn along side boys, which is complete and utter bullshit.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. How did you get that?
If you want girls to feel just as empowered as boys then you have to allow them to overcome the same obstacles.
The problem, as I've stated many, many, times already is that girls face significantly more obstacles than boys do. If they only faced the same obstacles, there wouldn't be a problem.
Nothing I've written in this post should surprise you. I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse.
a confederate flag app that drops the n-bomb when you rub the stars the right way?
Conservative porn is still porn. That wouldn't be allowed in the Play store.
That's why this is going to be a tough sell. Android developers are used to disasters and atrocity, having developed android applications.
Honestly, Google, what was the Android team smoking? When working on a Blackberry port feels like a breath of fresh air, you know you've made some serious mistakes.
So you agree there is inequality, you just don't care. You don't care that women face more obstacles than men do, as you don't think they're significant enough to warrant action. You'll find that many women in tech -- including successful women -- completely disagree.
Sadly, I can't make you understand or care.
Society does not owe you any favors to end peer pressure or negative stereo types. Because the way to end stereo types is to not care and ignore them and change them yourself.
Yet you'll deride anyone who makes an effort to improve things? When people take action and work to change those expectations and stereotypes, you cry foul!
The women in the article are doing exactly what you suggest they should do. They're working to change those attitudes and negative stereotypes.
Why bother to fight them? Do you have some vested interest in maintaining the status quo? Are you afraid you can't compete? Are you afraid that your attitudes and values won't be socially acceptable should they succeed? What's your stake in this?
Slashdot has a whole lot of men on it who know through personal experience that this is absolute bullshit.
Ah, those guys. It's not their interest in technology that's caused their social problems.
I know through personal experience.
If you deny any of these real problems exist, I can't help you.
You deny that the social consequences that specifically affect girls interested in technology are far more serious that those that affect boys.
The social consequences for boys, obviously, are minimal to non-existent! Let's try a related example: A teenage boy can like playing video games. That is considered normal. It is not considered normal for a girl, on the other hand, even though more women than men play video games. To admit to liking video games, the girl is subject to all sorts of criticism from her peers. (Think: "she's only looking for male attention" and other ridiculous nonsense.)
When subjects like technology are generally understood as being "for boys", it directly harms interested girls. They're not as free, socially, as boys to pursue those interests.
You deny that those social factors which inhibit young adult and adult women from perusing careers in technology matter because "they'll have to face them eventually". Well, guess what? Those factors STILL negatively affect women interested in technology!
If we, as a society, change our attitudes and prejudices and eliminate those absurd gender stereotypes women won't have to face those problems ever. They won't have to worry about sitting in a male dominated classroom or workplace. They won't have to deal with ridiculous attitudes about their competence or ability simply because they're women.
If it was simple, it wouldn't be an issue. yes, men and women face obstacles. Life is full of them. An ability to overcome those obstacles is a good thing, IMHO.
I'm repeating myself here. When it comes to cultivating an interest in technology, women and girls face significantly more obstacles than boys.
Imagine two Olympic sprinters in a race. The first runner is wearing running shoes and a track-suit. The second is carrying a 30-pound pack and wearing heavy boots and ankle weights. Are you seriously saying that the second runner is at no disadvantage and should be grateful for this additional burden?
What you want is equal outcomes, not opportunities.
No. I want equal opportunity. Everything I've said here indicates that. You simply don't want to believe it.
But I don't like it when a boy now has less formal choices
\
What? How does offering a girls-only class deprive boys of formal opportunities? That doesn't make any sense. Did they take something away from the boys? Nope. We've just make things a bit easier for the disadvantaged group.
Back to our runners, if we allow the second runner to remove the heavy pack before the race, did we disadvantage the first runner? Of course not! We've simply taken a step toward equality.
If the first runner were posting here, I suspect we'd see complaints about how the first runner now has less of a chance of victory, and so we should feel sympathetic. "The first runner is the true victim!", I'd hear the masses cry. Even though it's clear that the second runner is still at a significant disadvantage!
It could be worse, thanks to google, several installers now hijack your default browser!
Oracle or Yahoo?
Google Chrome is bundled with other software, like CCleaner and Avast. I don't think Google is dying anytime soon.
Did you read the article?
Peer influence and negative stereotypes are mentioned specifically, and are significant obstacles with this age group. By providing positive female role-models and an environment where it's acceptable for them to indulge in those interests eliminates those barriers that boys don't have to face. This wouldn't be the case in a co-ed classroom.
Though it's not exactly difficult to think of issues that would keep otherwise interested women out of technology -- or which drive women out of technology -- that their male counterparts simply do not face. Just facing a male-dominated classroom, where they're very likely to be subjected to unwanted comments and advances, can be intimidating. It's certainly not conducive to learning.
That you can't find a single legitimate reason for 'girls only' programs tells me that you don't understand the issues at all. Really, it's quite simple: women and girls face significant obstacles that men and boys don't. If that's not inequality, I don't know what is! By reducing those barriers, we help to give them equal opportunity.
Perhaps, someday, if we can eliminate the sigma, stereotypes, and outright hostility toward women interested in technology, these kinds of programs won't be necessary. Until that time, however, they're essential.
according to her there was a lot of poor treatment by the other students, and one professor told her point-blank that she wasn't wanted there.
...
Considering that there are many reasons, and he didn't address any of them, I can only assume it's simply because he's unaware of those reasons.
Do you disagree with any of the reasons listed in the article? Why?
What makes you think he doesn't understand the issues involved?
Because he doesn't "see a good reason for having a girls only class".
So you now assume that any unattractive, short, homosexual, coloured male has the same privilege as good-looking, tall, straight, white males?
Of course not. Gender is just one of many reasons that I enjoy privilege.
The only differentiator from the "men-are-privileged" mob is the sex.
Well, it is true that gender is a factor. Depending on the circumstances, it can be quite significant. For example, people are generally more receptive to male speakers than female speakers.
So you're denying that I enjoy privilege because of my physical appearance and gender?
If I were a poor black girl, raised by a single mother, and attended an inner-city school that I would have had to work just as hard? That I would have just assumed I'd be able to go to college, instead of that being a foolish pipe dream? That in a professional context people would automatically listen when I spoke, on the assumption that I'm competent and capable?
We don't even have to go that far. If I were simply ugly, short, and fat I know that I wouldn't get the same consideration.
I think it's pretty obvious that I enjoy privilege. I'm having a very difficult time understanding why you believe me to be a victim!
I'm not so sure about that.
He had a two-parent household and access to computers and resources at the local community college.
There are an awful lot of people who aren't so advantaged.
what they need is their non-tech inclined peers to get over the BS social cliches.
Agreed. If only there was some technology program exclusively for girls. That might help eliminate some of that social stigma...
So you're saying that this woman faced challenges and obstacles that her male classmates didn't have to face?
That doesn't sound like equality to me.
I can recognize the privilege I enjoy by being a good-looking, tall, straight, white, male or a healthy normal weight. I know (to some degree) the advantages those qualities have granted me both personally and professionally. Let's also not forget my upbringing: a middle-class family, an essentially crime-free neighborhood, an excellent school district, and parents that supported and encouraged our interests and paid careful attention to our education.I started live on easy mode.
I had to work, sure, but not nearly as hard as someone not so advantaged.
Because I recognize that privilege, I don't blame my mistakes and failures on the poor, minorities, immigrants, or women. I also don't see efforts to "level the playing field" like this as threatening.
How does this program punish boys, exactly?
From what I can tell, it just helps level the playing field. Why are you opposed to equal opportunity? Are you afraid that you can't compete?
No, but it is serving a community where girls interested in programming are disadvantaged compared to boys.
This isn't complicated.
I do not see a good reason for having a girls only class.
There it is. If you don't understand the issues involved, why do you hold such a strong opinion on the subject?
That makes you wonder how much about a person's appearance is genetically determined -- and if the science fiction in the summary is possible at all.