Just the other day, I was thinking to myself, "You know, it's been way too long since Slashdot had an article along the lines of 'Oh my god, there're women on the Net!'" I was beginning to worry.
Look, there're going to be women on the net. Some of 'em aren't going to use it for anything more than chatting. Some of 'em are going to get passionately interested in the way it works and go about learning about it. If they're interested, good. If not, also good.
Feminism was never about making women just like men. It's about making sure that women had the same opportunities and chances as men. If a woman's not into computers, that's fine. If she is into computers, but she's having to cope with a hostile environment which turns her off, THEN we have a problem.
I don't know what to think about these sites, except the ones Jon describes seem to be aiming at a younger group. Sadly, girls at this age are still encouraged to be daft, so it's no surprise to me that it's all about hair and boys. But that doesn't mean that women are not and will never be interested in computing. That's a gross generalization.
At first I was willing to think that perhaps this was a hoax perpetuated on the WorldDaily net site. (These people did, after all, also have breathtaking coverage of the image of the Virgin Mary reported to have appeared in the mirror of one of the Gonzalez family in Miami.) I leaned towards this view because the coincidence of the name with that creepy Afterschool Special and the utter bizarreness of the idea altogether. Now we've got a press release and an actual website. And now I'm concerned.
Putting aside the perhaps unfortunate-yet-inevitable Hitler comparison (can't we think of any other dictatorial demagogues who had lists of enemies? Nixon, perhaps? McCarthy?), let's look at what this is for and what it recommends. First of all, I don't think anyone can be blamed for wanting the schools to feel like safe places to be. I mean, come on. If I had kids, you bet I'd be scared and nervous about having them in school right now. Scared and nervous people tend to approve of what in less nervewracked times they might consider extreme measures. I think this is one of those cases.
To be more fair, remember that the coverage we've received so far is very, very shallow. Consider the following questions. What level(s) of school will the program be implemented at? High school? Middle school? Kindergarten? Will it be implemented statewide? Do the schools have a choice about participating, as the website seems to imply? Is there a system for dealing with those who would use this as a tool to target and punish their rivals? Do the kids understand that there are consequences, and the magnitude of same? How do the administrators and teachers feel about asking their kids to rat on each other? How do the parents feel about it? These are all things I would need to know before I completely freaked out.
OTOH, what I do feel is a valid concern is the vagueness of the criteria given to kids as valid reasons to call the tip line. I quote:
Threats of Violence
Aggressive Behavior
Weapons on Campus
Drugs or Alcohol on Campus
Harassment
Vandalism
Suicide Threats
Intensely Prejudiced or Intolerant Attitudes
Anything Else Harmful to You or Your School
It's that last one that's really unnerving. (On a lighter note, I do think it's amusing that drugs and alcohol are reportable offenses while cigarettes are not.) I mean, okay, it's going to be bad enough that we've got kids calling in other kids for having swiss army knives (he's got a knife! Don't be stupid; do you think I'm going to hold the principal hostage with a three-inch blade?), but we're going to have kids calling in other kids for anything perceived as harmful. Think about this. Whose definition of harm is being used? Are we talking about bodily harm? Mental harm? Harm to belief systems? Where does the line get drawn?
I've got two friends who teach middle school in the city; I'm really looking forward to talking to them about this.
I have to admit, my first thought on reading this was, "Well, maybe humans aren't worth saving? If our fundamental nature leads to obliteration, does the method really matter, per se?" But then I smacked myself with the Feather Duster of Optimism and tried to take another look at it.
Speaking for myself, I know jack about nanotechnology, genetics, or robotics. The article itself went way over my head at times; I could hear the whistle as it sliced through the air. But I know enough about the necessity of evolution to be rather puzzled by what the next step would seem to be. If I understand him correctly, the only way to avoid imminent disaster is to declare a moratorium on all research and development on all the dangerous and scary forms of technology until we as a species have managed to grasp and deal with the ethical implications of what we're doing. This should be easy, since our species is so rational, cooperative, and willing to negotiate out ethical situations.
So what are we left with? The idea that our enthusiasm and passion for technology, truth, and science is hurtling us towards a cataclysm unless we as a species yank on the whoa reins of development in order to sit down and discuss whether or not this is actually a good idea. And, since humankind as a species has never been able to come to an overarching agreement on any one topic, it seems to me that we're doomed.
Which brings me back to the question I had when I finished skimming the article. What am I supposed to do about it? Unplug my computer? Join the Just Say No to Nanites consortium? Crawl into that leftover bunker from Y2K and pray that I can survive? For those of us not hobnobbing with scientific celebrities, what's the next step?
Fairly obvious to whom? If we started trying to encourage women to be interested in technical matters, do you believe that women would continue to remain disinterested in the field?
I'm really puzzled by the ambivalence towards actively encouraging women to be interested in computers, math, and science. We're talking about actively, though perhaps unintentionally, telling half of the world's human population, No, I'm sorry, this isn't your area. You don't belong here. Why, in the name of whatever, would we want things to remain that way? Why doesn't it bother people more?
For myself, I'm a late-blooming geek, coming to realize that computers, logic, and "let's take it apart to see if it breaks or if we can put it back together" is a hell of a lot of fun. I wish I'd been into this sooner. How many more like me are there out in the world? Perhaps we need to stop thinking of this as a male/female thing (dualism sucks, anyway), and think of it more as a distributed computing thing. If we actively encourage women to take an interest in computers and technology, we'll have that much more brainpower working at problems, and therefore, probably solve those problems that much faster.
I also don't buy the theory that if women were truly interested in computers, they would have found some way to wiggle their way into the field, come hell or high water. It can be damn hard to make your way into a field you think your friends or parents or society disapproves of. If we introduced women to computers as a tool they can use and not a scary piece of equipment only men can handle, and kept trying, even if there were no immediate results apparent, I bet there would be a slow but steady swell in the number of women in computer science.
One of the worst parts about trying to be a woman who works with computers is putting up with all the damn men....
exactly. I've been on Zoloft for nearly a year now, and it's amazing what the difference is. Before I was on Zoloft, there were times when I sat down and cried because I'd run out of socks and I simply felt overwhelmed by my laundry. That's not normal.
Now, I know I can live without zoloft; I did it for about, oh, eight years or so. But I have to expend a hell of a lot of emotional energy simply forcing myself to function like other people. I view my drug as the emotional equivalent of my glasses; it puts everything back in perspective.
On a more general note, I'm a psych major by training (now learning to be a better geek, thank you very much), so this is kind of my area. I know that overmedicating and misdiagnosing is a major concern for a lot of shrinks (the good ones who want to help you, not drug you into submission). It's much more efficient and less frustrating for them when they can get it right the first time. They don't want to be mistreating people: that way lies malpractice suits. And, in regard to the charges of misdiagnosing and overmedicating, remember psychology as a hard science is still in its early development. Psychiatrists and psychologists haven't even managed to agree on a Unified Theory for the causality of mental disorders, so it's no surprise that the treatment methodologies are scattershot. Finally, we don't know what the long-term effects are because the people who're being treated haven't gotten to the long term yet.
IMHO, what psychology needs to do is work forward to a Unified Field Theory for causality and treatment, and then somehow manage to educate the general public. People with mental disorders are, nevertheless, people, and deserving of treatment. Unfortunately, the tools with which they're treated are still getting refined, and a lot of them probably aren't getting the help they need, in the form best suited for them. But nothing is more likely to make them more reluctant look for what help they *can* receive than being classified as nuts or psychotic. Don't suppose we could change the headline for this article?
Slashdot Mirror
Just the other day, I was thinking to myself, "You know, it's been way too long since Slashdot had an article along the lines of 'Oh my god, there're women on the Net!'" I was beginning to worry.
Look, there're going to be women on the net. Some of 'em aren't going to use it for anything more than chatting. Some of 'em are going to get passionately interested in the way it works and go about learning about it. If they're interested, good. If not, also good.
Feminism was never about making women just like men. It's about making sure that women had the same opportunities and chances as men. If a woman's not into computers, that's fine. If she is into computers, but she's having to cope with a hostile environment which turns her off, THEN we have a problem.
I don't know what to think about these sites, except the ones Jon describes seem to be aiming at a younger group. Sadly, girls at this age are still encouraged to be daft, so it's no surprise to me that it's all about hair and boys. But that doesn't mean that women are not and will never be interested in computing. That's a gross generalization.
everstar
Putting aside the perhaps unfortunate-yet-inevitable Hitler comparison (can't we think of any other dictatorial demagogues who had lists of enemies? Nixon, perhaps? McCarthy?), let's look at what this is for and what it recommends. First of all, I don't think anyone can be blamed for wanting the schools to feel like safe places to be. I mean, come on. If I had kids, you bet I'd be scared and nervous about having them in school right now. Scared and nervous people tend to approve of what in less nervewracked times they might consider extreme measures. I think this is one of those cases.
To be more fair, remember that the coverage we've received so far is very, very shallow. Consider the following questions. What level(s) of school will the program be implemented at? High school? Middle school? Kindergarten? Will it be implemented statewide? Do the schools have a choice about participating, as the website seems to imply? Is there a system for dealing with those who would use this as a tool to target and punish their rivals? Do the kids understand that there are consequences, and the magnitude of same? How do the administrators and teachers feel about asking their kids to rat on each other? How do the parents feel about it? These are all things I would need to know before I completely freaked out.
OTOH, what I do feel is a valid concern is the vagueness of the criteria given to kids as valid reasons to call the tip line. I quote:
It's that last one that's really unnerving. (On a lighter note, I do think it's amusing that drugs and alcohol are reportable offenses while cigarettes are not.) I mean, okay, it's going to be bad enough that we've got kids calling in other kids for having swiss army knives (he's got a knife! Don't be stupid; do you think I'm going to hold the principal hostage with a three-inch blade?), but we're going to have kids calling in other kids for anything perceived as harmful. Think about this. Whose definition of harm is being used? Are we talking about bodily harm? Mental harm? Harm to belief systems? Where does the line get drawn?
I've got two friends who teach middle school in the city; I'm really looking forward to talking to them about this.
concerned, but wanting more data,
everstar
I have to admit, my first thought on reading this was, "Well, maybe humans aren't worth saving? If our fundamental nature leads to obliteration, does the method really matter, per se?" But then I smacked myself with the Feather Duster of Optimism and tried to take another look at it.
Speaking for myself, I know jack about nanotechnology, genetics, or robotics. The article itself went way over my head at times; I could hear the whistle as it sliced through the air. But I know enough about the necessity of evolution to be rather puzzled by what the next step would seem to be. If I understand him correctly, the only way to avoid imminent disaster is to declare a moratorium on all research and development on all the dangerous and scary forms of technology until we as a species have managed to grasp and deal with the ethical implications of what we're doing. This should be easy, since our species is so rational, cooperative, and willing to negotiate out ethical situations.
So what are we left with? The idea that our enthusiasm and passion for technology, truth, and science is hurtling us towards a cataclysm unless we as a species yank on the whoa reins of development in order to sit down and discuss whether or not this is actually a good idea. And, since humankind as a species has never been able to come to an overarching agreement on any one topic, it seems to me that we're doomed.
Which brings me back to the question I had when I finished skimming the article. What am I supposed to do about it? Unplug my computer? Join the Just Say No to Nanites consortium? Crawl into that leftover bunker from Y2K and pray that I can survive? For those of us not hobnobbing with scientific celebrities, what's the next step?
Everstar
Fairly obvious to whom? If we started trying to encourage women to be interested in technical matters, do you believe that women would continue to remain disinterested in the field?
I'm really puzzled by the ambivalence towards actively encouraging women to be interested in computers, math, and science. We're talking about actively, though perhaps unintentionally, telling half of the world's human population, No, I'm sorry, this isn't your area. You don't belong here. Why, in the name of whatever, would we want things to remain that way? Why doesn't it bother people more?
For myself, I'm a late-blooming geek, coming to realize that computers, logic, and "let's take it apart to see if it breaks or if we can put it back together" is a hell of a lot of fun. I wish I'd been into this sooner. How many more like me are there out in the world? Perhaps we need to stop thinking of this as a male/female thing (dualism sucks, anyway), and think of it more as a distributed computing thing. If we actively encourage women to take an interest in computers and technology, we'll have that much more brainpower working at problems, and therefore, probably solve those problems that much faster.
I also don't buy the theory that if women were truly interested in computers, they would have found some way to wiggle their way into the field, come hell or high water. It can be damn hard to make your way into a field you think your friends or parents or society disapproves of. If we introduced women to computers as a tool they can use and not a scary piece of equipment only men can handle, and kept trying, even if there were no immediate results apparent, I bet there would be a slow but steady swell in the number of women in computer science.
One of the worst parts about trying to be a woman who works with computers is putting up with all the damn men....
so, no bad feelings, then?
*slaps forehead and runs*
Everstar
exactly. I've been on Zoloft for nearly a year now, and it's amazing what the difference is. Before I was on Zoloft, there were times when I sat down and cried because I'd run out of socks and I simply felt overwhelmed by my laundry. That's not normal.
Now, I know I can live without zoloft; I did it for about, oh, eight years or so. But I have to expend a hell of a lot of emotional energy simply forcing myself to function like other people. I view my drug as the emotional equivalent of my glasses; it puts everything back in perspective.
On a more general note, I'm a psych major by training (now learning to be a better geek, thank you very much), so this is kind of my area. I know that overmedicating and misdiagnosing is a major concern for a lot of shrinks (the good ones who want to help you, not drug you into submission). It's much more efficient and less frustrating for them when they can get it right the first time. They don't want to be mistreating people: that way lies malpractice suits. And, in regard to the charges of misdiagnosing and overmedicating, remember psychology as a hard science is still in its early development. Psychiatrists and psychologists haven't even managed to agree on a Unified Theory for the causality of mental disorders, so it's no surprise that the treatment methodologies are scattershot. Finally, we don't know what the long-term effects are because the people who're being treated haven't gotten to the long term yet.
IMHO, what psychology needs to do is work forward to a Unified Field Theory for causality and treatment, and then somehow manage to educate the general public. People with mental disorders are, nevertheless, people, and deserving of treatment. Unfortunately, the tools with which they're treated are still getting refined, and a lot of them probably aren't getting the help they need, in the form best suited for them. But nothing is more likely to make them more reluctant look for what help they *can* receive than being classified as nuts or psychotic. Don't suppose we could change the headline for this article?
Everstar