So is the group "women who have made false accusations of harassment" or "women in general"?
Because if the group is "women who have made false accusations of harassment and have refused to accept responsibility" sure - I have no problem with saying that "women who have made false accusations of harassment and have failed to accept responsibility" should be publicly outed.
But if you're saying "women in general" should be lumped in, then holy shit, you're insane. No one should have to apologize or accept responsibility for anyone's actions but their own or those that they are directly in control of/have authority over. I personally refuse to take responsibility for stupid behavior because some people in my demographic bucket behave poorly, and even more so, fuck anyone who says that I am obligated to say "I don't like that behavior!" when someone in my demographic bucket behaves poorly.
Further, if you're endorsing the "women in general" notion - then the exact same reasoning holds true for men.
So please, be clear: who bears the responsibility, in your opinion? Women who make false accusations of harassment or women in general?
Yeah, because the post that was linked doesn't show an obvious agenda, with quotes like "(Donâ(TM)t like that, ladies? Tough. You were just fine with collective guilt when the shoe was on the other foot. Enjoy your turn!)" That seems pretty axe-grindy to me and only serves to perpetuate the cycle of mistrust and abuses that mistrust enables.
I agree that if people, regardless of gender, are concerned that private one-on-one interactions they have may be used against them, by all means, strive to never be alone with someone you don't trust.
I think it sucks that some men feel like they can't talk to a woman without being accused of impropriety. I think it sucks that some women feel like they can't report a legitimate impropriety without being subject to character assassination and accusations that they were "asking for it". I think it sucks in general that people have stereotypes of the worst in their demographic bucket applied to them, and I don't think any reasonable person can disagree with that general statement.
The situation sucks for EVERYONE. If ESR, fully knowing his celebrity status and the scrutiny it would get, were ACTUALLY trying to do justice to his status, he would have been more responsible in his approach rather than clearly turning it into a dig at women in general with the quote I posted above.
I agree. It's terrifying (well, more disappointing) that completely unsubstantiated claims from someone who was chatting anonymously on IRC are being taken seriously by anyone, ESPECIALLY someone who is seen as a thought leader in the OSS community, and that some idiots will latch on to this kind of weak shit as proof of their preconceptions and then begin acting on this nonsense.
That's already been well done. Just look at any thread here where people swarm to defend people being assholes by telling anyone who doesn't like dealing with assholes to toughen up.
Race is a protected class, period. You can't discriminate on the basis of race, regardless of whether it's black, white, etc.
Gender is a protected class, period. You can't discriminate on the basis of gender, regardless of male or female and in some states transgender.
In some states, sexual orientation is a protected class, period. You can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, be it gay, bi, straight, etc.
If your buddy's boss actually said that, then I would expect HP to get hit with a discrimination suit any day now. He should probably turn his boss in, if it's actually true.
Have you ever or do you currently volunteer or work as part of a program aimed at helping men escape homelessness, offer suicide prevention, or help men avoid incarceration?
Follow-up: do you work in education, especially elementary education? If not, why not?
I ask because clearly these issues are important enough to you to come in here and complain about, so one would hope you've actually tried to do something to address them.
And now for the part where I burn my karma:
What's amazing to me is that these people who are making this school are trying to show some agency and DO SOMETHING to address a problem they see, and a whole bunch of dudes are REALLY FUCKING BOTHERED by this.
When I see a group try and do something to help themselves, I don't say "WELL YOU KNOW OTHER GROUPS ALSO HAVE PROBLEMS!!!!!!" I say "hey, great, people should work together to get ahead." Shouldn't ANYONE who claims to be a geek be all for people trying to fix things they see as a problem? Isn't one of the key concepts behind OSS the notion of scratching an itch/addressing a problem?
Also, before some moron says "WELL WHAT IF THERE WAS A SCHOOL ONLY FOR MEN OR ONLY FOR WHITE PEOPLE!?" - I'm actually opposed to any institution that flat out refuses to admit or work with people based on race, gender, color, creed, sexual orientation or gender presentation. If you read the code of conduct for this school, you'll see that they explicitly state that they don't discriminate based on gender.
If you look at most organizations that have a specific demographic group in their name, they ALSO will help anyone who actually needs it, regardless of whether they're in that group or not. The reason that they have their specific groups in their name is to make it clear to people of that group that there is a place for them.
There really isn't any such thing as privacy at this point, just "not being worth bothering to look up."
Any data store worth worrying about has probably been compromised. It's currently fairly easy to identify and then get information you want about any given individual, and as tech advances it's going to become absolutely trivial. Even moreso, new tech will come along making some data that are currently very difficult to obtain easy and then trivial.
You don't have privacy now, you don't even have anonymity. And you probably don't even have "not being worth looking up" because someone SOMEWHERE is probably curious enough about you to at least google you or something.
The best course of action, IMO, is to embrace that knowledge and figure out ways to minimize the damage that can be done to you if someone does violate what you imagine is your "privacy." There's no good solution to keeping things ACTUALLY private, but there are plenty of good solutions for minimizing damage of important or personal information being freely available.
Yep, you're absolutely right! Had that situation happened, I'm willing to bet the kid would have received similar treatment to what Ahmed received.
Except Ahmed received it for bringing in a pencil case with no wires sticking out, and he then answered all the questions saying it was a clock, repeatedly.
So, the $color kid would have been treated with suspicion (rightly so) for behaving suspicion, while Ahmed was treated with suspicion despite not acting suspicious.
So what are your motives here in the statement that you made?
You're either ignorant of the circumstances and trying to push an agenda/your opinions despite being ignorant, or you know what the circumstances actually were and are lying to try and push an agenda as well as basing your opinions on an intentional disregard for the truth.
That is one advantage, yes. If one is perceived to have earned their position through hard work/talent then one is more likely to continue to advance because they will be considered for future promotions/opportunities. If one is perceived to have gotten their position as a handout, then one is less likely to advance further because they will be less likely to be considered for future promotions/opportunities.
Another disadvantage of being perceived to have gotten a position through affirmative action is that it's really easy to internalize those perceptions which will further hinder performance. Everyone has experienced impostor syndrome or feelings that they are in over their head even when they are absolutely capable and doing a great job, but when those feelings are being reinforced by others attributing success to handouts rather than ability, or that any good work they do is luck (or due to someone else helping), it's a very difficult thing to dismiss that.
Personally, I loathe affirmative action because it leads to exactly this kind of bullshit. There are better solutions to the inequality caused by systemic prejudice than affirmative action, and it would be a good thing to find them.
While I agree that poverty should be a factor in these kinds of programs, there is still the difference that it's very unlikely that a poor white male from Appalachia who does manage to get into a desirable position probably is going to be told that it's due to affirmative action instead of his natural abilities.
Basically, it sucks to be poor, but being white is still an advantage. Rather be poor and white any day over being poor and black, no question what-so-ever.
There are numerous studies in which a majority of people admit to cheating on their spouses or partners. When I say "a majority" I mean, in some studies, the rate of people admitting to infidelity (both genders) was around 70%.
(Just google "percentage of people who cheat on their spouse" and you'll get what I found)
Take into account that some people would never admit to it, even if promised absolute privacy and the rates are likely higher.
Is something still traditional if most people don't actually abide by that tradition? Or maybe the tradition is to claim you're faithful but then cheat and feel like shit about it? Humans are pretty weird.
In my experience, people learning a little bit about programming tend to also learn to respect the fact that there's a ton of stuff they don't know. Yeah, I've run into some who think a single run through of some "Learn X in 24 Hours" book makes them a developer, but they're the minority.
What's really valuable about "everyone" being exposed to programming is that it helps them learn to think about problem solving in a usually different way. Where I work, we had our entire product management team go through a week long programming bootcamp and it's been AMAZING in improving the quality of the specs they write. They aren't under the impression that they're developers but they definitely have a better appreciation for what we do.
And, we developers went through a product bootcamp as well so that we had a better understanding of what they do and more insight into what is driving some of the things they ask for.
More knowledge and understanding is very rarely a bad thing.
I make a post explaining that because of the historical context, his "joke" wasn't funny.
You made a post explaining to me why his joke was funny.
I made a couple of "jokes" that were identical in form and historical context to his, pointing out the absurdity of your point.
You respond by saying I don't get humor and that I lack reading comprehension. It's pretty clear you didn't find my "jokes" funny, despite them being fundamentally the same in tone and historical context.
One of us isn't following along here, and it's very obviously you.
The reason blacks shouldn't be allowed in labs is because they are childlike proto-humans, incapable of higher cognitive functioning. TEE HEE!
The reason Mexicans shouldn't be allowed in labs is because they sleep all day and then steal all the equipment before they head home for the night. TEE HEE!
The reason white males shouldn't be allowed in labs is because they will try to rape and/or subjugate anyone else, and then whine like crazy if anyone calls them on it. TEE HEE!
Yep, seriously totally hillarious. Thanks for setting me straight.
The problem here is that the joke is literally what people have said about why they won't hire women into all male teams.
The argument is frequently made that having a woman on the team would be a distraction/damage unit cohesion/reduce morale/require everyone to mind their p's and q's lest they invoke feminine tears/be pointless because they're only looking to meet a husband etc. etc. etc.
It's not very funny when one has likely heard that exact line of reasoning, said in earnest, as to why they aren't wanted on a team. He's likely not, at least consciously, misogynist, but he's certainly tone deaf.
So, I specifically said state universities would be free to those who qualify. If someone wanted to go to a private institution they could certainly go into crippling debt in order to attend if they so chose.
And, really, I probably wouldn't care much if more people went to university, even if they weren't really qualified. People spending more time in school isn't a bad thing.
And further, I'm sure "the market" will fend for itself when it comes to filtering out idiots; it's just that people won't have crippling student loan debt that will make them so desperate for work that they'll be willing to let their employers bend them over in order to accept a shitty, low paying job.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like it - employers would actually have to offer something in order to attract workers because the workers won't be desperate anymore. I've known people who've taken very, very shitty jobs and worked in abusive environments for years out of fear of losing their health insurance or being unable to pay for school loans - that's pretty fucked up.
I say guarantee basic services (phone, basic cable, broadband), basic accommodations (place to live, food), and basic health (medical insurance) for those who need it. Provide life and job skills classes open to anyone who wants to attend. Make state university free of charge for those who qualify (via academic track record and testing), vocational training (plumbing, culinary, whatever) free for those who don't qualify for university.
Spread the housing across a given community, rather than concentrating it in one place, to prevent things like a project mentality and generational poverty mindset.
It would be vastly less expensive than the costs we pay for police, prison and emergency services, safer for everyone else, and overall reduce human suffering.
Most people would be happy to work an actual job and pay taxes in order to have "better than the bare minimum" for all of the above and the ability to do things like have food that isn't just staples, go on vacation, have more living space, etc.
For people who don't want more, or who can't work for more, at least this would keep them off of the streets to some extent, and keep them from getting so desperate they resort to crime just to survive.
I have zero problem with my taxes going to pay for such things because, not being an idiot, I'm aware that the alternative (what we have right now) is VASTLY more expensive by pretty much every metric.
Weirdly enough, women were quite well represented in technology before the 80s. Clearly there was an interest - so what's changed?
Women in other countries are somewhat more well represented in technology and more likely to go into STEM fields - so what are those other countries doing differently?
There are a number of things that make a strong case for the reasons women aren't well represented in tech being related to artificial issues rather than natural tendencies.
Tech isn't singled out as the one and only important field, by the way. I'm not sure where you get that idea from, but if you look at most any field with a lopsided gender ratio you'll see concern about the gender imbalance and efforts to remedy it. Nursing programs will aggressively pursue male candidates, same for elementary teaching, for example.
In any case, my guess as to why tech is singled out is not that tech is singled out, but that you're probably primarily reading tech sites where this gets discussed, so it just seems that way.
A willingness to give partial credit for work shown, even if the ultimate answer was wrong, and other things like that. They may be more willing, in this case, to assume that the boy with the wrong answer was on the right track, while the girl with the wrong answer was just flailing around and guessing, even when the provided answers and work were the same.
I see, it's not just ignorance - it's willful ignorance that forms the basis for your factually incorrect opinions, and when challenged on your ignorance, you lash out incoherently.
I'm sure you imagine you have a point - given that your stated opinions have no basis in fact, you probably imagine all kinds of crazy things are true. Please also feel free to imagine that you've put me in my place, if you like. I certainly don't see any point to continuing this discussion; I won't try to reason with someone clearly lacking it.
Except that there is a push to get more men into elementary teaching. And there is a push to get more men in to other industries dominated by women, like nursing.
You seem to have a very strongly held opinion (at least one that's strong enough to comment about and bash "SJW"s) that is clearly based at least in part on ignorance. I'd suggest learning more - not only will it help you avoid embarrassing yourself by displaying your ignorance, but it might even help you revise your opinions.
Also, side note, one of the reasons nobody gives much of a shit about there not being enough white players on pro basketball teams is because, statistically speaking, it isn't remotely relevant. How many pro NBA players are there? Now compare that to fields like software development or IT. Which one of those groups is more relevant for the average person who wishes to achieve upward mobility and has better odds?
Additionally, you're also ignoring the fact that white people were not, historically speaking, forbidden from playing in professional sports leagues and were not harassed and threatened (at least not for their race) when they joining the leagues. The fact that you so blithely ignore historical fact, once again, says to me that you form your opinions out of ignorance. Again, I suggest learning more so that you don't embarrass yourself by spouting off your uninformed nonsense.
The extra information is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that his idiot identified as a feminist, and it didn't matter that the creep I described identified as a men's right's activist. They are an idiot and a creep, respectively, and it says absolutely nothing about other people who may have some label in common.
Slashdot Mirror
... you really suck at being a developer.
So is the group "women who have made false accusations of harassment" or "women in general"?
Because if the group is "women who have made false accusations of harassment and have refused to accept responsibility" sure - I have no problem with saying that "women who have made false accusations of harassment and have failed to accept responsibility" should be publicly outed.
But if you're saying "women in general" should be lumped in, then holy shit, you're insane. No one should have to apologize or accept responsibility for anyone's actions but their own or those that they are directly in control of/have authority over. I personally refuse to take responsibility for stupid behavior because some people in my demographic bucket behave poorly, and even more so, fuck anyone who says that I am obligated to say "I don't like that behavior!" when someone in my demographic bucket behaves poorly.
Further, if you're endorsing the "women in general" notion - then the exact same reasoning holds true for men.
So please, be clear: who bears the responsibility, in your opinion? Women who make false accusations of harassment or women in general?
By all means - please keep perpetuating the cycle and tell me how that works out for you.
Yeah, because the post that was linked doesn't show an obvious agenda, with quotes like "(Donâ(TM)t like that, ladies? Tough. You were just fine with collective guilt when the shoe was on the other foot. Enjoy your turn!)" That seems pretty axe-grindy to me and only serves to perpetuate the cycle of mistrust and abuses that mistrust enables.
I agree that if people, regardless of gender, are concerned that private one-on-one interactions they have may be used against them, by all means, strive to never be alone with someone you don't trust.
I think it sucks that some men feel like they can't talk to a woman without being accused of impropriety. I think it sucks that some women feel like they can't report a legitimate impropriety without being subject to character assassination and accusations that they were "asking for it". I think it sucks in general that people have stereotypes of the worst in their demographic bucket applied to them, and I don't think any reasonable person can disagree with that general statement.
The situation sucks for EVERYONE. If ESR, fully knowing his celebrity status and the scrutiny it would get, were ACTUALLY trying to do justice to his status, he would have been more responsible in his approach rather than clearly turning it into a dig at women in general with the quote I posted above.
I agree. It's terrifying (well, more disappointing) that completely unsubstantiated claims from someone who was chatting anonymously on IRC are being taken seriously by anyone, ESPECIALLY someone who is seen as a thought leader in the OSS community, and that some idiots will latch on to this kind of weak shit as proof of their preconceptions and then begin acting on this nonsense.
That's already been well done. Just look at any thread here where people swarm to defend people being assholes by telling anyone who doesn't like dealing with assholes to toughen up.
Cite the law then. If it's legal and legally mandated - in the US - then you should have no problem what so ever backing that claim up.
If you're talking about countries outside the US, then I don't really care.
You don't know what a protected class is.
Race is a protected class, period. You can't discriminate on the basis of race, regardless of whether it's black, white, etc.
Gender is a protected class, period. You can't discriminate on the basis of gender, regardless of male or female and in some states transgender.
In some states, sexual orientation is a protected class, period. You can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, be it gay, bi, straight, etc.
If your buddy's boss actually said that, then I would expect HP to get hit with a discrimination suit any day now. He should probably turn his boss in, if it's actually true.
Honest question:
Have you ever or do you currently volunteer or work as part of a program aimed at helping men escape homelessness, offer suicide prevention, or help men avoid incarceration?
Follow-up: do you work in education, especially elementary education? If not, why not?
I ask because clearly these issues are important enough to you to come in here and complain about, so one would hope you've actually tried to do something to address them.
And now for the part where I burn my karma:
What's amazing to me is that these people who are making this school are trying to show some agency and DO SOMETHING to address a problem they see, and a whole bunch of dudes are REALLY FUCKING BOTHERED by this.
When I see a group try and do something to help themselves, I don't say "WELL YOU KNOW OTHER GROUPS ALSO HAVE PROBLEMS!!!!!!" I say "hey, great, people should work together to get ahead." Shouldn't ANYONE who claims to be a geek be all for people trying to fix things they see as a problem? Isn't one of the key concepts behind OSS the notion of scratching an itch/addressing a problem?
Also, before some moron says "WELL WHAT IF THERE WAS A SCHOOL ONLY FOR MEN OR ONLY FOR WHITE PEOPLE!?" - I'm actually opposed to any institution that flat out refuses to admit or work with people based on race, gender, color, creed, sexual orientation or gender presentation. If you read the code of conduct for this school, you'll see that they explicitly state that they don't discriminate based on gender.
If you look at most organizations that have a specific demographic group in their name, they ALSO will help anyone who actually needs it, regardless of whether they're in that group or not. The reason that they have their specific groups in their name is to make it clear to people of that group that there is a place for them.
There really isn't any such thing as privacy at this point, just "not being worth bothering to look up."
Any data store worth worrying about has probably been compromised. It's currently fairly easy to identify and then get information you want about any given individual, and as tech advances it's going to become absolutely trivial. Even moreso, new tech will come along making some data that are currently very difficult to obtain easy and then trivial.
You don't have privacy now, you don't even have anonymity. And you probably don't even have "not being worth looking up" because someone SOMEWHERE is probably curious enough about you to at least google you or something.
The best course of action, IMO, is to embrace that knowledge and figure out ways to minimize the damage that can be done to you if someone does violate what you imagine is your "privacy." There's no good solution to keeping things ACTUALLY private, but there are plenty of good solutions for minimizing damage of important or personal information being freely available.
Yep, you're absolutely right! Had that situation happened, I'm willing to bet the kid would have received similar treatment to what Ahmed received.
Except Ahmed received it for bringing in a pencil case with no wires sticking out, and he then answered all the questions saying it was a clock, repeatedly.
So, the $color kid would have been treated with suspicion (rightly so) for behaving suspicion, while Ahmed was treated with suspicion despite not acting suspicious.
So what are your motives here in the statement that you made?
You're either ignorant of the circumstances and trying to push an agenda/your opinions despite being ignorant, or you know what the circumstances actually were and are lying to try and push an agenda as well as basing your opinions on an intentional disregard for the truth.
That is one advantage, yes. If one is perceived to have earned their position through hard work/talent then one is more likely to continue to advance because they will be considered for future promotions/opportunities. If one is perceived to have gotten their position as a handout, then one is less likely to advance further because they will be less likely to be considered for future promotions/opportunities.
Another disadvantage of being perceived to have gotten a position through affirmative action is that it's really easy to internalize those perceptions which will further hinder performance. Everyone has experienced impostor syndrome or feelings that they are in over their head even when they are absolutely capable and doing a great job, but when those feelings are being reinforced by others attributing success to handouts rather than ability, or that any good work they do is luck (or due to someone else helping), it's a very difficult thing to dismiss that.
Personally, I loathe affirmative action because it leads to exactly this kind of bullshit. There are better solutions to the inequality caused by systemic prejudice than affirmative action, and it would be a good thing to find them.
While I agree that poverty should be a factor in these kinds of programs, there is still the difference that it's very unlikely that a poor white male from Appalachia who does manage to get into a desirable position probably is going to be told that it's due to affirmative action instead of his natural abilities.
Basically, it sucks to be poor, but being white is still an advantage. Rather be poor and white any day over being poor and black, no question what-so-ever.
There are numerous studies in which a majority of people admit to cheating on their spouses or partners. When I say "a majority" I mean, in some studies, the rate of people admitting to infidelity (both genders) was around 70%.
(Just google "percentage of people who cheat on their spouse" and you'll get what I found)
Take into account that some people would never admit to it, even if promised absolute privacy and the rates are likely higher.
Is something still traditional if most people don't actually abide by that tradition? Or maybe the tradition is to claim you're faithful but then cheat and feel like shit about it? Humans are pretty weird.
Pretty much exactly that.
In my experience, people learning a little bit about programming tend to also learn to respect the fact that there's a ton of stuff they don't know. Yeah, I've run into some who think a single run through of some "Learn X in 24 Hours" book makes them a developer, but they're the minority.
What's really valuable about "everyone" being exposed to programming is that it helps them learn to think about problem solving in a usually different way. Where I work, we had our entire product management team go through a week long programming bootcamp and it's been AMAZING in improving the quality of the specs they write. They aren't under the impression that they're developers but they definitely have a better appreciation for what we do.
And, we developers went through a product bootcamp as well so that we had a better understanding of what they do and more insight into what is driving some of the things they ask for.
More knowledge and understanding is very rarely a bad thing.
I make a post explaining that because of the historical context, his "joke" wasn't funny.
You made a post explaining to me why his joke was funny.
I made a couple of "jokes" that were identical in form and historical context to his, pointing out the absurdity of your point.
You respond by saying I don't get humor and that I lack reading comprehension. It's pretty clear you didn't find my "jokes" funny, despite them being fundamentally the same in tone and historical context.
One of us isn't following along here, and it's very obviously you.
You're totally right.
The reason blacks shouldn't be allowed in labs is because they are childlike proto-humans, incapable of higher cognitive functioning. TEE HEE!
The reason Mexicans shouldn't be allowed in labs is because they sleep all day and then steal all the equipment before they head home for the night. TEE HEE!
The reason white males shouldn't be allowed in labs is because they will try to rape and/or subjugate anyone else, and then whine like crazy if anyone calls them on it. TEE HEE!
Yep, seriously totally hillarious. Thanks for setting me straight.
The problem here is that the joke is literally what people have said about why they won't hire women into all male teams.
The argument is frequently made that having a woman on the team would be a distraction/damage unit cohesion/reduce morale/require everyone to mind their p's and q's lest they invoke feminine tears/be pointless because they're only looking to meet a husband etc. etc. etc.
It's not very funny when one has likely heard that exact line of reasoning, said in earnest, as to why they aren't wanted on a team. He's likely not, at least consciously, misogynist, but he's certainly tone deaf.
So, I specifically said state universities would be free to those who qualify. If someone wanted to go to a private institution they could certainly go into crippling debt in order to attend if they so chose.
And, really, I probably wouldn't care much if more people went to university, even if they weren't really qualified. People spending more time in school isn't a bad thing.
And further, I'm sure "the market" will fend for itself when it comes to filtering out idiots; it's just that people won't have crippling student loan debt that will make them so desperate for work that they'll be willing to let their employers bend them over in order to accept a shitty, low paying job.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like it - employers would actually have to offer something in order to attract workers because the workers won't be desperate anymore. I've known people who've taken very, very shitty jobs and worked in abusive environments for years out of fear of losing their health insurance or being unable to pay for school loans - that's pretty fucked up.
I say guarantee basic services (phone, basic cable, broadband), basic accommodations (place to live, food), and basic health (medical insurance) for those who need it. Provide life and job skills classes open to anyone who wants to attend. Make state university free of charge for those who qualify (via academic track record and testing), vocational training (plumbing, culinary, whatever) free for those who don't qualify for university.
Spread the housing across a given community, rather than concentrating it in one place, to prevent things like a project mentality and generational poverty mindset.
It would be vastly less expensive than the costs we pay for police, prison and emergency services, safer for everyone else, and overall reduce human suffering.
Most people would be happy to work an actual job and pay taxes in order to have "better than the bare minimum" for all of the above and the ability to do things like have food that isn't just staples, go on vacation, have more living space, etc.
For people who don't want more, or who can't work for more, at least this would keep them off of the streets to some extent, and keep them from getting so desperate they resort to crime just to survive.
I have zero problem with my taxes going to pay for such things because, not being an idiot, I'm aware that the alternative (what we have right now) is VASTLY more expensive by pretty much every metric.
Weirdly enough, women were quite well represented in technology before the 80s. Clearly there was an interest - so what's changed?
Women in other countries are somewhat more well represented in technology and more likely to go into STEM fields - so what are those other countries doing differently?
There are a number of things that make a strong case for the reasons women aren't well represented in tech being related to artificial issues rather than natural tendencies.
Tech isn't singled out as the one and only important field, by the way. I'm not sure where you get that idea from, but if you look at most any field with a lopsided gender ratio you'll see concern about the gender imbalance and efforts to remedy it. Nursing programs will aggressively pursue male candidates, same for elementary teaching, for example.
In any case, my guess as to why tech is singled out is not that tech is singled out, but that you're probably primarily reading tech sites where this gets discussed, so it just seems that way.
A willingness to give partial credit for work shown, even if the ultimate answer was wrong, and other things like that. They may be more willing, in this case, to assume that the boy with the wrong answer was on the right track, while the girl with the wrong answer was just flailing around and guessing, even when the provided answers and work were the same.
I see, it's not just ignorance - it's willful ignorance that forms the basis for your factually incorrect opinions, and when challenged on your ignorance, you lash out incoherently.
I'm sure you imagine you have a point - given that your stated opinions have no basis in fact, you probably imagine all kinds of crazy things are true. Please also feel free to imagine that you've put me in my place, if you like. I certainly don't see any point to continuing this discussion; I won't try to reason with someone clearly lacking it.
Except that there is a push to get more men into elementary teaching. And there is a push to get more men in to other industries dominated by women, like nursing.
You seem to have a very strongly held opinion (at least one that's strong enough to comment about and bash "SJW"s) that is clearly based at least in part on ignorance. I'd suggest learning more - not only will it help you avoid embarrassing yourself by displaying your ignorance, but it might even help you revise your opinions.
Also, side note, one of the reasons nobody gives much of a shit about there not being enough white players on pro basketball teams is because, statistically speaking, it isn't remotely relevant. How many pro NBA players are there? Now compare that to fields like software development or IT. Which one of those groups is more relevant for the average person who wishes to achieve upward mobility and has better odds?
Additionally, you're also ignoring the fact that white people were not, historically speaking, forbidden from playing in professional sports leagues and were not harassed and threatened (at least not for their race) when they joining the leagues. The fact that you so blithely ignore historical fact, once again, says to me that you form your opinions out of ignorance. Again, I suggest learning more so that you don't embarrass yourself by spouting off your uninformed nonsense.
Exactly that.
The extra information is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that his idiot identified as a feminist, and it didn't matter that the creep I described identified as a men's right's activist. They are an idiot and a creep, respectively, and it says absolutely nothing about other people who may have some label in common.