|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 10 2015 09:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 09:31 MoltkeWarding wrote:
At best, we may say that we will support them should they strive, against the prohibitions of nature, to overreaching aspirations and dreams. For the majority of people however, the feeling of happiness in doing something useful is more commonly satisfied when they align their goals with the tendencies of nature, rather than in opposition to them.
That depends on where you start out I guess. If you're a lower class male who ends up in a coal mine in Mexico I'm pretty sure you're not very happy about fulfilling your Aristotelian purpose because you happen to be the best 'tool' for the job. I think the aesthetic value of that philosophy only works from a distance. Striving for general equality seems like a less arbitrary goal to me. Some natural dispositions just suck, others are more fortunate. Being a nurse is hard work, pays little money and wears you down, it's unfair that women should be keeping doing this because they have some hypothetical disposition towards nursing no matter if that turns out to be a biological fact or not.
How is the longing for "general equality" anything but the most arbitrary of goals? It is fundamentally unjust, for the nature of justice requires the distinction of things (discrimination, one might say,) and it is a thing entirely esoteric, without dependence on the world beyond its own desires (necessarily, one would presume that coal needing to be mined, the best coal miners should be mining the coal.) It is the defiance of Antigone, standing before the legal logic of Creon and proclaiming: "Who knows whether this is so in the other world?" Or at least it would be, if in our world, the Creons were not the Antigones, and the Antigones the Creons. Its appeal, if there is one, seems to emerge from that otherworld.
|
This is one of the biggest myths that keeps getting spread around, that the coding field was dominated by women before the 90's. It's technically true, but has almost little bearing on today's evaluation of STEM fields.
The simple and blatantly obvious answer that none of those articles even remotely mention is this: before the mid-1980's programming was code punching. And when code punching was programming, the vast majority of computing was still in the hardware (AKA engineering, which was still male dominated), and programming was still very rudimentary and mostly data entry or basic input->output.
In other words, programming during all of this era was secretary work, and women (and the rest of the world) considered these positions to be women's work.
It wasn't until software really took off that people started to think of programming as a highly technical career.
|
On August 10 2015 10:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:This is one of the biggest myths that keeps getting spread around, that the coding field was dominated by women before the 90's. It's technically true, but has almost little bearing on today's evaluation of STEM fields. The simple and blatantly obvious answer that none of those articles even remotely mention is this: before the mid-1980's programming was code punching. And when code punching was programming, the vast majority of computing was still in the hardware (AKA engineering, which was still male dominated), and programming was still very rudimentary and mostly data entry or basic input->output. In other words, programming during all of this era was secretary work, and women (and the rest of the world) considered these positions to be women's work. It wasn't until software really took off that people started to think of programming as a highly technical career.
Except the articles address that and many others have as well. And you didnt explain why women left the field, only that it changed. The entire argument that cultural influences are not the cause is basic kg confirmation bias.
|
On August 10 2015 09:48 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2015 00:54 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2015 00:30 Deathstar wrote:On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on. That type of language is so obnoxious. It's just finger pointing and it's a sure way to make a bunch of people tune you (Bernie supporters) out. Liberals have done A LOT to help blacks raise themselves up. Blacks aren't some innocent bunch who haven't had opportunities. They're not angels who were wronged by the evil white people. I understand the language of raising capital gain taxes, expanding SS, infrastructure spending, but then the hard core progressives ruin it in with these condescending "grow up america," "we need to have an honest conversation about black people," "you just don't understand how bad black people have it," etc blah blah. And you know what? It's incredibly divisive. We could be united under the progressive platform but then shit like this is thrown around. The funny part is that I have seen this before over and over. A minority group like blacks pushes for the majority group to do more for them. The majority group gets defensive and says "this is divisive and we should be under a common banner," which is effectively dodging the request for more help and political support. It is basically saying "I don't want to listen to your concerns now, I did a lot of stuff before and that should be good enough. Now work with me." And to be very clear, I am white as the driven snow. At least someone gets it. Now you just have to get the rest of the white liberals to get it also. Otherwise we're all buggered. Exactly; i'm pretty sure that Racial Justice has been added within the last 24 hours(?), if so, Bernie is on the right track. Seriously, Sanders' supporters really need to chill out and stop being so defensive, else we'll look like Ron Paul bots. Ugh
Better than looking like blacktivists at this point.
|
On August 10 2015 10:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 10:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:This is one of the biggest myths that keeps getting spread around, that the coding field was dominated by women before the 90's. It's technically true, but has almost little bearing on today's evaluation of STEM fields. The simple and blatantly obvious answer that none of those articles even remotely mention is this: before the mid-1980's programming was code punching. And when code punching was programming, the vast majority of computing was still in the hardware (AKA engineering, which was still male dominated), and programming was still very rudimentary and mostly data entry or basic input->output. In other words, programming during all of this era was secretary work, and women (and the rest of the world) considered these positions to be women's work. It wasn't until software really took off that people started to think of programming as a highly technical career. Except the articles address that and many others have as well. And you didnt explain why women left the field, only that it changed.
They left because it changed... The skillsets of programming today are almost completely unrelated to "programming" then. You are basically pretending to be confused why 6 of the first 10 NBA MVPs were centers, but 0 of the last 10 were.
|
On August 10 2015 10:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 10:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:This is one of the biggest myths that keeps getting spread around, that the coding field was dominated by women before the 90's. It's technically true, but has almost little bearing on today's evaluation of STEM fields. The simple and blatantly obvious answer that none of those articles even remotely mention is this: before the mid-1980's programming was code punching. And when code punching was programming, the vast majority of computing was still in the hardware (AKA engineering, which was still male dominated), and programming was still very rudimentary and mostly data entry or basic input->output. In other words, programming during all of this era was secretary work, and women (and the rest of the world) considered these positions to be women's work. It wasn't until software really took off that people started to think of programming as a highly technical career. Except the articles address that and many others have as well. And you didnt explain why women left the field, only that it changed. The entire argument that cultural influences are not the cause is basic kg confirmation bias.
You're right, the second article does address this, and I missed that. The other three don't at all. And women didn't leave the field at all, the problem is that you're equating pre-1985's programming with modern programming. The closer comparison is modern typists and data entry jobs, which are still largely dominated by women due to gender biases.
I also did not say that cultural influence is not a cause in women not pursuing STEM careers. It absolutely is.
However, your assertion that women were "heavily involved" in STEM fields because they were programmers before the mid 1980's is flat out wrong. As I've said, those programmer positions were not tech fields. Some women used it as a stepping stone to get into technical careers, absolutely, but not most.
|
On August 10 2015 00:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 00:30 Deathstar wrote:On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on. That type of language is so obnoxious. It's just finger pointing and it's a sure way to make a bunch of people tune you (Bernie supporters) out. Liberals have done A LOT to help blacks raise themselves up. Blacks aren't some innocent bunch who haven't had opportunities. They're not angels who were wronged by the evil white people. I understand the language of raising capital gain taxes, expanding SS, infrastructure spending, but then the hard core progressives ruin it in with these condescending "grow up america," "we need to have an honest conversation about black people," "you just don't understand how bad black people have it," etc blah blah. And you know what? It's incredibly divisive. We could be united under the progressive platform but then shit like this is thrown around. The funny part is that I have seen this before over and over. A minority group like blacks pushes for the majority group to do more for them. The majority group gets defensive and says "this is divisive and we should be under a common banner," which is effectively dodging the request for more help and political support. It is basically saying "I don't want to listen to your concerns now, I did a lot of stuff before and that should be good enough. Now work with me." And to be very clear, I am white as the driven snow.
This is ridiculous. We live in a democratic republic and it's on the constituencies to organize and advocate for themselves, not the other way around. I wonder what the % racial breakdown of volunteer time and donations to Bernie Sanders are.
Do you understand why I say this? Bernie has finite time, energy, and money and dedicating to this "racial justice issue" will be a black hole. The fact is most black people don't even know who Bernie is. They know Hillary and they know to vote for her, if they even bother to go out and vote.
|
On August 10 2015 11:09 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 00:54 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2015 00:30 Deathstar wrote:On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on. That type of language is so obnoxious. It's just finger pointing and it's a sure way to make a bunch of people tune you (Bernie supporters) out. Liberals have done A LOT to help blacks raise themselves up. Blacks aren't some innocent bunch who haven't had opportunities. They're not angels who were wronged by the evil white people. I understand the language of raising capital gain taxes, expanding SS, infrastructure spending, but then the hard core progressives ruin it in with these condescending "grow up america," "we need to have an honest conversation about black people," "you just don't understand how bad black people have it," etc blah blah. And you know what? It's incredibly divisive. We could be united under the progressive platform but then shit like this is thrown around. The funny part is that I have seen this before over and over. A minority group like blacks pushes for the majority group to do more for them. The majority group gets defensive and says "this is divisive and we should be under a common banner," which is effectively dodging the request for more help and political support. It is basically saying "I don't want to listen to your concerns now, I did a lot of stuff before and that should be good enough. Now work with me." And to be very clear, I am white as the driven snow. This is ridiculous. We live in a democratic republic and it's on the constituencies to organize and advocate for themselves, not the other way around. I wonder what the % racial breakdown of volunteer time and donations to Bernie Sanders are. Do you understand why I say this? Bernie has finite time, energy, and money and dedicating to this "racial justice issue" will be a black hole. The fact is most black people don't even know who Bernie is. They know Hillary and they know to vote for her, if they even bother to go out and vote.
Fact you say? Have a citation for that part? And care to walk back the borderline racist part at the end?
|
On August 10 2015 11:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 11:09 Deathstar wrote:On August 10 2015 00:54 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2015 00:30 Deathstar wrote:On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on. That type of language is so obnoxious. It's just finger pointing and it's a sure way to make a bunch of people tune you (Bernie supporters) out. Liberals have done A LOT to help blacks raise themselves up. Blacks aren't some innocent bunch who haven't had opportunities. They're not angels who were wronged by the evil white people. I understand the language of raising capital gain taxes, expanding SS, infrastructure spending, but then the hard core progressives ruin it in with these condescending "grow up america," "we need to have an honest conversation about black people," "you just don't understand how bad black people have it," etc blah blah. And you know what? It's incredibly divisive. We could be united under the progressive platform but then shit like this is thrown around. The funny part is that I have seen this before over and over. A minority group like blacks pushes for the majority group to do more for them. The majority group gets defensive and says "this is divisive and we should be under a common banner," which is effectively dodging the request for more help and political support. It is basically saying "I don't want to listen to your concerns now, I did a lot of stuff before and that should be good enough. Now work with me." And to be very clear, I am white as the driven snow. This is ridiculous. We live in a democratic republic and it's on the constituencies to organize and advocate for themselves, not the other way around. I wonder what the % racial breakdown of volunteer time and donations to Bernie Sanders are. Do you understand why I say this? Bernie has finite time, energy, and money and dedicating to this "racial justice issue" will be a black hole. The fact is most black people don't even know who Bernie is. They know Hillary and they know to vote for her, if they even bother to go out and vote. Fact you say? Have a citation for that part? And care to walk back the borderline racist part at the end?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/19/politics/bernie-sanders-african-americans-2016-netroots/
A June CNN/ORC poll showed just 2% of black Democrats supporting Sanders, a figure that has remained unchanged since February. Among non-white voters overall, Sanders polls at 9% compared to Hillary Clinton's 61%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-lags-hillary-clinton-in-introducing-himself-to-black-voters.html
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is climbing in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he has drawn thousands of people to rallies for his presidential campaign recently in Denver and Minneapolis. But the shooting last week in Charleston, S.C., has highlighted a daunting obstacle he faces in the Democratic primary contest: Black voters have shown little interest in him.
Even his own campaign advisers acknowledge that Mr. Sanders is virtually unknown to many African-Americans, an enormously important Democratic constituency.
On the last part, which isn't borderline racist but a fact.
1. Most people don't vote
2. If they vote, they vote for who's familiar.
3. Hillary has Bill Clinton and will have Obama advocating for her, and they command TREMENDOUS authority among minorities.
edit:
To lighten things up though, 20K inside + 5k outside for Bernie's Portland rally, and 10k on YT stream
|
On August 10 2015 11:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 10:35 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2015 10:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:This is one of the biggest myths that keeps getting spread around, that the coding field was dominated by women before the 90's. It's technically true, but has almost little bearing on today's evaluation of STEM fields. The simple and blatantly obvious answer that none of those articles even remotely mention is this: before the mid-1980's programming was code punching. And when code punching was programming, the vast majority of computing was still in the hardware (AKA engineering, which was still male dominated), and programming was still very rudimentary and mostly data entry or basic input->output. In other words, programming during all of this era was secretary work, and women (and the rest of the world) considered these positions to be women's work. It wasn't until software really took off that people started to think of programming as a highly technical career. Except the articles address that and many others have as well. And you didnt explain why women left the field, only that it changed. The entire argument that cultural influences are not the cause is basic kg confirmation bias. You're right, the second article does address this, and I missed that. The other three don't at all. And women didn't leave the field at all, the problem is that you're equating pre-1985's programming with modern programming. The closer comparison is modern typists and data entry jobs, which are still largely dominated by women due to gender biases. I also did not say that cultural influence is not a cause in women not pursuing STEM careers. It absolutely is. However, your assertion that women were "heavily involved" in STEM fields because they were programmers before the mid 1980's is flat out wrong. As I've said, those programmer positions were not tech fields. Some women used it as a stepping stone to get into technical careers, absolutely, but not most.
I think it was more that they were heavily involved with computers up until the point when it became a field associated with math and an college degree. Then sudden it shiefted a field during dominated men because "women don't take naturally to science" and so on. And the field has perpetuated that myth since then. It's 2015 and people still make the argument that genetics predispose specific races/genders to specific fields.
|
Royal Dutch Shell have announced they will end their membership of the far-right American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) because of its continuing denial of the science of climate change.
In a statement released on Friday, a Shell spokesman said: “Alec advocates for specific economic growth initiatives, but its stance on climate change is clearly inconsistent with our own.”
Shell joins fellow oil major BP in a corporate exodus from the conservative, free-market lobby group. Shell’s decision comes after sustained pressure from campaign groups, in particular the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), for Shell to stop funding Alec. The group’s position statement on climate change calls it an “historical phenomenon”.
“The debate will continue on the significance of natural and anthropogenic contributions,” it reads. Alec has lead an assault on renewable energy that observers are concerned could significantly hamper the industry.
The move was flagged by Shell CEO Ben van Beurden in an interview with the Guardian in May when he was confronted over the company’s continued funding of climate denial. He defended Shell’s membership on the grounds that Alec worked on a broad range of policy issues, but “watch this space”, he said.
Shell’s spokesman said: “We have long recognised both the importance of the climate challenge and the critical role energy has in determining quality of life for people across the world. As part of an ongoing review of memberships and affiliations, we will be letting our association with Alec lapse when the current contracted term ends early next year.”
Shell’s departure from the controversial lobbying network comes at a time when several major companies linked to fossil fuels have been quietly severing ties. The Guardian has learned that the Canadian National Railway has similarly pulled its membership, albeit without making any public announcement about it.
Source
|
On August 10 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 11:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 10 2015 10:35 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2015 10:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:This is one of the biggest myths that keeps getting spread around, that the coding field was dominated by women before the 90's. It's technically true, but has almost little bearing on today's evaluation of STEM fields. The simple and blatantly obvious answer that none of those articles even remotely mention is this: before the mid-1980's programming was code punching. And when code punching was programming, the vast majority of computing was still in the hardware (AKA engineering, which was still male dominated), and programming was still very rudimentary and mostly data entry or basic input->output. In other words, programming during all of this era was secretary work, and women (and the rest of the world) considered these positions to be women's work. It wasn't until software really took off that people started to think of programming as a highly technical career. Except the articles address that and many others have as well. And you didnt explain why women left the field, only that it changed. The entire argument that cultural influences are not the cause is basic kg confirmation bias. You're right, the second article does address this, and I missed that. The other three don't at all. And women didn't leave the field at all, the problem is that you're equating pre-1985's programming with modern programming. The closer comparison is modern typists and data entry jobs, which are still largely dominated by women due to gender biases. I also did not say that cultural influence is not a cause in women not pursuing STEM careers. It absolutely is. However, your assertion that women were "heavily involved" in STEM fields because they were programmers before the mid 1980's is flat out wrong. As I've said, those programmer positions were not tech fields. Some women used it as a stepping stone to get into technical careers, absolutely, but not most. I think it was more that they were heavily involved with computers up until the point when it became a field associated with math and an college degree. Then sudden it shiefted a field during dominated men because "women don't take naturally to science" and so on. And the field has perpetuated that myth since then. It's 2015 and people still make the argument that genetics predispose specific races/genders to specific fields.
Nobody in their right mind advocates that girls shouldn't study computer science or become programmers because math (unless the US is still stuck in the 1800s and we are secretly living out Pride and Prejudice). However, the fact is that the field is male-dominated. When I studied CS there were a grand total of 4 girls in my CS classes of about 150 students. I also studied math at the same time, and that was 50/50 or better. However, the Information Systems course that started a year later as a new study in the CS faculty actually attracted a fair number of girls. + Show Spoiler [fun story, but tangential] + Us hardcore CSers called it CS for girls, because instead of focusing on the engineering side, it had more design, psychology and business subjects: looking back at it from a business point of view, it was probably a helluvalot better at preparing students for industry than CS was.
The main problem girls have a tough time in CS, and are generally put off by it, is that it is a male dominated culture, just as in gaming (probably slightly less so, as I know more girls in CS than in hardcore gaming). It may seem contradictory, but nerd culture is about as much a bastion of male chauvinism as jock culture is. And it is not easy to do anything about that.
However, it is important to try, and not just because the government is waving quotas around, but because diversity brings fresh perspectives, and that in turn drives innovation (and this doesn't just go for gender, but also for religious, cultural and ethnic diversity). Here, enjoy: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/
|
On August 10 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 11:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 10 2015 10:35 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2015 10:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:This is one of the biggest myths that keeps getting spread around, that the coding field was dominated by women before the 90's. It's technically true, but has almost little bearing on today's evaluation of STEM fields. The simple and blatantly obvious answer that none of those articles even remotely mention is this: before the mid-1980's programming was code punching. And when code punching was programming, the vast majority of computing was still in the hardware (AKA engineering, which was still male dominated), and programming was still very rudimentary and mostly data entry or basic input->output. In other words, programming during all of this era was secretary work, and women (and the rest of the world) considered these positions to be women's work. It wasn't until software really took off that people started to think of programming as a highly technical career. Except the articles address that and many others have as well. And you didnt explain why women left the field, only that it changed. The entire argument that cultural influences are not the cause is basic kg confirmation bias. You're right, the second article does address this, and I missed that. The other three don't at all. And women didn't leave the field at all, the problem is that you're equating pre-1985's programming with modern programming. The closer comparison is modern typists and data entry jobs, which are still largely dominated by women due to gender biases. I also did not say that cultural influence is not a cause in women not pursuing STEM careers. It absolutely is. However, your assertion that women were "heavily involved" in STEM fields because they were programmers before the mid 1980's is flat out wrong. As I've said, those programmer positions were not tech fields. Some women used it as a stepping stone to get into technical careers, absolutely, but not most. I think it was more that they were heavily involved with computers up until the point when it became a field associated with math and an college degree. Then sudden it shiefted a field during dominated men because "women don't take naturally to science" and so on. And the field has perpetuated that myth since then. It's 2015 and people still make the argument that genetics predispose specific races/genders to specific fields.
?
I just told you the history. It didn't become a field dominated by men because women were shoved out of the positions. If you've seen the Imitation Game (about Alan Turing), that's what computers were. Highly specialized pieces of machinery that would accept limited inputs and spit out specialized outputs. And programmers were the ones that pulled the nobs and pushed the buttons (or, later on, punched the cards), and it was a position much like any machine operator's today.
The mid 1985's is when software technology exploded (and it was a very sudden jump, like most things in the computer industry), hardware became less-specialized, and programming had a very sharp shift from non-technical to extremely technical.
The issues surrounding women in STEM fields is absolutely because of social pressures and extreme gender biases in education, parenting, work place and media. However, computer science was not some outlier that proved that women would flock to technical fields if the barriers were removed. It was very much a continuation of the status quo: men did the thinking work, women did the paper work.
|
It has nothing to do with the culture. The faculty, and most male peers in engineering and CS are desperate to give a chance to women. In my field, biomedical engineering, it was laughable how much help and encouragement they received. Such things are worth a minimum of half a grade point. Only a person with an incredible ideological slant could interpret what happens in these things as anything other than a massive advantage for women and minorities. If a resume-submission study shows otherwise, it is merely those people understanding how ridiculous the current academic environment is.
|
On August 10 2015 11:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 11:09 Deathstar wrote:On August 10 2015 00:54 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2015 00:30 Deathstar wrote:On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on. That type of language is so obnoxious. It's just finger pointing and it's a sure way to make a bunch of people tune you (Bernie supporters) out. Liberals have done A LOT to help blacks raise themselves up. Blacks aren't some innocent bunch who haven't had opportunities. They're not angels who were wronged by the evil white people. I understand the language of raising capital gain taxes, expanding SS, infrastructure spending, but then the hard core progressives ruin it in with these condescending "grow up america," "we need to have an honest conversation about black people," "you just don't understand how bad black people have it," etc blah blah. And you know what? It's incredibly divisive. We could be united under the progressive platform but then shit like this is thrown around. The funny part is that I have seen this before over and over. A minority group like blacks pushes for the majority group to do more for them. The majority group gets defensive and says "this is divisive and we should be under a common banner," which is effectively dodging the request for more help and political support. It is basically saying "I don't want to listen to your concerns now, I did a lot of stuff before and that should be good enough. Now work with me." And to be very clear, I am white as the driven snow. This is ridiculous. We live in a democratic republic and it's on the constituencies to organize and advocate for themselves, not the other way around. I wonder what the % racial breakdown of volunteer time and donations to Bernie Sanders are. Do you understand why I say this? Bernie has finite time, energy, and money and dedicating to this "racial justice issue" will be a black hole. The fact is most black people don't even know who Bernie is. They know Hillary and they know to vote for her, if they even bother to go out and vote. Fact you say? Have a citation for that part? And care to walk back the borderline racist part at the end?
Quickly, cite your statistics or he'll level that racist charge again! You must hate black people to even bring up candidate exposure and likelihood to vote!
It's getting to the point that merely holding opinions in politics opens you up to these racist/sexist charges. And drat, I was already beaten to it on that point.
On August 08 2015 14:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2015 14:04 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 08 2015 13:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 08 2015 12:34 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 08 2015 12:31 Nyxisto wrote:
People like Trump talking about political correctness and honesty makes about as much sense as Glenn Beck using the "first they came..." Niemöller quote to defend his nonsense.If you want to say something incredibly ignorant just say something about your free speech rights and PC beforehand and you're good to go and if you want to shut someone up that doesn't agree with your position, call them a bigot, racist, sexist, prejudice, misogynist, etc and your good to go...except it didnt work this time Well to be fair, Trump is/ does say things that suggest he's a bigot, racist, misogynist, etc. etc. He- like all other candidates- should be held accountable for his rhetoric. Then now is a great time to be an actual sexist or racist. If someone who tries to make a joke can be labeled the same as a person who goes out committing violent acts of hate against ethical minorities, game on. No shit. The terms sexist and racist don't mean dick anymore. When any off-color comment (or even thought) warrants the terms, then damn near everyone's sexist and racist.
|
On August 10 2015 12:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 11:21 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2015 11:09 Deathstar wrote:On August 10 2015 00:54 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2015 00:30 Deathstar wrote:On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on. That type of language is so obnoxious. It's just finger pointing and it's a sure way to make a bunch of people tune you (Bernie supporters) out. Liberals have done A LOT to help blacks raise themselves up. Blacks aren't some innocent bunch who haven't had opportunities. They're not angels who were wronged by the evil white people. I understand the language of raising capital gain taxes, expanding SS, infrastructure spending, but then the hard core progressives ruin it in with these condescending "grow up america," "we need to have an honest conversation about black people," "you just don't understand how bad black people have it," etc blah blah. And you know what? It's incredibly divisive. We could be united under the progressive platform but then shit like this is thrown around. The funny part is that I have seen this before over and over. A minority group like blacks pushes for the majority group to do more for them. The majority group gets defensive and says "this is divisive and we should be under a common banner," which is effectively dodging the request for more help and political support. It is basically saying "I don't want to listen to your concerns now, I did a lot of stuff before and that should be good enough. Now work with me." And to be very clear, I am white as the driven snow. This is ridiculous. We live in a democratic republic and it's on the constituencies to organize and advocate for themselves, not the other way around. I wonder what the % racial breakdown of volunteer time and donations to Bernie Sanders are. Do you understand why I say this? Bernie has finite time, energy, and money and dedicating to this "racial justice issue" will be a black hole. The fact is most black people don't even know who Bernie is. They know Hillary and they know to vote for her, if they even bother to go out and vote. Fact you say? Have a citation for that part? And care to walk back the borderline racist part at the end? Quickly, cite your statistics or he'll level that racist charge again! You must hate black people to even bring up candidate exposure and likelihood to vote! It's getting to the point that merely holding opinions in politics opens you up to these racist/sexist charges. And drat, I was already beaten to it on that point. Show nested quote +On August 08 2015 14:12 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2015 14:04 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 08 2015 13:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 08 2015 12:34 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 08 2015 12:31 Nyxisto wrote:
People like Trump talking about political correctness and honesty makes about as much sense as Glenn Beck using the "first they came..." Niemöller quote to defend his nonsense.If you want to say something incredibly ignorant just say something about your free speech rights and PC beforehand and you're good to go and if you want to shut someone up that doesn't agree with your position, call them a bigot, racist, sexist, prejudice, misogynist, etc and your good to go...except it didnt work this time Well to be fair, Trump is/ does say things that suggest he's a bigot, racist, misogynist, etc. etc. He- like all other candidates- should be held accountable for his rhetoric. Then now is a great time to be an actual sexist or racist. If someone who tries to make a joke can be labeled the same as a person who goes out committing violent acts of hate against ethical minorities, game on. No shit. The terms sexist and racist don't mean dick anymore. When any off-color comment (or even thought) warrants the terms, then damn near everyone's sexist and racist.
Cite data when referencing entire races or demographics. Otherwise, it sounds racists even if you don't mean it to be.
|
On August 10 2015 12:53 cLutZ wrote:
It has nothing to do with the culture. The faculty, and most male peers in engineering and CS are desperate to give a chance to women. In my field, biomedical engineering, it was laughable how much help and encouragement they received. Such things are worth a minimum of half a grade point. Only a person with an incredible ideological slant could interpret what happens in these things as anything other than a massive advantage for women and minorities. If a resume-submission study shows otherwise, it is merely those people understanding how ridiculous the current academic environment is.
It has everything to do with culture.
Maybe not current college and work place culture (depending on where you are), but most people going into engineering and CS do it because of what they did as kids (discounting the families that pressure their kids to go into fields because it's a "good career"). Tinkering with electronics, playing video games, hacking, etc.. And there's still cultural stigma for young girls doing anything like that.
|
On August 10 2015 12:53 cLutZ wrote:
It has nothing to do with the culture. The faculty, and most male peers in engineering and CS are desperate to give a chance to women. In my field, biomedical engineering, it was laughable how much help and encouragement they received. Such things are worth a minimum of half a grade point. Only a person with an incredible ideological slant could interpret what happens in these things as anything other than a massive advantage for women and minorities. If a resume-submission study shows otherwise, it is merely those people understanding how ridiculous the current academic environment is.
It has everything to do with culture. As a PhD in CS I feel quite qualified to speak to CS culture, both at universities and in industry. You go out there and speak to any of them on the matter and everybody will say that it would be awesome if more girls were around the workplace and have all kinds of ideas to promote it. But the fact is that the main problem is the social culture in the workplace, not the professional one. The women I know in CS are very passionate sbout the field. Moreso than most of my male colleagues. They have to be to persist through discussions about what the hottest woman in the Star Trek universe is, or whatever happens to be the discussion of the day that excludes women without intending to.
And that creates a vicious circle. Women don't enter CS because the culture is male dominated, because women don't enter CS.
|
On August 10 2015 12:53 cLutZ wrote:
It has nothing to do with the culture. The faculty, and most male peers in engineering and CS are desperate to give a chance to women. In my field, biomedical engineering, it was laughable how much help and encouragement they received. Such things are worth a minimum of half a grade point. Only a person with an incredible ideological slant could interpret what happens in these things as anything other than a massive advantage for women and minorities. If a resume-submission study shows otherwise, it is merely those people understanding how ridiculous the current academic environment is.
Yes it does have to do with culture. Women IN science get all kinds of shit guys don't have to put up with as they advance through education and their careers. There has also been found bias in publishing against female researchers (for anthropology at least, dunno if anyone did a similar type study in STEM fields). It actually is a pretty big issue in Anthropology right now, especially since at the biggest conference of this year a couple of senior researchers were openly sexually harassing and/or publicly disrespecting several of their junior female colleagues. I can't speak to STEM but in Anthropology and also Forensic Science there definitely is a barrier that makes women trying to enter have to try harder to gain similar levels of respect of their male colleagues. And Anthropology is even a field that is becoming more female dominated but it does persist from mostly the older generation.
It IS a problem but one that is gradually fading and will continue to fade as long as its something people acknowledge and be aware of. It doesn't even have to be a conscious bias. Think of how parents influence their children for example and how in the 70s-80s how girls might have been culturally influenced to not be interested in hard sciences and math. Its not a malicious influence but a passive one. Women are slowly working their way in and they will continue to do so and its not really a big deal if more women in this generation choose to go for it. What is a bigger deal is if they are facing extra barriers during the course of their academic careers that men don't and Science has had a pretty poor track record over its history of taking women seriously. People in general don't like change and can be slow to adapt and that is essentially what you see when it comes to women in science.
|
On August 10 2015 12:45 Acrofales wrote:
Us hardcore CSers called it CS for girls, because instead of focusing on the engineering side, it had more design, psychology and business subjects: looking back at it from a business point of view, it was probably a helluvalot better at preparing students for industry than CS was
I think I found the problem. Perpetuated juvenile ideas of gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
