3 ms·
That sure sounds like what the tech industry always seems to prefer: walk the walk, not talk the talk; software, not slideware; etc. Be a strong tech woman and
by cheez0r 10y ago
That sure sounds like what the tech industry always seems to prefer: walk the walk, not talk the talk; software, not slideware; etc. Be a strong tech woman and you don't have to advocate for them; your actions speak louder than words.
Just ask Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
- not_anit_woman 10y agoI think you may be missing the point of affirmative action to encourage more women/minorities in tech... Just ask Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
- iamdave 10y agoAre you using 'affirmative action' prescriptively here, because that term has a very specific and understood definition?
- not_anit_woman 10y agoI am not sure what you mean, I was just commenting on the ease at which a women/minority will be chosen for a job over a "WM" every time, all else being equal, or even close to equal.
- iamdave 10y agoIn the absence of codified policies, rules or regulations, I'm hesitant to associate "the [mere] ease" of hiring a woman over a man with de facto `affirmative action'. Though I (think) I understand your point.
- dang 10y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12129860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12129860 and marked it off-topic.
- pc86 10y agoI have no idea what NDT has to do with anything but this seems like a level-headed, fair reply that is indeed on-topic. What is off-topic about it?
- dang 10y agoIt's the subthread that is off topic, and we detached it at the point of offtopicness ("Just ask Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.").
- cheez0r 10y agoI'm not sure what's off topic about drawing parallels between the search for racial equality and that for sex equality. It's entirely cogent to the topic.
- dang 10y agoI disagree. These discussions get less substantive and more uncivil as they become more generic. Eventually the only conversation left to have is repeating the same worn and entrenched claims that we've all heard countless times. What results is tedious for two important reasons: it's predictable, and people use it to attack each other. That makes such discussions violate the mandate of this site, which is to be intellectually interesting. If there's an antidote or at least a retardant to this, it's to focus on the concrete specifics of the article and inhibit the rush to grand abstractions.