10 ms·

The whole premise of this article as espoused in the first sentence, seems rather divorced from reality, to me.

by curyous 10y ago

proaralyst 10y ago
How do you see that? What do you disagree with?
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  It's the little things. For example, the inclusion of Elizabeth Warren and McConnell's line. What McConnell did (attempt to shut down resistance of the opposite party) was wrong-headed and undemocratic, but the only thing it had to do with gender was the use of a pronoun (edit: yodon is right). Nobody would have paid much attention to it if he'd said "nevertheless he persisted", but a partisan attack was made into something about gender when there's no reason to believe it was so. What does it really have to do with coding, anyway? It's inclusion says more about the author's goals than it does about the topic.
  - yodon 10y ago
    King is not "on camera praising sessions." She was a speaker at a public event where she was expected to acknowledge the other headliners in the room. She acknowledged his physical presence, nothing more, and if you watch the tape it's fairly clear she isn't happy about doing so and left him to the end of the list because of it.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    "What McConnell did (attempt to shut down resistance of the opposite party) was wrong-headed and undemocratic, but the only thing it had to do with gender was the use of a pronoun" If that were true, then why were the several men who spoke after her, and read the exact same letter, not disciplined?
    - Jimmie_Rustle 10y ago
      They did not read the part that McConnell objected to as that was already read by Warren.
- prepend 10y ago
  I'm not the person you asked, but I don't see how Senator Warren speaking has much to do with women programmers. While there are lot of challenges, I don't think Ada Lovelace was denegrated. In fact, the quote about her is kind of nonsense as it refers to her historical significance as related to her actions at the time. Is this trying to say that she coded despite computer science historians trying to belittle her contribution after her death? Or is it poorly worded and intends to convey that people kept trying to stop her and she persisted (which is true as it was very difficult for her). "Despite continued assaults on the credibility of her contributions to modern computer science as the world’s first computer programmer, Ada Lovelace coded." I also don't like how the article equates programming and its value system of efficiency and beauty as factors of value and correctness with the political aspect of Senator's Warren actions that uses a different value system. If you agree with Warren, then this article makes more sense because you think Warren was right, but was stopped. If you disagree with Warren, then you may think that she broke whatever rules of the Senate and was properly stopped. Finally, I don't like how it equates all of these awesome female and non-binary programmer examples of success with Senator Warren's failure. She was stopped and Sessions was confirmed as attorney general. It would be cool if there was a better example that resulted in success, like Senator Warren's own story of how she became a senator.
  - jonahrd 10y ago
    The article isn't responsible for the recent re-purposing of the phrase "Nevertheless, she persisted", and I think it's a relevant connection to make. And I read the "Nevertheless, she coded" as more of a global She, as in there are still women in computer science pushing for equality even in the face of the obstacles that women in tech have encountered in the past.
and0 10y ago
Google Susan Fowler and/or stop being dishonest.
- dijit 10y ago
  Susan Fowlers case is harrowing and disgusting and shows that sometimes there bad people in powerful positions who are sexist. I don't think the tone of "the world is sexist" is genuine or fair, Susan Fowlers case is notable because it's definitely the exception, not the norm. Of course I will be glad when things like that _never- happen_, but if you take the example of murders.. There is usually a huge murder problem when you do not hear about individual murders. If you know how many people a year are being murdered in your town, that means that there is a low enough amount for each case to be exceptional and newsworthy. Of course, you hope that no murders happen. But that's unfortunately unrealistic. I hope, sincerely, I'm right about that case and there is no institutionalised sexism in tech, I have never really seen it (aside from one super condescending guy), but of course that's anecdatum. What I _do_ see is a lot of women being told to play victim and doing so, this article is fodder for that.
  - and0 10y ago
    Susan Fowler's case was not unique, I know women in tech who can confirm this. These are systematic issues. Why are you so desperate to downplay them, and why do you get so nervous when you're not allowed to frame the issues or control how they're addressed? Also, your murder analogy is.. absurd.
    - prepend 10y ago
      I don't think anyone is claiming that Susan Fowler's case is unique, it is not. Her case is rare, like murder. Of course murder is a terrible crime and is in no way equivalent to sexual harassment, but is useful as an example of a terrible, but rare case. I sincerely hope the problem isn't systemic or systematic within tech, but I need to see data to believe this. Your anecdotes of multiple women who have, unfortunately, suffered, is not evidence of a systemic element of tech company culture. I'm not worried about framing issues, I'm worried about being accurate and precise. One of the parts of programming that I like the most is the procedural accuracy that comes from coding.

The whole premise of this article as espoused in the first sentence, seems rather divorced from reality, to me.

by curyous 10y ago

The whole premise of this article as espoused in the first sentence, seems rather divorced from reality, to me.

proaralyst 10y ago

How do you see that? What do you disagree with?

aaron-lebo 10y ago
It's the little things. For example, the inclusion of Elizabeth Warren and McConnell's line. What McConnell did (attempt to shut down resistance of the opposite party) was wrong-headed and undemocratic, but the only thing it had to do with gender was the use of a pronoun (edit: yodon is right). Nobody would have paid much attention to it if he'd said "nevertheless he persisted", but a partisan attack was made into something about gender when there's no reason to believe it was so. What does it really have to do with coding, anyway? It's inclusion says more about the author's goals than it does about the topic.
- yodon 10y ago
  King is not "on camera praising sessions." She was a speaker at a public event where she was expected to acknowledge the other headliners in the room. She acknowledged his physical presence, nothing more, and if you watch the tape it's fairly clear she isn't happy about doing so and left him to the end of the list because of it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "What McConnell did (attempt to shut down resistance of the opposite party) was wrong-headed and undemocratic, but the only thing it had to do with gender was the use of a pronoun" If that were true, then why were the several men who spoke after her, and read the exact same letter, not disciplined?
  - Jimmie_Rustle 10y ago
    They did not read the part that McConnell objected to as that was already read by Warren.
prepend 10y ago
I'm not the person you asked, but I don't see how Senator Warren speaking has much to do with women programmers. While there are lot of challenges, I don't think Ada Lovelace was denegrated. In fact, the quote about her is kind of nonsense as it refers to her historical significance as related to her actions at the time. Is this trying to say that she coded despite computer science historians trying to belittle her contribution after her death? Or is it poorly worded and intends to convey that people kept trying to stop her and she persisted (which is true as it was very difficult for her). "Despite continued assaults on the credibility of her contributions to modern computer science as the world’s first computer programmer, Ada Lovelace coded." I also don't like how the article equates programming and its value system of efficiency and beauty as factors of value and correctness with the political aspect of Senator's Warren actions that uses a different value system. If you agree with Warren, then this article makes more sense because you think Warren was right, but was stopped. If you disagree with Warren, then you may think that she broke whatever rules of the Senate and was properly stopped. Finally, I don't like how it equates all of these awesome female and non-binary programmer examples of success with Senator Warren's failure. She was stopped and Sessions was confirmed as attorney general. It would be cool if there was a better example that resulted in success, like Senator Warren's own story of how she became a senator.
- jonahrd 10y ago
  The article isn't responsible for the recent re-purposing of the phrase "Nevertheless, she persisted", and I think it's a relevant connection to make. And I read the "Nevertheless, she coded" as more of a global She, as in there are still women in computer science pushing for equality even in the face of the obstacles that women in tech have encountered in the past.

and0 10y ago

Google Susan Fowler and/or stop being dishonest.

dijit 10y ago
Susan Fowlers case is harrowing and disgusting and shows that sometimes there bad people in powerful positions who are sexist. I don't think the tone of "the world is sexist" is genuine or fair, Susan Fowlers case is notable because it's definitely the exception, not the norm. Of course I will be glad when things like that _never- happen_, but if you take the example of murders.. There is usually a huge murder problem when you do not hear about individual murders. If you know how many people a year are being murdered in your town, that means that there is a low enough amount for each case to be exceptional and newsworthy. Of course, you hope that no murders happen. But that's unfortunately unrealistic. I hope, sincerely, I'm right about that case and there is no institutionalised sexism in tech, I have never really seen it (aside from one super condescending guy), but of course that's anecdatum. What I _do_ see is a lot of women being told to play victim and doing so, this article is fodder for that.
- and0 10y ago
  Susan Fowler's case was not unique, I know women in tech who can confirm this. These are systematic issues. Why are you so desperate to downplay them, and why do you get so nervous when you're not allowed to frame the issues or control how they're addressed? Also, your murder analogy is.. absurd.
  - prepend 10y ago
    I don't think anyone is claiming that Susan Fowler's case is unique, it is not. Her case is rare, like murder. Of course murder is a terrible crime and is in no way equivalent to sexual harassment, but is useful as an example of a terrible, but rare case. I sincerely hope the problem isn't systemic or systematic within tech, but I need to see data to believe this. Your anecdotes of multiple women who have, unfortunately, suffered, is not evidence of a systemic element of tech company culture. I'm not worried about framing issues, I'm worried about being accurate and precise. One of the parts of programming that I like the most is the procedural accuracy that comes from coding.