4 ms·

Someone kick me if this isn't progressive enough, but I don't think any of the women listed really should have been on the list. The others are figureheads for

by benwr 16y ago

Someone kick me if this isn't progressive enough, but I don't think any of the women listed really should have been on the list. The others are figureheads for web-focused projects. None of the women listed (with the exception of Sally Floyd, whom I've never heard of. I might just be ignorant) were really at all involved directly with the web. Even Java isn't primarily a web platform. I'm more disturbed that those are the best examples the poster can come up with. Are there other women who really should have been listed in the article? If so, terrific. If not, why not? Is there an underlying problem with the hacker image that should be fixed?

ojbyrne 16y ago
It's a pathetic list, and proves the opposite of what it intended to. Basically women aren't generally willing to devote their lives to the kind of intellectual pursuits that 90% of the time end up with you being poor, downtrodden, old and alone. They just play the odds better. They give up the top 10% to avoid the bottom 10%. And then they write articles about how they're excluded from the top 10% because of their gender.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  It's not like it's the first time humans have begrudged another's success and completely ignored the risks that person took, and the sheer number of fellows who fell along the way. Perhaps the best example will be war heros; one of these days, someone is going to complain about how there aren't enough female war heroes. Hopefully then, even the hero himself will be pointing out how many of his comrades didn't make it that far, and it will be clear to all that it's a question of risk/reward, not sexism.
- fleitz 16y ago
  Lets not bring reason into a tautology. The purpose of the post was to take a feeling and find facts that are tangentially related to the issue at hand.
- M_Sanger 16y ago
  "Basically women aren't generally willing to devote their lives to the kind of intellectual pursuits that 90% of the time poor, downtrodden, old and alone." But women are totally willing to devote their lives to the kind of pursuits like caring for the children, sick, and elderly in their family that 90% of the time result in them being poor, downtrodden, old, and alone. They just play the odds better by doing work and not getting paid for it. And then on top of that, they write articles about how it sucks. These women are getting out of control! I think the list was right to include only men. But your idea that women aren't willing to devote their lives to intellectual pursuits 90% of the time is disgusting. Most people only paid for their sons to be educated. What kind of intellectual pursuits from 90% of women would you expect to magically appear from that scenario? Now that it's acceptable for women to be educated. They make up 55% of college students, so we can probably expect more contributions in the future. Sure computer science and engineering are severely lagging, and it will take some time and effort to introduce that field to more women, but it's not because "women aren't willing to devote their lives to those kinds of intellectual pursuits"
sliverstorm 16y ago
It suffers from the same problems as trying to represent the 'myriad' of women in hard sciences, particularly physics. The simple fact that you know every single time Marie Curie will top the list, followed by 2-4 names, says something about the abundance of ground-breaking female physicists. If there were enough of them, there would be debates as to who was most awesome, and Curie would not make the list every time. (In biology on the other hand, I'm pretty sure women have made a much larger contribution!)

by benwr 16y ago

ojbyrne 16y ago

It's a pathetic list, and proves the opposite of what it intended to. Basically women aren't generally willing to devote their lives to the kind of intellectual pursuits that 90% of the time end up with you being poor, downtrodden, old and alone. They just play the odds better. They give up the top 10% to avoid the bottom 10%. And then they write articles about how they're excluded from the top 10% because of their gender.

sliverstorm 16y ago
It's not like it's the first time humans have begrudged another's success and completely ignored the risks that person took, and the sheer number of fellows who fell along the way. Perhaps the best example will be war heros; one of these days, someone is going to complain about how there aren't enough female war heroes. Hopefully then, even the hero himself will be pointing out how many of his comrades didn't make it that far, and it will be clear to all that it's a question of risk/reward, not sexism.
fleitz 16y ago
Lets not bring reason into a tautology. The purpose of the post was to take a feeling and find facts that are tangentially related to the issue at hand.
M_Sanger 16y ago
"Basically women aren't generally willing to devote their lives to the kind of intellectual pursuits that 90% of the time poor, downtrodden, old and alone." But women are totally willing to devote their lives to the kind of pursuits like caring for the children, sick, and elderly in their family that 90% of the time result in them being poor, downtrodden, old, and alone. They just play the odds better by doing work and not getting paid for it. And then on top of that, they write articles about how it sucks. These women are getting out of control! I think the list was right to include only men. But your idea that women aren't willing to devote their lives to intellectual pursuits 90% of the time is disgusting. Most people only paid for their sons to be educated. What kind of intellectual pursuits from 90% of women would you expect to magically appear from that scenario? Now that it's acceptable for women to be educated. They make up 55% of college students, so we can probably expect more contributions in the future. Sure computer science and engineering are severely lagging, and it will take some time and effort to introduce that field to more women, but it's not because "women aren't willing to devote their lives to those kinds of intellectual pursuits"

sliverstorm 16y ago

It suffers from the same problems as trying to represent the 'myriad' of women in hard sciences, particularly physics. The simple fact that you know every single time Marie Curie will top the list, followed by 2-4 names, says something about the abundance of ground-breaking female physicists. If there were enough of them, there would be debates as to who was most awesome, and Curie would not make the list every time. (In biology on the other hand, I'm pretty sure women have made a much larger contribution!)