6 ms·
yes, I did read it. and yes, that's precisely the argument that was presented. with a nice "we should talk about it!" cherry on top. there's nothing to discuss
by pyvpx 9y ago
yes, I did read it. and yes, that's precisely the argument that was presented. with a nice "we should talk about it!" cherry on top.
there's nothing to discuss. women have just as much right as men to be programmers or any other "computer science" or "tech" job and they reason there AREN'T that many of them is preicsely because of the pseudo-science bona fide bullshit written in his "Manifesto".
it only takes one asshole to drive away everyone else.
- dijit 9y agoYou didn't read it.
- pyvpx 9y agoI did. care to tell me what parts I missed?
- dijit 9y agoWell. You invented everything you're claiming it said. At no point did it even insinuate that women were less capable than men, what it seemed to be trying to do is note marginal statistical differences in choices by men and women and what we could do as an industry to be more accommodating to women without resorting to hiring quotas- which, he claims, may actually cause greater levels of imposter syndrome and tension amongst genders. There was no part of the document that came close to refuting that women have a right to be in the industry. In fact. The document was the opposite, "how do we get women in tech in a non-discriminatory way?"
- dijit 9y agoI should add, the fact there's "Nothing to discuss" is quite radicalising. Others can tell people how to think and they can't even discuss it civilly? That seems so against the engineering and scientific ideology we all claim to believe in.