4 ms·

> It seems he's saying that there's still a problem with sexism in the computer industry. I don't think that's controversial Thats precisely what is controvers

> It seems he's saying that there's still a problem with sexism in the computer industry. I don't think that's controversial Thats precisely what is controversial. Infact, 'sexism in the computer industry' is one the most controversial topic on HN. Why do you think this article getting flipped between flagged/unflagged status if its not controversial. I agree that its still a problem, controversial part is this, sexists are a problem not "men". > an argument that the new historical study supports. But you say this "Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same." if conditions aren't they same how does the study support it? You are saying variables for the experiment aren't the same but experiment will yield the same results regardless.

eesmith 9y ago
Then I'm back to not understanding what you meant by "create some controversy where there is none". What is the non-controversial topic you think was raised/created by this piece, which it should not have done? If I understand your last comment, you would be happier with the title "The First Women in Tech Didn't Leave, Sexist Men Pushed Them Out"? That somehow seems worse. Saying "Sexists" or "Sexist People" would be less correct, as sexist women - and certainly there were many - didn't have the managerial power to do the pushing in the British computing field during the 1960s and 1970s.
- dominotw 9y ago
  > That somehow seems worse. Why? > What is the non-controversial topic you think was raised/created by this piece, which it should not have done? I think I already addressed this with my last comment. Saying historical context is still true and implying solutions won't work because of something that happened decades ago. > simply educating more women and minorities to be engineers won’t solve the problem - an argument that the new historical study supports. > Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same. Don't those statements contradict each other?
  - eesmith 9y ago
    As far as I can tell, you are picking at a small part of the topic. I think you are making the "not all men" argument. I really don't care to discuss it any more. I found the underlying historical research quite interesting and insightful. While your original comment, even after I finally was able to read the article, made it sound like you objected to the "digging up of skeletons" that Hicks did. I think it's instead that you disagree with the shallow interpretation that some WSJ commenter made. shrug. Okay, great. I still think it's worthwhile to dig up skeletons. > Don't those statements contradict each other? No. "It's the best time ever to be a Native American", because (for example) the US government no longer forces them to send their children to Indian schools where they aren't allowed to speak their language. But it's still not great to be a Native American compared to other peoples, for a large number of metrics.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dominotw 9y ago
      >I really don't care to discuss it any more. ok i understand. thanks for engaging.

eesmith 9y ago

Then I'm back to not understanding what you meant by "create some controversy where there is none". What is the non-controversial topic you think was raised/created by this piece, which it should not have done? If I understand your last comment, you would be happier with the title "The First Women in Tech Didn't Leave, Sexist Men Pushed Them Out"? That somehow seems worse. Saying "Sexists" or "Sexist People" would be less correct, as sexist women - and certainly there were many - didn't have the managerial power to do the pushing in the British computing field during the 1960s and 1970s.

dominotw 9y ago
> That somehow seems worse. Why? > What is the non-controversial topic you think was raised/created by this piece, which it should not have done? I think I already addressed this with my last comment. Saying historical context is still true and implying solutions won't work because of something that happened decades ago. > simply educating more women and minorities to be engineers won’t solve the problem - an argument that the new historical study supports. > Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same. Don't those statements contradict each other?
- eesmith 9y ago
  As far as I can tell, you are picking at a small part of the topic. I think you are making the "not all men" argument. I really don't care to discuss it any more. I found the underlying historical research quite interesting and insightful. While your original comment, even after I finally was able to read the article, made it sound like you objected to the "digging up of skeletons" that Hicks did. I think it's instead that you disagree with the shallow interpretation that some WSJ commenter made. shrug. Okay, great. I still think it's worthwhile to dig up skeletons. > Don't those statements contradict each other? No. "It's the best time ever to be a Native American", because (for example) the US government no longer forces them to send their children to Indian schools where they aren't allowed to speak their language. But it's still not great to be a Native American compared to other peoples, for a large number of metrics.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dominotw 9y ago
    >I really don't care to discuss it any more. ok i understand. thanks for engaging.