3 ms·

"for minorities, sometimes they (we?) must deal being talked about in nothing but soft articles" Rather than "deal", they could take it upon themselves to impr

"for minorities, sometimes they (we?) must deal being talked about in nothing but soft articles" Rather than "deal", they could take it upon themselves to improve those articles. Who should be responsible for doing that? You yourself, upon seeing such a "soft" article, could try to improve it. Or send a shout out to the feminist mathematicians reddit group that undoubtedly exists. Also, comparing your links, the entry for Geiringer appears to be much longer and more detailed. I can not discern from the Remak article what exactly he worked on, either. It mentions "embeddings" and "CM-fields" - how is that better than "Fourier series" and "plasticity"? Maybe you view those articles in a biased way? Also, "unicorn law"? What the serious fuck? They now count it as oppression that they get invited to talk about "women in open source"?

jordigh 7y ago
Fourier series and plasticity are very broad fields. They're almost top-level classifications in the MSC subject index. Remak's article mentions topics that are much more specific. Although to the uninitiated it may sound just as obscure, saying someone worked on complex multiplication fields tells a mathematician much more than saying they worked on Fourier series. The unicorn law isn't oppression; it's just tiring and an annoyance. We are all more than our genders and ethnicities, so it gets tiring to only get asked about those. I don't understand why this makes you angry enough to curse. Do you understand why?
- pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
  I disagree on one entry being more specific than the other. In any case, neither really tells you anything about the actual work of the people described. As for unicorns, it is just ludicrous to complain about something that feminists have demanded. Nobody goes to a tech conference to hear about feminist complaints about tech. It happens because feminists demand it. There are even cases of female speakers hijacking talks to talk about women in tech, like at a recent Chaos Communication Congress. In any case, if you don't want to be a "unicorn", just say no. It's simply not a valid complaint. It is a privilege that you get to talk just because of your gender.

jordigh 7y ago

Fourier series and plasticity are very broad fields. They're almost top-level classifications in the MSC subject index. Remak's article mentions topics that are much more specific. Although to the uninitiated it may sound just as obscure, saying someone worked on complex multiplication fields tells a mathematician much more than saying they worked on Fourier series. The unicorn law isn't oppression; it's just tiring and an annoyance. We are all more than our genders and ethnicities, so it gets tiring to only get asked about those. I don't understand why this makes you angry enough to curse. Do you understand why?

pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
I disagree on one entry being more specific than the other. In any case, neither really tells you anything about the actual work of the people described. As for unicorns, it is just ludicrous to complain about something that feminists have demanded. Nobody goes to a tech conference to hear about feminist complaints about tech. It happens because feminists demand it. There are even cases of female speakers hijacking talks to talk about women in tech, like at a recent Chaos Communication Congress. In any case, if you don't want to be a "unicorn", just say no. It's simply not a valid complaint. It is a privilege that you get to talk just because of your gender.