5 ms·

"P.S. What sort of stupid comment is "you've never raised a woman"? What, you can only be upset about sexism if you've had children? Or, for that matter, have a

"P.S. What sort of stupid comment is "you've never raised a woman"? What, you can only be upset about sexism if you've had children? Or, for that matter, have a daughter?" it looks to be the sort of comment whose context was discarded and ignored so you have something to get angry about.

chris_wot 14y ago
How the heck is what I've quoted removed from its context? He stated that "If you really think this is the cause of lack of women in CS, you've never raised a woman." In other words, he's saying that you can't comment on this if you've never had a daughter to raise. How else do you interpret that? In fact, that's exactly what I'm annoyed about. I've not taken him out of context. I'll thank you not to tell me I have. It is very stupid to say you can't comment on hostility to one segment of the population will disuade many of thos people from taking up IT or Computer Sciense just because you are not part of that population, or that you would have had to be a parent of one of those people. edit: as has been pointed out by sp332 (I can't reply), it appears I have indeed being following through a logical fallacy. I am in the process of "raising a woman", so regardless if my fallacious reasoning about what I thought of the original comment, the proposition still proves to be false :-)
- catshirt 14y ago
  your argument was this: "What, you can only be upset about sexism if you've had children?" which is an absurd takeaway from their comment. unless of course, you leave out "If you really think this is the cause of lack of women in CS". which you did. "he's saying that you can't comment on this if you've never had a daughter to raise". no, i don't believe that's what he's saying at all and i have no idea how you extrapolate that. moreso, i'm not sure we have sufficient evidence that cheeze is male like you suggest.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    He said you would have had to raise a woman. The second part of the sentence leads from the first - he's saying that only those who "raised a woman" can think a certain way about sexism. It's easy to disprove it too. It's a universal quantifier. If I find just one person who had "raised a woman" who thinks the way he says you can't, then the proposition is proven false.
    - catshirt 14y ago
      my point of contention is that you posit cheez's position was both: "you can only be upset about sexism if..." and "you can't comment on this if...". i fail to see how you've inferred either of those sentiments from the original post without making a lot of assumptions.
      - chris_wot 14y ago
        sp332 has pointed out I was following a fallacious line of reasoning. Nonetheless, as a father of a small girl, I can and am annoyed by sexism in CS and IT. Ergo, I am living proof that the proposition is false.
- sp332 14y ago
  He stated that "If you really think this is the cause of lack of women in CS, you've never raised a woman." In other words, he's saying that you can't comment on this if you've never had a daughter to raise. How else do you interpret that? Sorry you've got a logical fallacy there. Raising a woman is sufficient but not necessary. If you raised a woman, then you would not think that. But there might be other reasons for not thinking that, other than raising a woman.

chris_wot 14y ago

How the heck is what I've quoted removed from its context? He stated that "If you really think this is the cause of lack of women in CS, you've never raised a woman." In other words, he's saying that you can't comment on this if you've never had a daughter to raise. How else do you interpret that? In fact, that's exactly what I'm annoyed about. I've not taken him out of context. I'll thank you not to tell me I have. It is very stupid to say you can't comment on hostility to one segment of the population will disuade many of thos people from taking up IT or Computer Sciense just because you are not part of that population, or that you would have had to be a parent of one of those people. edit: as has been pointed out by sp332 (I can't reply), it appears I have indeed being following through a logical fallacy. I am in the process of "raising a woman", so regardless if my fallacious reasoning about what I thought of the original comment, the proposition still proves to be false :-)

catshirt 14y ago
your argument was this: "What, you can only be upset about sexism if you've had children?" which is an absurd takeaway from their comment. unless of course, you leave out "If you really think this is the cause of lack of women in CS". which you did. "he's saying that you can't comment on this if you've never had a daughter to raise". no, i don't believe that's what he's saying at all and i have no idea how you extrapolate that. moreso, i'm not sure we have sufficient evidence that cheeze is male like you suggest.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  He said you would have had to raise a woman. The second part of the sentence leads from the first - he's saying that only those who "raised a woman" can think a certain way about sexism. It's easy to disprove it too. It's a universal quantifier. If I find just one person who had "raised a woman" who thinks the way he says you can't, then the proposition is proven false.
  - catshirt 14y ago
    my point of contention is that you posit cheez's position was both: "you can only be upset about sexism if..." and "you can't comment on this if...". i fail to see how you've inferred either of those sentiments from the original post without making a lot of assumptions.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      sp332 has pointed out I was following a fallacious line of reasoning. Nonetheless, as a father of a small girl, I can and am annoyed by sexism in CS and IT. Ergo, I am living proof that the proposition is false.
sp332 14y ago
He stated that "If you really think this is the cause of lack of women in CS, you've never raised a woman." In other words, he's saying that you can't comment on this if you've never had a daughter to raise. How else do you interpret that? Sorry you've got a logical fallacy there. Raising a woman is sufficient but not necessary. If you raised a woman, then you would not think that. But there might be other reasons for not thinking that, other than raising a woman.