3 ms·

I think you're conflating issues here. There is a point where continually beating the drum about overt sexism in the field becomes counter productive. But this

I think you're conflating issues here. There is a point where continually beating the drum about overt sexism in the field becomes counter productive. But this is a different issue. Having women-centric CS events arent necessarily about shielding women from male sexism, but about creating environments where they won't feel intimidated and can commiserate with others who are experiencing or have experienced the same issues. Like I said in another comment, countering the gender stereotypes against women in hard science and engineering fields isn't about banning certain types of humor. The problem goes much deeper than that. >But who could get away with an explicitly guy-only CS event? It would be politically difficult to say the least. Something is clearly wrong here. I really wish people would stop trotting out this shallow argument when discussing inequality in various spheres. The contexts for the two groups are completely different, thus a simple "swapping the two labels and seeing what results" gives absolutely no insight.

jimzvz 14y ago
>The contexts for the two groups are completely different, thus a simple "swapping the two labels and seeing what results" gives absolutely no insight. This is an argument that has been used by most proponents of discriminatory practices.
- jimzvz 14y ago
  Is this not true?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    It's just irrelevant. If the argument is wrong, then explain why its wrong. Trying to shut it down because someone has misused a similar-sounding argument in the past is not a refutation.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Have you never been in a minority status in anything you've done? I'm not talking about race, just situations where your background/traits/etc. are much different than those of the majority of your peers. I started as an "odd man out" for practically every major peer group I've ever been involved in and I can tell you, it sucks. The way I've successfully acclimated is usually with highly informal "incubator" groups that help with the integration process by breaking it up into steps. These groups were so informal that we didn't even think of it as such, but in retrospect that's what had happened. But an actual majority wouldn't need this exact type of support, they already have been acclimated to it and can easily integrate into similar peer groups, so it's not even an exact comparison. But to the extent that this GitHub project is focused on ensuring that this particular minority of this particular peer group has a place to go for support and successfully working their way into the larger peer group I think it's a wonderful thing. Hopefully someday we can discard it as redundant and unnecessary, but today it can be very helpful.
andrewflnr 14y ago
What do you mean "the contexts are different"? I mean, I know they feel different, which is partly why I tried to compare it to camping, where no one cares. I don't think I see how switching labels is "shallow" except that it's easy to think of, and even if all it brings to light is another inequality, it's worth keeping in mind.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Let me take the more extreme example of racism as an illustrative point. "If we had a 'white entertainment television' that would be racist, therefore BET is racist". This is the sort of argument you made and hopefully its obvious how ridiculous it is to you. The contexts for whites and blacks in this country are completely different (dominant culture, etc). Thus something being racist when it re-enforces the dominant culture is not the same when its supporting a marginalized culture.
  - andrewflnr 14y ago
    BET is racist in exactly the same way "WET" would be, which is to say not much, because no one is actually locked out of anything (plus WET is a terrible name). Whatever else you think of me, don't just assume I'm inconsistent. Now you're saying that racism is "not the same" (I'm assuming that means "not bad"?) if it's in favor of people who are normally discriminated against by the "dominant" culture. It amounts to justifying one person's bad behavior by pointing out someone else's, which simply doesn't qualify as a moral argument. If this is the only reason BET is okay and WET is not, I think it's a lame one. In the case of television networks, it doesn't really matter. But I refuse to accept this mushy "different contexts" argument to justify anyone's wrong or stupid behavior. The whole point of striving for equality is to get rid of these different contexts, not perpetuate them. Be the change you want to see. There is a certain sense in which BET may be less stupid than WET, which is if being black was a strong selector for liking some content over others. This is, AFAICT, less the case with "white" people, so WET makes less sense. This kind of goes back to what I was saying earlier about girls' CS events because, hey, the girls want to get together and hack. They can do their own thing if they want. That's the key, that's what needs to get into people's psyches: "You can do your own thing if you want."

jimzvz 14y ago

>The contexts for the two groups are completely different, thus a simple "swapping the two labels and seeing what results" gives absolutely no insight. This is an argument that has been used by most proponents of discriminatory practices.

jimzvz 14y ago
Is this not true?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  It's just irrelevant. If the argument is wrong, then explain why its wrong. Trying to shut it down because someone has misused a similar-sounding argument in the past is not a refutation.
- mpyne 14y ago
  Have you never been in a minority status in anything you've done? I'm not talking about race, just situations where your background/traits/etc. are much different than those of the majority of your peers. I started as an "odd man out" for practically every major peer group I've ever been involved in and I can tell you, it sucks. The way I've successfully acclimated is usually with highly informal "incubator" groups that help with the integration process by breaking it up into steps. These groups were so informal that we didn't even think of it as such, but in retrospect that's what had happened. But an actual majority wouldn't need this exact type of support, they already have been acclimated to it and can easily integrate into similar peer groups, so it's not even an exact comparison. But to the extent that this GitHub project is focused on ensuring that this particular minority of this particular peer group has a place to go for support and successfully working their way into the larger peer group I think it's a wonderful thing. Hopefully someday we can discard it as redundant and unnecessary, but today it can be very helpful.

andrewflnr 14y ago

What do you mean "the contexts are different"? I mean, I know they feel different, which is partly why I tried to compare it to camping, where no one cares. I don't think I see how switching labels is "shallow" except that it's easy to think of, and even if all it brings to light is another inequality, it's worth keeping in mind.

hackinthebochs 14y ago
Let me take the more extreme example of racism as an illustrative point. "If we had a 'white entertainment television' that would be racist, therefore BET is racist". This is the sort of argument you made and hopefully its obvious how ridiculous it is to you. The contexts for whites and blacks in this country are completely different (dominant culture, etc). Thus something being racist when it re-enforces the dominant culture is not the same when its supporting a marginalized culture.
- andrewflnr 14y ago
  BET is racist in exactly the same way "WET" would be, which is to say not much, because no one is actually locked out of anything (plus WET is a terrible name). Whatever else you think of me, don't just assume I'm inconsistent. Now you're saying that racism is "not the same" (I'm assuming that means "not bad"?) if it's in favor of people who are normally discriminated against by the "dominant" culture. It amounts to justifying one person's bad behavior by pointing out someone else's, which simply doesn't qualify as a moral argument. If this is the only reason BET is okay and WET is not, I think it's a lame one. In the case of television networks, it doesn't really matter. But I refuse to accept this mushy "different contexts" argument to justify anyone's wrong or stupid behavior. The whole point of striving for equality is to get rid of these different contexts, not perpetuate them. Be the change you want to see. There is a certain sense in which BET may be less stupid than WET, which is if being black was a strong selector for liking some content over others. This is, AFAICT, less the case with "white" people, so WET makes less sense. This kind of goes back to what I was saying earlier about girls' CS events because, hey, the girls want to get together and hack. They can do their own thing if they want. That's the key, that's what needs to get into people's psyches: "You can do your own thing if you want."