5 ms·

> Singling out men and women for gender-neutral praise isn't sexist. I agree. However, this isn't a Wikipedia article (which should usually be accompanied by a

by tomp 12y ago

> Singling out men and women for gender-neutral praise isn't sexist. I agree. However, this isn't a Wikipedia article (which should usually be accompanied by a similar article about the opposite sex). And this article has some issues (IMO) that a Wikipedia article wouldn't have; I won't list them, as I said in my first comment, but @pervycreeper list some of the issues he sees. > The term you're flailing around for is "gender biased". Possibly. However, in my mind "sexism" (along with every other "-ism") is defined as any (irrelevant) discrimination, including positive discrimination. Therefore, I perceive the current "more women in CS" craze (nor the general "more people in CS" trend) as inappropriate/(unfairly) biased/-ism. Of course, we might argue whether it's irrelevant or not; personally, I was brought up in a different society where everyone had to work, my mother was the technical person in the family, and if anything, I was discouraged from spending too much time behind the computer, so I'm convinced that in my country, in my generation, computer skills are the result of means (computers were much more expensive back then) and interest, and not gender at all; if I were brought up in the US, I might have a different view on sexism in CS.

tptacek 12y ago
Well, what's in your mind is interesting, I guess, but it has nothing to do with how the world works. The reality is: people who talk about "reverse sexism" like this are, almost as a rule, trying to minimize discussion of sexism against women. I'm now discriminating against you based on that statement, but it's OK, because that discrimination isn't irrelevant: there's a search bar at the bottom of the page, and it's really easy to use it to see where you stand on this issue.
- tomp 12y ago
  > but it has nothing to do with how the world works. Possibly. But as they say, "be the change you want to see in the world". > people who talk about "reverse sexism" like this are, almost as a rule, trying to minimize discussion of sexism against women Well, there is sexism and there is "sexism". If we're talking about things like forced marriage (more specifically, older men marrying underage women), FGM, human trafficking/sex tourism, violent rape, etc., I'm all for it. Of course, these topics are rarely discussed, because there is no discussion necessary - pretty much all people agree that they are awful, and that they should be solved. On the other hand, if we're talking about things like GitHub's meritocracy rug, "the patriarchy", that the female CEOs are paid less than male CEOs, that there should be more women/people in CS, or domestic violence against women, then I'll be pointing out a few things; (1) these topics are not really deserving of the attention they're getting (poor millionaire CEOs; why don't we talk about the homeless people instead), (2) they are sexist (why not talk about domestic violence in general - recent studies suggest that there is a huge number of male victims as well, and no support systems for them), (3) they often have a hidden agenda (noone wanted to be a programmer before geeks became cool and started earning a lot of money). IMO, these are all very valid arguments, but because they are comments about sensitive topics, they get downvoted.

by tomp 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

Well, what's in your mind is interesting, I guess, but it has nothing to do with how the world works. The reality is: people who talk about "reverse sexism" like this are, almost as a rule, trying to minimize discussion of sexism against women. I'm now discriminating against you based on that statement, but it's OK, because that discrimination isn't irrelevant: there's a search bar at the bottom of the page, and it's really easy to use it to see where you stand on this issue.

tomp 12y ago
> but it has nothing to do with how the world works. Possibly. But as they say, "be the change you want to see in the world". > people who talk about "reverse sexism" like this are, almost as a rule, trying to minimize discussion of sexism against women Well, there is sexism and there is "sexism". If we're talking about things like forced marriage (more specifically, older men marrying underage women), FGM, human trafficking/sex tourism, violent rape, etc., I'm all for it. Of course, these topics are rarely discussed, because there is no discussion necessary - pretty much all people agree that they are awful, and that they should be solved. On the other hand, if we're talking about things like GitHub's meritocracy rug, "the patriarchy", that the female CEOs are paid less than male CEOs, that there should be more women/people in CS, or domestic violence against women, then I'll be pointing out a few things; (1) these topics are not really deserving of the attention they're getting (poor millionaire CEOs; why don't we talk about the homeless people instead), (2) they are sexist (why not talk about domestic violence in general - recent studies suggest that there is a huge number of male victims as well, and no support systems for them), (3) they often have a hidden agenda (noone wanted to be a programmer before geeks became cool and started earning a lot of money). IMO, these are all very valid arguments, but because they are comments about sensitive topics, they get downvoted.