5 ms·

Instead, perceive yourself as incapable on average. That's not limiting at all.

lmm 12y ago
Many good programmers have a certain arrogance. If you must absorb a stereotype, maybe "lots of other women suck" is less likely to discourage you from pursuing a programming career than "the world won't let women be programmers regardless of their skill"?
- goodmornings 12y ago
  "Many good programmers have a certain arrogance" No, I don't think so. Or at least it's not needed to be a good programmer. It's just that if you also have other qualities people don't have to excuse your behavior by how good a programmer you are.
  - lmm 12y ago
    http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LazinessImpatienceHubris http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LazinessImpatienceHubris
    - goodmornings 12y ago
      That's just another example of this cultures weird relationship with personal qualities. The good version of laziness, impatience and hubris is efficiency, passion and confidence. But if you call it efficiency those who are lazy, or at least hide their decision behind the acceptance of laziness, gets upset. So you instead have to say that you are lazy, but in a good way. Of course there is also people who hide their decision behind the idea of efficiency.
      - lmm 12y ago
        Call it confidence if you prefer; my original point goes through all the same.
        goodmornings 12y ago
        I don't think that thinking other people suck is good way to develop confidence. At least not without experience. If women for the sake of confidence should learn that people suck, it's that most programmers do, not that most women do. I'd rather they develop confidence through experience with programming rather than arrogance toward other programmers. Since the problem with arrogance is that it almost always clashes with reality.
thrawayzscary 12y ago
I find this comment and the circumstances surrounding it to be problematic on multiple levels. -You never actually refute "TheLarch"'s point. Instead you bring down the conversation with unwarranted sarcasm and seem to completely misconstrue the argument. Despite this your comment is positive while the comment that actually contributed to the conversation is downvoted. You could have easily argued their assumptions but chose not to for reasons I might guess at in my next point. -You essentially take the position that two possibilities exist, A) Institutionalized sexism is the main cause of most gender disparities when it comes to career demographics and definitely not personal choice (even if influenced by social conditioning), or B) Women are incapable on average. Judging by the harshness of your comment I can only assume that you don't that the person you are responding to might consider more possibilities. This type of thinking is dangerous because it leaves no room for the other side to be simply incorrect. It ceases to be a matter of facts or logic and becomes a matter of morality with anyone who disagrees with you on the wrong side of the moral spectrum. Now anyone who challenges your viewpoint can conveniently be regarded as an immoral person and have their ideas ignored, hidden, or personally mocked.
- saraid216 12y ago
  I don't think I've ever had someone create a throwaway just for me. Thank you.
TheLarch 12y ago
But women are capable in ways that men are not. They communicate better. I think they are better judges of character, and have superior discernment. They are far less likely to win Darwin awards. Find 100 painfully stupid stunts on Youtube, and at least 85 of them will be men.
- saraid216 12y ago
  Why do we allow males to occupy any position in society, then? That seems stupid. Your list, if true, suggests that we should keep males around only for breeding purposes, and even that only until we figure out how to get by without them.

lmm 12y ago

Many good programmers have a certain arrogance. If you must absorb a stereotype, maybe "lots of other women suck" is less likely to discourage you from pursuing a programming career than "the world won't let women be programmers regardless of their skill"?

goodmornings 12y ago
"Many good programmers have a certain arrogance" No, I don't think so. Or at least it's not needed to be a good programmer. It's just that if you also have other qualities people don't have to excuse your behavior by how good a programmer you are.
- lmm 12y ago
  http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LazinessImpatienceHubris http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LazinessImpatienceHubris
  - goodmornings 12y ago
    That's just another example of this cultures weird relationship with personal qualities. The good version of laziness, impatience and hubris is efficiency, passion and confidence. But if you call it efficiency those who are lazy, or at least hide their decision behind the acceptance of laziness, gets upset. So you instead have to say that you are lazy, but in a good way. Of course there is also people who hide their decision behind the idea of efficiency.
    - lmm 12y ago
      Call it confidence if you prefer; my original point goes through all the same.
      - goodmornings 12y ago
        I don't think that thinking other people suck is good way to develop confidence. At least not without experience. If women for the sake of confidence should learn that people suck, it's that most programmers do, not that most women do. I'd rather they develop confidence through experience with programming rather than arrogance toward other programmers. Since the problem with arrogance is that it almost always clashes with reality.

thrawayzscary 12y ago

I find this comment and the circumstances surrounding it to be problematic on multiple levels. -You never actually refute "TheLarch"'s point. Instead you bring down the conversation with unwarranted sarcasm and seem to completely misconstrue the argument. Despite this your comment is positive while the comment that actually contributed to the conversation is downvoted. You could have easily argued their assumptions but chose not to for reasons I might guess at in my next point. -You essentially take the position that two possibilities exist, A) Institutionalized sexism is the main cause of most gender disparities when it comes to career demographics and definitely not personal choice (even if influenced by social conditioning), or B) Women are incapable on average. Judging by the harshness of your comment I can only assume that you don't that the person you are responding to might consider more possibilities. This type of thinking is dangerous because it leaves no room for the other side to be simply incorrect. It ceases to be a matter of facts or logic and becomes a matter of morality with anyone who disagrees with you on the wrong side of the moral spectrum. Now anyone who challenges your viewpoint can conveniently be regarded as an immoral person and have their ideas ignored, hidden, or personally mocked.

saraid216 12y ago
I don't think I've ever had someone create a throwaway just for me. Thank you.

TheLarch 12y ago

But women are capable in ways that men are not. They communicate better. I think they are better judges of character, and have superior discernment. They are far less likely to win Darwin awards. Find 100 painfully stupid stunts on Youtube, and at least 85 of them will be men.

saraid216 12y ago
Why do we allow males to occupy any position in society, then? That seems stupid. Your list, if true, suggests that we should keep males around only for breeding purposes, and even that only until we figure out how to get by without them.