7 ms·

As much as I dislike positive discrimination, I view it as a necessary evil. In the specific case of women in CS/CE, I think it's fair to say that the lack of

by manux 11y ago

As much as I dislike positive discrimination, I view it as a necessary evil. In the specific case of women in CS/CE, I think it's fair to say that the lack of women is rather troubling, and has roots in prejudice. So yeah, who knows. Maybe recognizing the success of women in this field might help restore some balance and one day make this positive discrimination unecessary. Then we won't need any special terms and all programmers will be called programmers.

dudul 11y ago
Does the same discrimination exist in nursing to restore the balance? Does it exist in child care services? In education? Edit: for the clown who accused me of "fallacy of relative privation" - can you explain how my comparison is "completely unrelated to the subject at hand" ? One industry is constantly under scrutiny for its gender imbalance, everyone is summoned to take action and we justify discrimination for the "greater good", but others where the same problems are visible are left alone to live a quiet life.
- SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
  Your logical fallacy is: The Fallacy of relative privation, aka "whataboutery" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism > Edit: for the clown who accused me of "fallacy of relative privation edit: sorry, no. It's easy to work out, but as a matter of policy I don't enter into serious debates with people who casually throw around words like "clown". I find that it's not usually worth the attempt.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Whataboutism is a fallacy when being used to dismiss the argument entirely. It is not a fallacy when used to state that the reason other problems are dismissed should also apply here. The difference is: Fallacy: "What about Y. X isn't a big deal as long as Y is an issue." Not Fallacy: "What about Y. Y isn't a big deal because A, B, and C. A, B, and C also apply to X, so shouldn't that mean X isn't an issue as well." The problem comes in that the second sentence in each scenario is left shortened if not completely left out, making it hard to tell which version of 'What about' a person is using.
  - dudul 11y ago
    Here, another cool link for your SJW library http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument
  - dang 11y ago
    > Your logical fallacy is: Please don't do this on HN. Stock snide responses, like this one or LMGTFY, are a way of insulting someone while ostensibly answering them. That violates the HN call for civility. > sorry, no. It's easy to work out, but as a matter of policy I don't enter into serious debates with people who Obviously dudul was wrong to call you names, but these comments were worse. Subtle insults do more damage to the discourse than crude ones do. Please reply respectfully.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Did you even bother to google, bro. http://www.aacn.nche.edu/aacn-publications/issue-bulletin/effective-strategies http://www.aacn.nche.edu/aacn-publications/issue-bulletin/ef... http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media-relations/fact-sheets/enhancing-diversity http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media-relations/fact-sheets/enhanci... http://www.rwjf.org/en/library/articles-and-news/2011/09/male-nurses-break-through-barriers-to-diversify-profession.html http://www.rwjf.org/en/library/articles-and-news/2011/09/mal... http://www.aamn.org/choosenursing.shtml http://www.aamn.org/choosenursing.shtml
- tomjen3 11y ago
  It is just the usual suspects trying to make you shut up. That said some of the socialists parties here in Denmark made ending that kind of discrimination part of their election reform.
Vaskivo 11y ago
It may be necessary, but by being evil should we really do it?
dylanjermiah 11y ago
> restore some balance and one day make this positive discrimination unecessary. Then we won't need any special terms and all programmers will be called programmers. How do you define 'balance' in this scenario?
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
The roots are in issues going far back into childhood. Issues such as gaming being a boy's past time, math being a boy's subject, spending time on the computer being more acceptable for a boy than a girl. Trying to correct this at the college level or later is like trying to bend a paper clip back into a straight wire.
honest_joe 11y ago
I call it BS. Women are mostly emotion based creatures. They are simply interested in other areas than men. They love the experience and the emotion from things..hence why they want to be translators, teachers and they study other kind of stuff we consider mostly useless. It's like saying NBA is occupied mostly by tall people and that's troubling because short people are in disadvantage. We should try to stimulate the short people so they start playing basketball competitively. Bullshit.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >Women are mostly emotion based creatures. The vast majority of people are emotion based creatures. Logic tends to be used after the fact to justify their emotional stance. Women are socially more allowed to express their emotions, and thus the stereotype that they are more based on emotions arises, but while men express their emotions less due to social pressures, I've seen no evidence they are ruled by their emotions less.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  What the fuck, dude.

by manux 11y ago

dudul 11y ago

Does the same discrimination exist in nursing to restore the balance? Does it exist in child care services? In education? Edit: for the clown who accused me of "fallacy of relative privation" - can you explain how my comparison is "completely unrelated to the subject at hand" ? One industry is constantly under scrutiny for its gender imbalance, everyone is summoned to take action and we justify discrimination for the "greater good", but others where the same problems are visible are left alone to live a quiet life.

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
Your logical fallacy is: The Fallacy of relative privation, aka "whataboutery" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism > Edit: for the clown who accused me of "fallacy of relative privation edit: sorry, no. It's easy to work out, but as a matter of policy I don't enter into serious debates with people who casually throw around words like "clown". I find that it's not usually worth the attempt.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Whataboutism is a fallacy when being used to dismiss the argument entirely. It is not a fallacy when used to state that the reason other problems are dismissed should also apply here. The difference is: Fallacy: "What about Y. X isn't a big deal as long as Y is an issue." Not Fallacy: "What about Y. Y isn't a big deal because A, B, and C. A, B, and C also apply to X, so shouldn't that mean X isn't an issue as well." The problem comes in that the second sentence in each scenario is left shortened if not completely left out, making it hard to tell which version of 'What about' a person is using.
- dudul 11y ago
  Here, another cool link for your SJW library http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument
- dang 11y ago
  > Your logical fallacy is: Please don't do this on HN. Stock snide responses, like this one or LMGTFY, are a way of insulting someone while ostensibly answering them. That violates the HN call for civility. > sorry, no. It's easy to work out, but as a matter of policy I don't enter into serious debates with people who Obviously dudul was wrong to call you names, but these comments were worse. Subtle insults do more damage to the discourse than crude ones do. Please reply respectfully.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Did you even bother to google, bro. http://www.aacn.nche.edu/aacn-publications/issue-bulletin/effective-strategies http://www.aacn.nche.edu/aacn-publications/issue-bulletin/ef... http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media-relations/fact-sheets/enhancing-diversity http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media-relations/fact-sheets/enhanci... http://www.rwjf.org/en/library/articles-and-news/2011/09/male-nurses-break-through-barriers-to-diversify-profession.html http://www.rwjf.org/en/library/articles-and-news/2011/09/mal... http://www.aamn.org/choosenursing.shtml http://www.aamn.org/choosenursing.shtml
tomjen3 11y ago
It is just the usual suspects trying to make you shut up. That said some of the socialists parties here in Denmark made ending that kind of discrimination part of their election reform.

Vaskivo 11y ago

It may be necessary, but by being evil should we really do it?

dylanjermiah 11y ago

> restore some balance and one day make this positive discrimination unecessary. Then we won't need any special terms and all programmers will be called programmers. How do you define 'balance' in this scenario?

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

The roots are in issues going far back into childhood. Issues such as gaming being a boy's past time, math being a boy's subject, spending time on the computer being more acceptable for a boy than a girl. Trying to correct this at the college level or later is like trying to bend a paper clip back into a straight wire.

honest_joe 11y ago

I call it BS. Women are mostly emotion based creatures. They are simply interested in other areas than men. They love the experience and the emotion from things..hence why they want to be translators, teachers and they study other kind of stuff we consider mostly useless. It's like saying NBA is occupied mostly by tall people and that's troubling because short people are in disadvantage. We should try to stimulate the short people so they start playing basketball competitively. Bullshit.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Women are mostly emotion based creatures. The vast majority of people are emotion based creatures. Logic tends to be used after the fact to justify their emotional stance. Women are socially more allowed to express their emotions, and thus the stereotype that they are more based on emotions arises, but while men express their emotions less due to social pressures, I've seen no evidence they are ruled by their emotions less.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
What the fuck, dude.