6 ms·
A compelling argument for what? I think they have the right to be sexist. I just think it's crazy to try and brand it as something else. Just be honest.
by kanja 13y ago
A compelling argument for what? I think they have the right to be sexist. I just think it's crazy to try and brand it as something else. Just be honest.
- rooshdi 13y agoMen are a majority in tech with many benefits. Women are a minority in tech with many obstacles. They're just trying to help these women overcome this disparity. Why discourage that?
- guard-of-terra 13y agoStill it makes sense calling duck a duck.
- criley2 13y agoHe didn't try to discourage them. He accurately labelled the behavior as sexist. In a post-donglegate world where we must be forced to examine the sexual connotations of everything we do and say it shouldn't surprise that hackers callously analyze the entire situation. Yes. It's sexist. Just like affirmative action is racist[1]. People tend to think that using sexism/racism this way counterbalances the other side of it, forcefully, for a time, until it's not necessary. I'm not disagreeing with those kinds of practices or speaking ill of those who support them. But they are what they are, technically speaking. (The best kind of speaking). [1] I find it amusing that the wikipedia article on affirmative action helpfully reminds us that the practice is known as "positive discrimination" in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
- rooshdi 13y agoThe systems in which we're living are still suffering from the effects of centuries of sexism. Reciprocal sexism is only used to counterbalance these effects.
- angrow 13y agoThe evidence of their behavior suggests it's not branding or dishonesty: they genuinely believe a mission to increase representation of the underrepresented gender does not constitute sexism. Given that, are any reasons for them to hold such a meaning of sexism, other than being "crazy"?