6 ms·

It's heavily implied in the language of the article. Chances are you're right, and if we asked the author of the article, he might say that: yeah, it works both

It's heavily implied in the language of the article. Chances are you're right, and if we asked the author of the article, he might say that: yeah, it works both ways, and this is just his experience. The problem is that this is an instructional article, and his language excludes the idea of female programmers completely. It doesn't mean he's a horrible person because of it. It's just that this kind of language is still the norm, and it would be great if we could be recognised as equals, and not for us to be expected to assume it in the face of exclusion. Language is important, because it affects how we perceive one another. So jacalata's comment serves as a polite critisism. Women are people too, and you all know that, but sometimes some folks need to be reminded to reflect that in their language.

novalis 13y ago
So you state that from your POV his language reflected that women are not people too ??? That is really great, that you had to make a throw away account to put that out there, it reflects a lot about you trying to raise issue with something you create a strawman for on the first line of your comment. "If we asked the author..." and than you present an imaginary author giving an 'apology'. That is abysmally poor and you had to protect your regular account because of it. In no way does he ever objectify his girlfriend and you just project to no end. Where does he exclude "the idea of female programmers completely". Maybe in the same way that he excludes the idea of "dead rhinos", because it isn't the point. The point his, he is excited about his girlfriend wanting him to teach her about programming and wrote about it. Go rain on someone elses parade. To your other point, there is nothing polite about insulting others with sexist labels. The 'polite criticism reminds people woman are people too' tirade... ending with the "and you all know that"/"some folks", is just priceless and telling passive aggressive form after preaching against the bad male sexist programmer that should watch his language.
- chlostick 13y ago
  Well, this happened to be my first comment; not a throwaway account. I was attempting to be fair to the author, assuming his best intentions. A strawman on my part would have been to assume the worst intentions of the author. Nowhere did I claim the author was objectifying his girlfriend. Who is projecting here, exactly? Sexist labels? Tirade? I wasn't upset in my comment at all, nor did I label anyone. You seem to be offended, but you have failed to describe why, or to ask for explanation on my part. You have accused and judged me without quantifying your arguments in the slightest. I hope you didn't see my comment as an attack on yourself, or an attack on men, as feminist arguments are often mistaken to be). I'm sorry if I offended you, but I think I deserve a more fair and constructive dialogue than the one you've provided.
  - novalis 13y ago
    It's out of place that you try to insinuate others are angry after using so much passive aggressive vitriol. It is laughable that you try 'appeal' to constructive dialogue after moving the goal posts so much. I will provide proof of what I state with just one instance of what you typed because I already am wasting way too much time with this. When you said "Nowhere did I claim the author was objectifying his girlfriend." to deny my remark that you did it. Well, you should read your own posts. The one where you write "and he's doing it at the expense of his girlfriend"... there, you can backtrack all you want. I am sure you will try. Sorry if it burns but those are your own words, next time just avoid going back and forth in writing. If yours isn't a throw away account you will probably not do well around here but I am sure it is. Stay well and goodbye.
reginaldjcooper 13y ago
Outside of that paragraph there is basically no insinuation that women cannot program. The line about rubber-ducking problems with your partner? Not gender-specific unless you've already decided he's sexist. It's about a specific woman who happens to be a political science student and learns quite a bit about programming in six months. I don't see how that implies women are incapable of it, on the contrary it claims the woman in question was quite capable even though she was not in the field. He explicitly mentions that she's a political science student; that's the only reason he had for thinking she'd be unable to do it. "Teach your girlfriend to program" is obviously meant to be interpreted as "teach your non-programming partner to program" where he uses himself and his girlfriend as the "everyprogrammer" and every(wo)man. If you are going to decide he is sexist and then interpret his use of himself as the programmer to implicitly or explicitly mean only men know how to program, well, that seems to unfairly make assumptions about the intent of the author. God forbid we claim a political science student might not be able to learn programming if she happens to be a woman.
- xerophtye 13y ago
  Exactly! She seems to know stuff I haven't even dabbled in yet!
- chlostick 13y ago
  "Teach your girlfriend to program" is obviously meant to be interpreted as "teach your non-programming partner to program" ^ That is exactly what I'm talking about. It may be obvious to you, but from my perspective it's exclusionary. It says this article is not meant for me. Which would be fine if not for the fact that it could absolutely be meant for me, if not for the fact that I'm a woman. Do you see what I mean? It's so hard to hard to convey this shit... Okay, imagine there's an article called "How to teach your boyfriend to use proper hygiene". And it's written in the same way as this article, with a girl describing her own experience with her non-hygienic boyfriend, and it's written in the same instructional manner, using language that implies (however indirectly) that boyfriends in general are un-hygienic. Wouldn't you be at least a little annoyed by the assumption? Now, what if you saw shit like that in the vast majority of content you read, online and out in the world? That's what it's like for us; especially those of us women in typically male-dominated professions. It's harder for men to see, because it doesn't affect men, and it's still very socially normative. And when we point it out, men often see it as an attack on all men. And it's not personal. Most folks have the best intentions. But I feel I need to call this shit out when I see it, because awareness invokes change. I try my best not to offend people, but I'm sick of being excluded because of my gender, when my gender make up half the damn population. Ugh.

novalis 13y ago

So you state that from your POV his language reflected that women are not people too ??? That is really great, that you had to make a throw away account to put that out there, it reflects a lot about you trying to raise issue with something you create a strawman for on the first line of your comment. "If we asked the author..." and than you present an imaginary author giving an 'apology'. That is abysmally poor and you had to protect your regular account because of it. In no way does he ever objectify his girlfriend and you just project to no end. Where does he exclude "the idea of female programmers completely". Maybe in the same way that he excludes the idea of "dead rhinos", because it isn't the point. The point his, he is excited about his girlfriend wanting him to teach her about programming and wrote about it. Go rain on someone elses parade. To your other point, there is nothing polite about insulting others with sexist labels. The 'polite criticism reminds people woman are people too' tirade... ending with the "and you all know that"/"some folks", is just priceless and telling passive aggressive form after preaching against the bad male sexist programmer that should watch his language.

chlostick 13y ago
Well, this happened to be my first comment; not a throwaway account. I was attempting to be fair to the author, assuming his best intentions. A strawman on my part would have been to assume the worst intentions of the author. Nowhere did I claim the author was objectifying his girlfriend. Who is projecting here, exactly? Sexist labels? Tirade? I wasn't upset in my comment at all, nor did I label anyone. You seem to be offended, but you have failed to describe why, or to ask for explanation on my part. You have accused and judged me without quantifying your arguments in the slightest. I hope you didn't see my comment as an attack on yourself, or an attack on men, as feminist arguments are often mistaken to be). I'm sorry if I offended you, but I think I deserve a more fair and constructive dialogue than the one you've provided.
- novalis 13y ago
  It's out of place that you try to insinuate others are angry after using so much passive aggressive vitriol. It is laughable that you try 'appeal' to constructive dialogue after moving the goal posts so much. I will provide proof of what I state with just one instance of what you typed because I already am wasting way too much time with this. When you said "Nowhere did I claim the author was objectifying his girlfriend." to deny my remark that you did it. Well, you should read your own posts. The one where you write "and he's doing it at the expense of his girlfriend"... there, you can backtrack all you want. I am sure you will try. Sorry if it burns but those are your own words, next time just avoid going back and forth in writing. If yours isn't a throw away account you will probably not do well around here but I am sure it is. Stay well and goodbye.

reginaldjcooper 13y ago

Outside of that paragraph there is basically no insinuation that women cannot program. The line about rubber-ducking problems with your partner? Not gender-specific unless you've already decided he's sexist. It's about a specific woman who happens to be a political science student and learns quite a bit about programming in six months. I don't see how that implies women are incapable of it, on the contrary it claims the woman in question was quite capable even though she was not in the field. He explicitly mentions that she's a political science student; that's the only reason he had for thinking she'd be unable to do it. "Teach your girlfriend to program" is obviously meant to be interpreted as "teach your non-programming partner to program" where he uses himself and his girlfriend as the "everyprogrammer" and every(wo)man. If you are going to decide he is sexist and then interpret his use of himself as the programmer to implicitly or explicitly mean only men know how to program, well, that seems to unfairly make assumptions about the intent of the author. God forbid we claim a political science student might not be able to learn programming if she happens to be a woman.

xerophtye 13y ago
Exactly! She seems to know stuff I haven't even dabbled in yet!
chlostick 13y ago
"Teach your girlfriend to program" is obviously meant to be interpreted as "teach your non-programming partner to program" ^ That is exactly what I'm talking about. It may be obvious to you, but from my perspective it's exclusionary. It says this article is not meant for me. Which would be fine if not for the fact that it could absolutely be meant for me, if not for the fact that I'm a woman. Do you see what I mean? It's so hard to hard to convey this shit... Okay, imagine there's an article called "How to teach your boyfriend to use proper hygiene". And it's written in the same way as this article, with a girl describing her own experience with her non-hygienic boyfriend, and it's written in the same instructional manner, using language that implies (however indirectly) that boyfriends in general are un-hygienic. Wouldn't you be at least a little annoyed by the assumption? Now, what if you saw shit like that in the vast majority of content you read, online and out in the world? That's what it's like for us; especially those of us women in typically male-dominated professions. It's harder for men to see, because it doesn't affect men, and it's still very socially normative. And when we point it out, men often see it as an attack on all men. And it's not personal. Most folks have the best intentions. But I feel I need to call this shit out when I see it, because awareness invokes change. I try my best not to offend people, but I'm sick of being excluded because of my gender, when my gender make up half the damn population. Ugh.