Live data from Hacker News

GitHub donates private repositories to women learning open source software

adainitiative.org

141–150 of 181 posts

Re: GitHub donates private repositories to women learning open source software

#141
post #10

I can't believe the whining comments here so far. GitHub can contribute to any organization it wants to.

True. At the same time if GitHub (or anyone else) dared contribute to an organization promoting, say, men's right's, you'd never hear the end of it.

If you're talking about many MRA groups, people would likely have a problem because they're considered hate groups by regarded organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Additionally, it's not like we have a dearth of men in programming. They seem to be doing just fine.

Re: GitHub donates private repositories to women learning open source software

#142
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't conflate people being ignorant of their privilege with legitimate criticism of The Ada Initiative. The Ada Initiative is a destructive and notorious concern-troll organization that is reviled by many feminists of both genders. They hurt all real initiatives for resolving inequality and bias in technology. Supporting them is destructive.

Can you back this statement up please? I'm interested to hear where these comments originate.

You can get a flavor for the Ada Initiative ahead. This happened at last year's Defcon.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/did-feminists-cancel-violet...

Re: GitHub donates private repositories to women learning open source software

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't recognize that men have a vast amount of privilege compared to women, then I don't really know what to say. Last year a man named Geordie Tait posted an article called "To My Someday Daughter"[1]. It's quite long, but definitely worth reading. The context is gaming, but the central thesis is sexism. One quote from the article that really opened my eyes to how radically different men and women view the wo…

> If you can't recognize that men have a vast amount of privilege compared to women, then I don't really know what to say. The locally-defined concept of "male privilege" is quite possibly the least productive gender generalization to use in a conversation about gender equality. This -- along with redefinitions of vocabulary to justify offense (see the comment about 'female' being offensive), and truisms that assert…

> The locally-defined concept of "male privilege" is quite possibly the least productive gender generalization to use in a conversation about gender equality.

Well, let's clear it up then: "Male privilege refers to the social theory that men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually denied to women."

It's actually a fairly useful generalization, and most understand what's implied by the use of the term. Of course the real problem isn't the use of rhetoric, it's the outright dismissal of the argument because rhetoric or faux outrage was used to make a point (or, as in my original comment, _real_ outrage).

I'm sorry to say, but we're past the time to be calm, cool, and collected. It's time to get angry, and it's time to put and end to gender inequality. Especially in tech, where we claim to hold ourselves to a higher moral standard.

Re: GitHub donates private repositories to women learning open source software

#144
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can't recognize that men have a vast amount of privilege compared to women, then I don't really know what to say. The locally-defined concept of "male privilege" is quite possibly the least productive gender generalization to use in a conversation about gender equality. This -- along with redefinitions of vocabulary to justify offense (see the comment about 'female' being offensive), and truisms that assert…

> The locally-defined concept of "male privilege" is quite possibly the least productive gender generalization to use in a conversation about gender equality. Well, let's clear it up then: "Male privilege refers to the social theory that men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually denied to women." It's actuall…

> Well, let's clear it up then: "Male privilege refers to the social theory that men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually denied to women."

The useful part is "... which are usually denied to women". The rest is just divisive stereotyping.

> It's actually a fairly useful generalization, and most understand what's implied by the use of the term.

Useful how, exactly? Other than stoking the flames of online discourse, and writing off viewpoints by using "privilege" as a rhetorical bat, I don't see much that can be usefully garnered by pulling the trigger on that particular weapon.

> It's time to get angry, and it's time to put and end to gender inequality. Especially in tech, where we claim to hold ourselves to a higher moral standard.

As far as I can tell, you're getting angry at the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.

You really think the tech industry is responsible for clueless mouth breathers telling your daughters that technology is 'boy stuff'?

I'd look at the educational system and the magazine rack at the supermarket. By the time someone gets to the technology industry, they've already been subjected to a lifetime of indoctrination and have missed out on critical educational opportunities. We're not paid to be educators or social crusaders; we're here to write software, design hardware, and ship products.

We do need to have access to better candidates, and one way to do that is by broadening the pool to draw from, but divisive adults playing at identity politics won't help with that problem.

Re: GitHub donates private repositories to women learning open source software

#145
post #79

You know this makes me sick. Time and time again, articles pop up here on HN talking about some organization trying to promote and encourage women in technology and the comments explode with privileged boys whining about about how "it's not fair" You know what's not fair? A Teacher telling a 12 year old girl that she needs a backup plan because girls getting an engineering degree, well, that's hard. Getting one from…

For your girl: http://goldieblox.com . The backstory: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/16029337/goldieblox-the-...

Thanks, I didn't know such a thing existed. We're a little past it though. Her interests are in industrial robots, and she's been building with a Mindstorms kit for a couple of years now. We're likely to move on to Arduino based projects over the summer break.

Re: GitHub donates private repositories to women learning open source software

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two reasons why "female" is problematic: 1. It refers to sex, not gender. I know many women who do not possess a vagina. 2. It sounds very clinical and sterile. It's appropriate for, say, a scientific survey, but not for addressing other humans with the respect they deserve. I don't refer to 'men' as 'males,' either.

> There are two reasons why "female" is problematic: .. Your reply demonstrates some standard rhetorical landmines used by fringe groups: 1) Redefine words within your subculture (in this case: 'gender', 'sex', 'male', and 'female') and then use the new definitions to claim externally inconsiderate use of those words. 2) Assume that whether or not someone was offended ultimately defines ethical norms (especially when…

I don't care whatsoever about 'offense.' I do care about causing actual harm to human beings. De-humanizing others causes actual harm, through things like wage gaps, (in this case) rape culture, lack of equal rights, etc.

1) There's no 'redefinition' going on here. Sex is a biological thing, a scientific term. If you say "male" and "female," I'd argue you're being a bit clinical, but if you say "man" and "female," you're obviously demonstrating something. It may not be conscious, but you are.

2) You're free to have whatever ethical norms you want, but just like 'free speech,' that doesn't mean you're free from criticism. You can call anyone whatever you like, doesn't mean that I (and others) won't think you're a shitty person, _especially_ after having an explicit conversation about it.

"Hey, this thing hurts me." / "I don't care, I can say whatever I want."

Re: GitHub donates private repositories to women learning open source software

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are two reasons why "female" is problematic: .. Your reply demonstrates some standard rhetorical landmines used by fringe groups: 1) Redefine words within your subculture (in this case: 'gender', 'sex', 'male', and 'female') and then use the new definitions to claim externally inconsiderate use of those words. 2) Assume that whether or not someone was offended ultimately defines ethical norms (especially when…

I don't care whatsoever about 'offense.' I do care about causing actual harm to human beings. De-humanizing others causes actual harm, through things like wage gaps, (in this case) rape culture, lack of equal rights, etc. 1) There's no 'redefinition' going on here. Sex is a biological thing, a scientific term. If you say "male" and "female," I'd argue you're being a bit clinical, but if you say "man" and "female," yo…

> 1) There's no 'redefinition' going on here.

"However, Money's meaning of the word [gender] did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences[5][6] and documents written by the World Health Organization (WHO).[4] However, in most other contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has undergone a usage shift to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

That's just 'gender' and 'sex'. The first responder proceeded to redefine 'female' and 'male':

   "Females as a noun is used to refer to lower animals, I believe you mean women."
No reputable dictionary or colloquial usage defines 'female' as a noun to refer to "lower animals."

> 2) You're free to have whatever ethical norms you want, but just like 'free speech,' that doesn't mean you're free from criticism. You can call anyone whatever you like, doesn't mean that I (and others) won't think you're a shitty person, _especially_ after having an explicit conversation about it.

Which one of us gets to tell the other how to behave on the basis of how we feel about it? I find it offensive how you use rhetoric to label those you disagree with as 'shitty' people; it doesn't leave any room for discourse.

I'm reminded of the Stephen Fry quote:

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

Indeed, being offended provides no insight into understanding why you're offended, and without explaining why, there's no basis to make a rational evaluation of whether the behavior that offends you is actually ethically wrong.

Re: GitHub donates private repositories to women learning open source software

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care whatsoever about 'offense.' I do care about causing actual harm to human beings. De-humanizing others causes actual harm, through things like wage gaps, (in this case) rape culture, lack of equal rights, etc. 1) There's no 'redefinition' going on here. Sex is a biological thing, a scientific term. If you say "male" and "female," I'd argue you're being a bit clinical, but if you say "man" and "female," yo…

> 1) There's no 'redefinition' going on here. "However, Money's meaning of the word [gender] did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences[5][6] and documents written by the World Health Organization (WHO).[4] However, in mos…

1, I totally disagree 100% with the 'lower animals' statement, so you know. I think that's pretty ridiculous.

Let's put it this way: words change over time, and if the word changed in the 70s (that was before I was even alive), then it's changed, and the words we use _now_ matter _now_. Language is _never_ static.

2, You keep going back to that 'offense' bit, and referring to 'feelings.' I am not offended. That doesn't come into this at all, as I'm not a liberal. Please read my part about wage gaps, rape culture, and equal rights again.

> Indeed, being offended provides no insight into understanding why you're offended, and without explaining why, there's no basis to make a rational evaluation of whether the behavior that offends you is actually ethically wrong.

As I said before and above, there has been endless explanation of material harm caused by the cultural situation that women (and other minority groups) face today. If you don't know why, at this point, you're just being willfully ignorant.

Re: GitHub donates private repositories to women learning open source software

#149
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The locally-defined concept of "male privilege" is quite possibly the least productive gender generalization to use in a conversation about gender equality. Well, let's clear it up then: "Male privilege refers to the social theory that men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually denied to women." It's actuall…

> Well, let's clear it up then: "Male privilege refers to the social theory that men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually denied to women." The useful part is "... which are usually denied to women". The rest is just divisive stereotyping. > It's actually a fairly useful generalization, and most understand w…

>Useful how, exactly?

As a two word phrase which everyone understands to mean the social theory that men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually denied to women.

> As far as I can tell, you're getting angry at the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.

>You really think the tech industry is responsible for clueless mouth breathers telling your daughters that technology is 'boy stuff'?

Directly no, but by saying it's not our job to deal with the problem, you're just as culpable. So long as there are people in this industry, or any other, who refuse to address gender issues because it's not our job, or there's nothing I can do about it, then those are the people I should be getting angry at. By refusing to acknowledge the problem and addressing it directly, we allow the problem to continue.

As an industry that embrases diversity (gender; racial; social) but suffers from a lack of it, regardless of blame, it's on us to stand up to society and find solutions. We should be social crusaders. By being a members of the society in which the problem exists, it _is_ our responsibility to work to correct it.

My job is not "to write software, design hardware, and ship products," from the moment my daughters were born my job is educator, and social advocate. Shipping products: That's just what I do to pay the bills. Don't get me wrong, I love what I do for a living. I still get excited about new toys (we have new equipment showing up next week), cool projects, being involved in cutting-edge research, but at the end of the day, it's all meaningless. None of it compares to the glow in my daughters eyes two years ago when she opened the Mindtorms kit she got for christmas, or the excitement _she_ has when she pulls out the erector set with some grand new idea.

So, yeah, _my_ job is to educate and crusade.

Re: GitHub donates private repositories to women learning open source software

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) There's no 'redefinition' going on here. "However, Money's meaning of the word [gender] did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences[5][6] and documents written by the World Health Organization (WHO).[4] However, in mos…

1, I totally disagree 100% with the 'lower animals' statement, so you know. I think that's pretty ridiculous. Let's put it this way: words change over time, and if the word changed in the 70s (that was before I was even alive), then it's changed, and the words we use _now_ matter _now_. Language is _never_ static. 2, You keep going back to that 'offense' bit, and referring to 'feelings.' I am not offended. That doesn…

> Let's put it this way: words change over time, and if the word changed in the 70s (that was before I was even alive), then it's changed, and the words we use _now_ matter _now_. Language is _never_ static.

I wholly agree. But the usage is not universal (by far), and the reworked definitions are used to hit people over the head.

I call a trans person by their preferred gender because it's the polite thing to do, and I try to be a polite and respectful person. However, bringing it up in this context to hit someone over the head for their word choices is not polite.

> As I said before and above, there has been endless explanation of material harm caused by the cultural situation that women (and other minority groups) face today. If you don't know why, at this point, you're just being willfully ignorant.

Which is why using logic-defying rhetorical anvils is just so counter-productively trite and trivial. It leaves me wondering whether these forms of divisive identity politics are really about the equality they claim to be trying to achieve.

Post reply on HN