I have a 4.5 year old girl. I'm 100% certain that I want her to pursue a career in IT, if that is what she desires. Hopefully by the time she's old enough she not only won't have to deal with the sort of misogynistic crap like the one pointed out in the article, but the sort of "get over it" responses that encourage this sort of rubbish.
P.S. What sort of stupid comment is "you've never raised a woman"? What, you can only be upset about sexism if you've had children? Or, for that matter, have a daughter?
That there is someone voting you up is a real shame.
I didn't say that "men are to blame for the lack of women in CS". I said that sexist comments don't encourage more women to enter into computing. That would include women making sexist remarks or abusing hostility to other women.
I do hope I have un-boggled your mind.
Not sure what sort of responsibility I need to bear here, incidentally. I'm certainly saying that if you make IT hostile or women you bear some of the blame for the lack of women partaking in it.
Oh, it might help to note that I'm male, and I'm in IT.
In every single place I have worked, women are treated with equal respect.
You're a dude, right? How the heck would you know? Most of this crap is directed at women. A priori means means you're going to miss out on a very, very large subset. This plus the fact that you're convinced it's blown out of proportion suggests mind-bogglingly large confirmation and selection bias.
Frankly, in the context of this comment, your suggestion that anybody is worse than the feminists is a compliment.
"P.S. What sort of stupid comment is "you've never raised a woman"? What, you can only be upset about sexism if you've had children? Or, for that matter, have a daughter?"
it looks to be the sort of comment whose context was discarded and ignored so you have something to get angry about.
How the heck is what I've quoted removed from its context? He stated that "If you really think this is the cause of lack of women in CS, you've never raised a woman."
In other words, he's saying that you can't comment on this if you've never had a daughter to raise. How else do you interpret that?
In fact, that's exactly what I'm annoyed about. I've not taken him out of context. I'll thank you not to tell me I have. It is very stupid to say you can't comment on hostility to one segment of the population will disuade many of thos people from taking up IT or Computer Sciense just because you are not part of that population, or that you would have had to be a parent of one of those people.
edit: as has been pointed out by sp332 (I can't reply), it appears I have indeed being following through a logical fallacy.
I am in the process of "raising a woman", so regardless if my fallacious reasoning about what I thought of the original comment, the proposition still proves to be false :-)
He stated that "If you really think this is the cause of lack of women in CS, you've never raised a woman."
In other words, he's saying that you can't comment on this if you've never had a daughter to raise. How else do you interpret that?
Sorry you've got a logical fallacy there. Raising a woman is sufficient but not necessary. If you raised a woman, then you would not think that. But there might be other reasons for not thinking that, other than raising a woman.
your argument was this: "What, you can only be upset about sexism if you've had children?" which is an absurd takeaway from their comment. unless of course, you leave out "If you really think this is the cause of lack of women in CS". which you did.
"he's saying that you can't comment on this if you've never had a daughter to raise".
no, i don't believe that's what he's saying at all and i have no idea how you extrapolate that. moreso, i'm not sure we have sufficient evidence that cheeze is male like you suggest.
He said you would have had to raise a woman. The second part of the sentence leads from the first - he's saying that only those who "raised a woman" can think a certain way about sexism.
It's easy to disprove it too. It's a universal quantifier. If I find just one person who had "raised a woman" who thinks the way he says you can't, then the proposition is proven false.
my point of contention is that you posit cheez's position was both: "you can only be upset about sexism if..." and "you can't comment on this if...". i fail to see how you've inferred either of those sentiments from the original post without making a lot of assumptions.
sp332 has pointed out I was following a fallacious line of reasoning. Nonetheless, as a father of a small girl, I can and am annoyed by sexism in CS and IT. Ergo, I am living proof that the proposition is false.
I was in a bit of a rush so I didn't reply properly earlier.
What I meant to say is that it isn't the men who are responsible for the lack of women enrolling in comp sci. Everywhere young girls turn, they are told to be pretty, nurturing and sexist (yes, sexist.) Including if not exclusively from their mothers and aunts. They are taught that their value comes from their relationship with a man. So when I say it isn't men, I mean it's the family, extended family and the community which reinforce gender stereotypes.
I would hope that an engineer mindset would use the "5 why" rule instead of the "DUHH BLAME THE IDIOT"
P.S. What sort of stupid comment is "you've never raised a woman"? What, you can only be upset about sexism if you've had children? Or, for that matter, have a daughter?
That there is someone voting you up is a real shame.