АLL F-!!1 TOPIC TITLE



  • Face it guys: what.thedailywtf.com is an MRA forum, you're all MRAs for posting here.



  • @Buddy said:

    what.thedailywtf.com is an MRA forum

    It's a forum for mail retrieval agents? Well, we do talk about gmail WTFs occasionally...

    Or were you referring to marketing research association. We have some people who do that sort of thing, but this is hardly an association for them; in fact, their work tends to be somewhat reviled here.

    But the best acronyminitialism expansion is, well, it's a toss-up between mutant registration acts and mandibular repositioning appliances.



  • Markov robot agency? Well, I duck but pancake go fast eat chew chew :poop: :european_castle: artichoke :spaghetti: you can never be sure


  • sockdevs

    Nope. We're survivors of WTFs in the real world, one of which is understanding that there is a huge gender gap in the world today but at the same time being unable to understand that 'treating men and women equally' (within bounds of physiology) is not the same as 'putting women first'.

    Going back to the biology: men are wired better for narrow focus, the hunter trained on the hunted, while women are wired better for wider focus - the so-called multitasking, the need to spot multiple hazards. Like it or not, that's biology. It's how thousands of years of evolution honed the genome because that's what worked.

    Narrow focus can work great in computing, moreso than other industries. The striving for perfection is also a competition thing that men tend to push for because it's one of those fun things that testosterone tends to manifest as.

    Women tend, generally, to favour socialisation. IT is not, typically, an especially socialised activity, and there is never going to be the reciprocity between person and computer than two people have.

    So before you start, IT - which is where this forum began - is a man's game. All the wiring favours it but certainly does not inhibit women getting into the game. It's just less likely to appeal to them and then you compound it with the normal people that float to the surface in the industry and you can imagine that women don't want to be in the industry.

    Oh, misandry is real enough, just as misogyny is. But for thinking we're a men's activist group? Oh no. We're the product of evolution and an industry that is less desirable for women to be in, promoting the worst of men into its specific gene pool, making it appear like we're sexist.

    Because we're not. We are bigoted in one respect: we absolutely detest stupidity. It's the one thing that everyone here has in common, we're here because we rebel against stupid. We also rebel against people that don't understand that being against one thing does not automatically make you pro the opposite.

    I'm against the feminism as described in the other topic because that type of feminism is hypocritical. It takes female superiority and dresses it up as equal rights when it wants nothing of the sort. It's a movement that wants equal rights as long as women's rights are more equal than men's.

    That doesn't make me a misogynist by the way. Just because I'm against the movement for female superiority doesn't mean I'm pro male superiority. I'd love to see a world where people are treated equally, irrespective of colour, gender, or any other defining characteristics. It's also where political correctness is a WTF on too many levels.



  • @Arantor said:

    we absolutely detest stupidity. It's the one thing that everyone here has in common

    Except for a handful who personify stupidity.

    @Arantor said:

    a world where people are treated equally, irrespective of colour

    Even if they insist on spelling "color" wrong.

    Filed under: Whether they are really that stupid or just trolling is hard to determine.


  • sockdevs

    I'm willing to bet they still detest stupidity too.

    Filed under: Hanlon's Razor



  • Please tl; dr your markov chain next time.


  • BINNED

    @Arantor said:

    Going back to the biology: men are wired better for narrow focus, the hunter trained on the hunted, while women are wired better for wider focus - the so-called multitasking, the need to spot multiple hazards. Like it or not, that's biology. It's how thousands of years of evolution honed the genome because that's what worked.

    Unfortunately, I can't find the links now but I stumbled upon one study that would seemingly indicate this is actually sociological. I'm not denying sexual dimorphism, far from it, but this particular example might be a bad one. Nothing is conclusive yet though.

    @Arantor said:

    The striving for perfection is also a competition thing that men tend to push for because it's one of those fun things that testosterone tends to manifest as.

    This, however, I agree with, it does seem to be a factor.

    @Arantor said:

    Oh, misandry is real enough, just as misogyny is. But for thinking we're a men's activist group? Oh no. We're the product of evolution and an industry that is less desirable for women to be in, promoting the worst of men into its specific gene pool, making it appear like we're sexist.

    You might be reading too deep into this. I've been accused of being a misogynist just for saying something like:

    @Arantor said:

    I'm against the feminism as described in the other topic because that type of feminism is hypocritical. It takes female superiority and dresses it up as equal rights when it wants nothing of the sort. It's a movement that wants equal rights as long as women's rights are more equal than men's.

    You monster! How dare you not put women first! Can you not see they are clearly more equal then men!

    @Arantor said:

    We are bigoted in one respect: we absolutely detest stupidity.

    Hey, take that back! I'm not bigoted against stupidity, I just have a physical reaction to it that compels me to smash things. Preferably with a crowbar.

    What you are talking about is egalitarianism. And freaking hell, we need a better word for that, because that is a bitch of a word to type correctly



  • One thing I have noticed re (probably sociological, though it may be an evolutionary mechanism at work) differences between men and women:

    If you're a guy, you're supposed to take care of your own shit.

    This forum is an interesting study, because it is pretty vicious (and at the same time, male-dominated. Coincidence?) You've got to stand up for yourself - or at least have a reasonably thick skin - because you're not getting any sympathy if you're letting yourself get walked all over. You call someone the "worst of the worst" and they'll wear it as a badge of pride (ain't that right, @mikeTheLiar?) Then you've got folks like @ben_lubar or @Nagesh, who seem to be the butt of everyone's jokes, but they're not letting that keep 'em down (I've a suspicion that @Nagesh is a degree-level troll). Even ol' Swampy knows how to roll with the punches (although, that's probably 'coz he don't connect with reality too well).

    The point is that men are supposed to fight for their own and most of us learn to do that early on - as much as possible. At the very least, we learn that "cryin' won't help ya, cryin' will do you no good". What modern-day feminists seem to have a problem with is that if women want to receive the same treatment and rewards, they're going to have to play by the same rules. Those that do, get what they're after. That's what equality is really about.



  • @GOG said:

    Then you've got folks like @ben_lubar or @Nagesh, who seem to be the butt of everyone's jokes

    Heh, he said butt.



  • @GOG said:

    Then you've got folks like ben_lubar or @Nagesh, who seem to be the butt of everyone's jokes


    Filed under: POST_CANT_BE_EMPTY, FUCK_YOU_DISCOURSE



  • @GOG said:

    I've a suspicion that @Nagesh is a degree-level troll

    What is that meaning?



  • Ah HA! I knew this was a magnetic resonance angiogram

    So then, we are all big and small blood vessels of the head and neck that show up on screens.

    Filed under: Size queens


  • sockdevs

    Some of this community are the heads of a totally different part of the body but still engorged with blood.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Nagesh said:

    What is that meaning?

    It depends on your favoured temperature scale, technically, but it does mean you're cool.



  • @Onyx said:

    egalitarianism. And freaking hell, we need a better word for that, because that is a bitch of a word to type correctly

    My vote is for a phrase like "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too! Fuck off!" or maybe just the one word socialism. There that's easier to type now ain't it!



  • @M_Adams said:

    My vote is for a phrase like "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too! Fuck off!" or maybe just the one word socialism. There that's easier to type now ain't it!

    Actually, that refers to capitalism just as well as it does to socialism. In fact, it refers equally well to any form of economy.


    Filed under: food for thought



  • @ben_lubar said:

    that refers to capitalism

    You really don't know what capitalism (true capitalism) is do you? Capitalism is I earned and traded for honestly / built it, so it's mine! Keep your hands off!. True capitalism is based on the trader principle and rationally true inalienable rights. All the other economic systems are some form of base parasitism and/or obliviousness to the thermodynamic laws.

    Egalitarianism is just wrong, it is based on equality of outcomes. You know GIGO? Egalitarianism states that it doesn't matter how hard, or even if, you worked for something compared to someone else: You should get the same reward/result.

    Remember:

    Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet,
    nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam.

    Nam si de nihilo fierent, ex omnibus rebus
    omne genus nasci posset, nil semine egeret.
    e mare primum homines, e terra posset oriri
    squamigerum genus et volucres erumpere caelo-
    — Lucretius, De Rerum Natura

    But only Nature's aspect and her law,
    Which, teaching us, hath this exordium:
    Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.

    Suppose all sprang from all things: any kind
    Might take its origin from any thing,
    No fixed seed required. Men from the sea
    Might rise, and from the land the scaly breed,
    And, fowl full fledged come bursting from the sky-



  • @Arantor said:

    I'm against the feminism as described in the other topic because that type of feminism is hypocritical. It takes female superiority and dresses it up as equal rights when it wants nothing of the sort. It's a movement that wants equal rights as long as women's rights are more equal than men's.

    I don't think it's hypocritical for a person to complain about unfairness that harms them, then fall conspicuously silent when they see unfairness that targets someone else. That's just human nature.
    I think it is ok for different groups of people to advocate for their own rights, Arrow's Paradox notwithstanding. All I'm trying to do here is to point out that from an outsider's perspective, it is really obvious that this web site is hostile to women, and that anybody who cares about women's place in technology would be wise to steer clear.


  • sockdevs

    So you're completely OK with women wanting to feel better than men but not with men feeling better than women?

    No, it isn't really obvious to people outside this community that the community members are hostile to women, because I don't actually think we are. That was a conclusion you drew from one thing taken entirely out of context in the first place.



  • @M_Adams said:

    True capitalism is based on the trader principle and rationally true inalienable rights.  All the other economic systems are some form of base parasitism and/or obliviousness to the thermodynamic laws.

    Unfortunately, you have become confused between capitalism and the free-market economy. Don't worry, it happens to a lot of people.

    Capitalism is actually defined by the private ownership of the means of production. That is, capitalism's defining feature is that is allows private individuals to restrict other individuals ability to work productively.



  • I'm ok with both. I just want you to acknowledge what you are.


  • sockdevs

    I wasn't aware I was either a campaigner for men's rights or a misandrist. I'm all for people being given the opportunity to excel and to be treated equally wherever feasible.

    I find it interesting that that seems to be the conclusion you've drawn from what I said, without actually answering some of the points I raised about what you've said.

    I will ask it again: do you think, then, that men and women should compete together in the 100m sprint and if so, why? Or if not, why not? Is it sexist to separate them? Would it be sexist not to separate them?

    Here's the thing about treating people equally - it does not mean treating them the same. If you were to treat men and women identically, you do both of them an injustice. Take the 100m sprint example. Treating them identically means a single competition of mixed gender and I guarantee you the men will win. The men's world record is almost a second faster than the women's world record over 100m sprint.

    Being pro-equality means showing respect for the individual, the individual's needs, desires and so on and not basing it on their gender. To expand on the 100m sprint... there are plenty of women that can run 100m faster than I can. Does that mean I get all butthurt because there are women that can do it faster than I can? Of course it doesn't. That's what they're better at, what they've trained for and naturally they're going to be able to do it better than I am.

    I'm not hostile to women. I'm equal opportunity; I'll be hostile and grouchy to anyone. I don't care what colour skin they have, or what gender they are, or whether they want to bang people of the same gender as themselves or not. Or whether they're tall, short, thin, fat. If they're saying stupid things, I'll be grouchy to them.

    I'd rather have a clever women than a stupid man as a co-worker any day of the week. I've worked with plenty of women that know what I did better than I did myself.

    But I think it goes back to what I said before... I will say it again but in smaller words so that 1) you might notice it this time and 2) you might understand it this time. (I don't know whether you're a man or a woman. I don't care either. You're saying stupid things. Therefore grouchy.)

    Women have been shown time and time again to have equal competence when it comes to IT. There's nothing specific to IT that means either man or woman is intrinsically more capable. Both genders can give it the old college try without any problem.

    The thing is, IT is a male game because it generally seems to be a field women aren't interested in. Sociologically, women socialise in a way men don't. IT as an industry does not provide that kind of socialisation. Specific companies with specific cultures, sure, but IT as a whole doesn't.

    When I was in IT class a decade ago (well, it was 12 years ago but decade is simpler), out of a class of 17, there were only two girls, and one dropped out after the first year of two. That's not because they're any more or less capable - because both girls came in the top 5 in the first year's exams. But they were less interested in it, simple as that.

    Correlation does not imply causation. Asserting that the IT industry - and a specific subset of it (people who've been in it for a while and are fed up of the rampant stupidity in it) - is full of misandry because there aren't women in it is ridiculous.

    Next you'll be trying to tell me that we need to redesign toilet facilities for men to allow for groups of two or three to enter at the same time and have a minor social gathering across the toilet stalls. Or not, as the case may be.



  • If your capitalism definition does not include a "laissez faire" free market economy, then your definition is axiomatically wrong being descended from Kant via Hegel (noumenal mystical crap) and not from Aristotle via Smith, Burke and Von Mises (logical deductiveness). ( 28 credits in Economics, 24 in Philosophy, 18 credits + 15 years practice in Accounting, 20 credits in Logic, plus Jesuit parochial school).

    @Buddy said:

    That is, capitalism's defining feature is that is allows private individuals to restrict other individuals ability to work productively.

    WTF?? Where do you get that? TDEMSYR —That's just social progressive gobble-speak. That's just like saying because I privately own my farm, you can't ever own your own farm and be productive… That's just, just sloppy and janky thinking.



  • I wish I had time to give you real world examples of the very thing you are arguing against, but I have to get back to my castle clash quest chain.

    The short of it is that @Buddy is more right than wrong and I can tell he doesn't give a shit one way or the other (even more right).


  • sockdevs

    More right than wrong about capitalism or more right than wrong about misandry, or how much apparent misogyny is on this forum?



  • Well I think it is getting better for women. I do geek out when I see one or two stray into IT. Nothing barring them...we are not a good old boy culture. None seems to be too interested in my neck of the woods. Plus 'baby clocks' take a lot of them out early... Girls in my daughter's high school drop like flies. It's sad when she mentions someone I think could operate well IT and alas, is knocked up. Opportunity snatched right from her young hands.



  • He went off topic with capitalism.

    You have to laugh at the stupid, otherwise you would cry...17% risk of default? Try 83%...but hey its free market capitalism.



  • Pffft, was the topic about misogyny?

    I tried to stay on topic but was pulled into the flames like the rest of us.



  • @Frank said:

    I wish I had time to give you real world examples of the very thing you are arguing against, but I have to get back to my castle clash quest chain.

    Wow. That is exactly the type of response that progressive education encourages. It's a dodge, a sloppy variation of :

    “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
    —Stuart Chase ( Writer and Economist, b.1888 (Tragedy of Waste))

    Which is a noumenal / platonic form / religious i.e. irrational form of argument and therefore logically inadmissable as an argument.

    As far as the "real world" examples go… Please present if you can find real world examples from a real world laisez faire capitalist economy. I call shenanigans based on the actual fact that no such beast has yet to be sighted in this world. The closest we've come is that bastard offspring of Keynes call a "mixed economy". That is, an economy based on:

    1. various levels of governmental tampering instigated by pressure group politics,
    2. which cause dislocation of economic resources and as an economy is a complex nonlinear dynamic system, the disruption of the thermal equilibrium of the economy see here (thus manacling the so called "hidden hand", the set of choices and exchanges that provide corrective adjustments to the equilibrium),
    3. leading to a cry for "fixes" by yet more pressure groups (or even the same ones),
    4. resulting in more tampering ( if ( still_have_economy() ){ goto 1; } else { goto 5; }),
    5. Greece — QED (deliberate troll)

    Thus more proof that goto is evil :smiling_imp: (yes that's another deliberate troll).


  • sockdevs

    Yes. It starts out with 'misandry is real' (i.e. that people are man-haters, which is what the original topic was asserting was inherently a WTF) and then proceeds to call all of us activists for male rights and asserting that this entire forum is full of misogyny.



  • If your capitalism definition does not include a "laissez faire" free market economy, then your definition is axiomatically wrong being descended from Kant via Hegel (noumenal mystical crap) and not from Aristotle via Smith, Burke and Von Mises (logical deductiveness). ( 28 credits in Economics, 24 in Philosophy, 18 credits + 15 years practice in Accounting, 20 credits in Logic, plus Jesuit parochial school).

    All hands on deck. Randite alert.

    "logical deductiveness" -- heh.



  • @Frank said:

    I tried to stay on topic but was pulled into the flames like the rest of us.

    @Arantor said:

    Yes. It starts out with 'misandry is real' (i.e. that people are man-haters, which is what the original topic was asserting was inherently a WTF) and then proceeds to call all of us activists for male rights and asserting that this entire forum is full of misogyny.

    Yeah that was the topic. I need to own up to an ADHD moment caused by @Onyx1, aided and abetted by @ben_lubar2 , then @Buddy3 had to wave a real "sparkley" in my sight causing a SQUIRREL moment I've not yet recovered from.

    But then again, veering off topic IS on topic for TDWTF.



  • @M_Adams said:

    But then again, veering off topic IS on topic for TDWTF.

    Calling the sets of posts "topics" is really weird because they are neither a superset nor a subset of any given topic of discussion.



  • Then we've not really veered off of anything, and it's all good!


  • sockdevs

    Only because we won't let Jeff split them out in the manner to which he is so accustomed (which is "civilised discourse"). In other forums, we'd see each "topic" as a collection of posts referring to the context of the title.

    TDWTF on the other hand is not civilised and therefore a "topic" is just a collection of posts that started somewhere in the vicinity of the subject and veered very far away from it. We need a new word then, one that means a 'topic' but sums up the abject lack of topicality at the same time.

    EDIT: Topicality is a fucking word now? I thought I made it up.



  • Brownian Walk Posting?



  • Simulation of topic



  • Holy shitballs. You take this seriously. Well if you have problems as all people do then that's your first problem.

    You toss progressive and liberalism and all that other crap around but who has the time for it.

    I honestly don't care as much as I did 15 years ago. Small parts of me still care but they get smaller all the time.

    So you are wasting all this on the wrong person.



  • We can call it an anti-topic then.


  • sockdevs

    But it's not an anti-topic because it shares some of the definition - it's still a collection of posts and it still starts with a subject and occasionally collides back with that subject.

    Pseudotopic perhaps. Quasitopic.



  • @M_Adams said:

    WTF?? Where do you get that? TDEMSYR —That's just social progressive gobble-speak. That's just like saying because I privately own my farm, you can't ever own your own farm and be productive… That's just, just sloppy and janky thinking.

    In a world in which there are fewer farms than people, and in which every farm already had an owner, it would not be in the farm owners' best interests to allow the non-farm-owners unrestricted access to their farms.

    @Arantor said:

    Women have been shown time and time again to have equal competence when it comes to IT. There's nothing specific to IT that means either man or woman is intrinsically more capable. Both genders can give it the old college try without any problem.

    The thing is, IT is a male game because it generally seems to be a field women aren't interested in. Sociologically, women socialise in a way men don't. IT as an industry does not provide that kind of socialisation. Specific companies with specific cultures, sure, but IT as a whole doesn't.

    Your problem is the same. “I've got mine, don't give a fuck about the rest.”

    In my opinion, a system that fails to connect talented workers with roles that they are suitable for is a flawed system. I'm not interested in apportioning blame here in the sense of “here's an end result, let's work backwards to find out who's responsible”, rather, I think each person should try to discern in what ways their own actions contributed to any negative result and try to do better. You admit that the problem for women in IT is related to the environment/culture, but you refuse to accept the role that your own contribution to that culture plays.


  • sockdevs

    Wait, what? How the hell do you get to that conclusion from what I've said? TDEMSYR.

    A system that fails to connect talented workers with roles they are suited to is a broken one, sure. But that's so much more systemic than 'women not going into IT'. Women don't go into IT partly because of the environment, sure, and mostly because it doesn't fit their needs or wants.

    But on a much larger scale, most people never really go to the careers that they are best suited for. Many just 'fall into' a job and make it work. The average person doesn't aspire to being a shelf stacker or a telemarketer. They do it because it pays the bills.

    You know what's really funny about all this? I have no idea if you're a man or a woman. I can make assumptions based on things provided but I don't actually know. For all I know, you could be a man arguing that we're all child-eating monsters out of a sense of political-correctness style brainwashing.

    Your actions aren't helping either, as it happens.


  • BINNED

    Fucking hell. And that's why I should probably stay out of discussions like this. Not because I don't have a clue, or don't have an opinion, but freaking hell I mentioned one word and it snowballed into the standard rant about economy. Seriously people, I live in an ex-communist country, which is, to my understanding a fucked-up version of socialism, and I hear less discussions about it in a month here than in one topic thread on TDWTF. Why do people who never experienced it (disclaimer: neither did I, I'm too young, but I can see the aftermath) seem to be more paranoid about the s-word than my parents who lived it?

    Also, there, I pulled the wrong word. That's why I say we need something better. Socialism is instantly evil, egalitarianism is apparently broken, but I did not, nor do I intend to, read Aristotle or Marx so I fuck up. It's ok, now I know and won't use that word anymore since it seems to have the same properties for triggering rants as socialism.

    And I'm fine with equality as a word BTW. But these days it seems you're not taken seriously unless you have an -ism. I myself don't need it to be an -ism. Also, as @Arantor elaborated (pretty well IMHO), it's not like you can apply equality as unambiguously as you can in math, so it does seem a bit lacking of a word.

    And before I finish the wall-o-text and to address the MRA point - I have the same problem with them as with feminism. They focus on one group specifically instead on equality itself. Both movements have some fair points, but I don't feel aligned with either due to that divide.



  • Oooh, multi-flame-war! Can I join in? Now, where do I begin?

    @Buddy said:

    a system that fails to connect talented workers with roles that they are suitable for is a flawed system

    That's begging the question, isn't it? First you have to demonstrate that the system is failing. For example, in this case, by showing that women who want to get into IT, can't get into IT.

    Second, assuming that the problem is disconnect between women's expectations of culture and actual culture, isn't it more sensible to explain the culture to women and show them how to adapt? We all have.

    Wheee!



  • Skipping over the economy flamewar, if I may address the "IT is boys club" argument...

    I get that some women might be deterred by the male only perception of IT field. But the same used to be true for medicine, design, management and pretty much every other field where women are today doing equally well or better than men. I think I'll go @Arantor in that it seems there is just something about STEM that females in general find unappealing. What percentage of this is due to genetics and/or culture, I don't know.



  • @M_Adams said:

    If your capitalism definition does not include a "laissez faire" free market economy, then your definition is axiomatically wrong

    No, I'm afraid @Buddy's correct, especially since true free market economies exist only in the land of rainbow-belching unicorns, dancing on spherical cows in a perfect vacuum.

    Note that a free market assumes free entry. In reality, even assuming a lack of government, we will always be faced with limited resources meaning that late-comers will automatically be denied market entry.

    Moreover, market incumbents may conspire to prevent new entries - a laissez-faire assumption means there's nothing stopping them - leading to a restricted market. Again, no need for government here.

    In other words, a capitalist system can lead to numerous types of market - a canonical free market is just one example; an oligopoly situation is much more likely, if only because successful businesses have a tendency to consolidate.


    Filed under: economist first, coder second



  • @Arantor said:

    For all I know, you could be a man arguing that we're all child-eating monsters out of a sense of political-correctness style brainwashing.

    See, you claim you're not a mra, but it's statements like that that keep setting my mra-sense off.

    @Onyx said:

    And before I finish the wall-o-text and to address the MRA point - I have the same problem with them as with feminism. They focus on one group specifically instead on equality itself. Both movements have some fair points, but I don't feel aligned with either due to that divide.

    I think it could be helpful to distinguish between feminist practice and feminist theory here: feminists have, over the years, written countless many analyses of what equality actually means on a personal, cultural and societal scale; if you liked what Arantor had to say about it, just wait till you hear what someone who actually thinks about that stuff full time says.

    @GOG said:

    Second, assuming that the problem is disconnect between women's expectations of culture and actual culture, isn't it more sensible to explain the culture to women and show them how to adapt? We all have.

    Well, on the one hand you have “what can women who want to get into tech do to make that happen”, and on the other hand you have “what can men who want to make it easier for women to get into tech do to make that happen?”, and what I'm suggesting is that it might actually be nice to change programming culture from an aggressive ‘Worse Than Fail’ culture to something a bit more understanding of where other people are coming from.



  • @Buddy said:

    “what can men who want to make it easier for women to get into tech do to make that happen?”

    That is indeed an important problem, but it isn't mine.

    What, at the end of the day, do I care if women work in IT or not? Why should I care? The last thing I want is for people to work in jobs they find unappealing.

    If you count yourself amongst "men who want to make it easier for women to get into tech", then I suggest you do some soul-searching. The rest of us will just do our own thing.


    Filed under: trolling (but only a little bit)


  • BINNED

    @Buddy said:

    I think it could be helpful to distinguish between feminist practice and feminist theory here: feminists have, over the years, written countless many analyses of what equality actually means on a personal, cultural and societal scale; if you liked what Arantor had to say about it, just wait till you hear what someone who actually thinks about that stuff full time says.

    Fine. If there are feminists that align with such views, we can meet half-way, but there can do one of two things:

    • throw modern-day vocal feminists (or should it be "feminists"?) under the bus and publicly denounce them as crybabies that complain about men wanting to buy them drinks instead of focusing on real issues
    • or, change the name of their movement to better present the idea of equality instead of boosting the status of a single group

    If they still want to focus on female-specific issues first, fine, I'm not opposed. But there's so much real inequality I find screaming only about women problems a bit selfish TBH. Now, I know, you have to pick your fights, you can't do everything at once, which brings me to:

    @Buddy said:

    “what can men who want to make it easier for women to get into tech do to make that happen?”, and what I'm suggesting is that it might actually be nice to change programming culture from an aggressive ‘Worse Than Fail’ culture to something a bit more understanding of where other people are coming from.

    I'm treating women as my equals everywhere, including the workplace. That's all I can do, really. As for this community... We are not, I repeat NOT here to make it easier for people to get into IT. Sure, we'll help if someone asks, but that's not the primary purpose of this community. We're here to laugh, vent, and cry about things we see daily. We're here to yell "WTF" at buffer overflows and runaway pointers in SSL, not writing tutorials in Logo so little Jimmy or Jane can make the turtle draw a nice little house. There are places for that. TDWTF is not that place.

    Next up, we won't be allowed to say butt. Wait... BUTT.

    Oh, this is just a clbuttic.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.