so i was at a developer conference today and it already had this gender neutrality topic in it, which is fine (like supporting ruby girls). then this presentation started. just dumping some photos
The ironic thing is that this whole movement does have some points here. Freedom cannot be had with restrictions like real-name policies, we expect our software to have sane defaults (implying "men as default is sane"), and we need to not ignore our users to have a good software experience. Chalk it up to the GNU way of doing things.
Irony (from Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία (eirōneía), meaning "dissimulation, feigned ignorance"), in its broadest sense, is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or event in which what appears, on the surface, to be the case, differs radically from what is actually the case.
I dont think it is irony
> it was the closing note of the whole conference anyway
You shouldn't trivialise this. It's socially corrosive and effectively so. If you paid money you should ask for at least partial reimbursement.
Which one was the best? Was it the one about why the f*ck you should care about getting more women into tech, or the one about how it takes a village to make a programmer? Perhaps the talk about "storytelling" whatever that is?
The problem is there are some valid points (brogrammers, "no women on the internet", "above and beyond" culture that excludes people with lives outside of work, drinking culture etc.) but then people like her shit things up by complaining about the size of a fucking camera.
Because it all excludes people, and excluding people is bad because it creates a monoculture, and monocultures are always bad because it creates an inward looking community that just circle-jerk each other.
Any self respecting software developer with any experience can understand why monocultures are bad. You're not one of those ones that don't understand, are you anon?
>It's a valid concern
Only if there weren't technical criteria that dictated the design. Technical criteria always over-ride any other criteria, otherwise the thing you're building won't function in the way you want it to.
If you could build a DLSR that weighed half a pound, was two inches square and accepted industry standard lens you don't think the manufacturers would do it?
>It's a valid concern
Not in a market economy where you can buy cameras small enough to fit in a pen, it isn't. And even if absolutely every camera were massive and designed to be ideal for men, that would mean not enough women purchase cameras to make designing cameras for them profitable, so it's their own fault.
op here, let me explain further. she said a women in syria wanted to shoot photos of a riot, in order to document the breaking of law. but she couldn't because the weight of the specific camera prevented her from executing her rights. i thought that was pretty ridicilous, i mean there are smaller cameras out there
Supply and demand. It's not worth time and money developing it. Which is how most corporations work, unfortunately, and it's discriminatory in general. Corporations follow psychopathic behavior.
Nobody is arguing for equality, they are arguing for equity. To pretend there are no differences between men and women would be downright harmful.
Between the revolution, counter-revolution and infiltration of the revolution by ISIS, the last concern women in Syria have is the size of their fucking cameras.
Western women are like toddlers both in their capacity for critical thinking and the scope of their concerns.
why do we need woman in tech? It doesn't make sense. Woman can be in tech and there is nothing wrong if they want to pursue a career in some form of it. However, those that think they must be in something--there is something seriously wrong with people's minds nowadays.
They want to perverse a culture simply because it's made up of men and, because there are no women in it, it is inherently unequal.
>hurr durr the humanity
The real privilege is being able to be this naive. What a wonderful life you must've had :^)
>Western women are like toddlers both in their capacity for critical thinking and the scope of their concerns.
This. Most of these women from the Middle East & Africa that these Women's Studies graduates bleat about would slap the ever living shit out if them for being so fucking shallow.
>This. Most of these women from the Middle East & Africa that these Women's Studies graduates bleat about would slap the ever living shit out if them for being so fucking shallow.
There are actual feminists from these countries that speak about Western feminists in their speeches and call them out
>simply because it's made up of men
It's more complex. It's made up of gullible, vulnerable nerdly betacucks who are too thirsty for puss to act with dignity.
Fields such as mechanical engineering and theoretical physics as no less male-dominated, but the people working in those fields generally don't give infantile feminists the time of day.
I've met alot of good women coders because I live in Silicon Valley
Want to know the key thing about what makes them actually good?
They're just as autistic and nerdy fucks as alot of the guys.
You can't take some normal pleb woman and have her code because she just isn't geared for it, thinking more in emotions and how she's been trained to react to the world rather than a true STEM major who has the diligence and dedication that these nerd/autist chicks do.
>Want to know the key thing about what makes them actually good?
>They're just as autistic and nerdy fucks as alot of the guys.
This. I'm out-nerded by my female co-worker any day of the week. She DM's D&D and has worked for actual companies that you've actually heard of back when they were actually good. Puts me to shame, it does.
Real-name policies are sometimes required though: even GNU requires contributor copyright assignments, and as a legal document you can only sign & submit those using your legal name.
>women complain about not being respected as programmers
>they are given a chance to present something relevant to programming to get respect
>presents how are they not being respected as programmers
never ending cycle.
Did no one in the audience treat this with the derisive laughter it deserves? Did no one think to interrupt and ask whether this is appropriate for a development conference?
Under the Berne convention you have the right to publish works pseudonymously and anonymously. If GNU are enforcing a real-name policy for copyright grants, they are harmful. But we know GNU is harmful anyway because it's shit quality software.
Your ability to publish work anonymously is nothing to do with assigning your copyright to the FSF for inclusion in GNU software. The two are entirely orthogonal; GNU require all of the copyright for their software to be held in their name, which means all authors who wish to submit patches to GNU software must assign their copyright to the FSF.
You're still free to publish your software as Bob The Builder, or Furry Squiral Nutkins, but the FSF are equally free not to use it because legally they *can't*. Because ironically, Berne Convention.
Hoist by your own /pol/tard.
>a talk about nothing
And that is already..something
>legally they *can't*
I release Work A under the MIT license.
The FSF absolutely can take Work A and use it on the condition they keep the Copyright (c) 2015 Bob The Builder notice intact somewhere. It's they who would choose not to.
this is the stupidist thing i have heard this week and I spend a lot of it on /g/.
>we need more black jewish women volunteers!
>Its FOSS'es fault for not letting people volunteer even though there is no way to stop them!
>its all white mens fault.
uses one valid reason of why this will not work, then uses the rest of the speech to redact and dig a hole of blind ignorance.
>and use it on the condition they keep the Copyright
Which is exactly the thing they don't do. FSF require single copyright assignment. Whether you agree with that position or not is nothing to do with the legal requirement that the assignment must happen in your legal name because it's a legal document.
No they don't anymore. They used to but the latest policy means it's not required to transfer copyright. All the GNU project needs is the authority to relicense your work under any GPL. This is because if they ever publish a new GPL, then they are able to relicense your work under the new GPL. To do it this way, you would need to write a special relicensing letter to the GNU project. Note that you'd still have your own copyright to your code, it's just that you've given GNU the right to relicense that code which you've contributed to them.
>An on-topic in-context reply to someone else's post is a blog now.
>To do it this way, you would need to write a special relicensing letter to the GNU project.
Right, which is effectively the same thing as you still need to sign that letter in your legal name.
That's the problem. You do a dongle joke here or a fork joke there and suddenly people who have nothing to do with programming come out of the woodwork. They contribute nothing; they just don't know how nor care about it because they are narcissistic or sociopaths looking to control the typically introverted coder.
Wow... didn't realize /g/ was a right-wing Teathuglican reactionary shit-hole. A woman expresses mostly valid concerns and all of a sudden she's the devil, I'd laugh if it wasn't so typical.
It's not effectively the same thing. Copyright assignment means the GNU project are legally allowed to distribute your contribution under any license, proprietary or free. This relicensing agreement only grants them the right to change the license to a new GPL should a new GPL exist.
This. You can't win with these people. Don't engage them, don't apologize to them, just ignore them. Their only real power is being loud on the internet, which matters a lot less than most people realize.
It's no different to any license. If you publish your software under the MIT license, you will sign that license under your legal name. This "GNU can relicense my work" is also a license but you've only given the GNU project the license to practise this. This "GNU can relicense my work" license doesn't transfer to anybody else.
Valid concerns of what? Here's a fun little exercise, who do you think of when you think of a secretary, a nurse, a teacher? Let me answer that for you, you thought of them as occupations for women. You're thinking why are you even reading this? That's privilege not to listen, care, ignore, do nothing and move on with your life.
No because it doesn't work that way. The FSF still require an actual document, with an actual signature on it.
Licensing something under MIT just requires you claim copyright on the work and then the Berne laws kick in.
>Chalk it up to the GNU way of doing things.
GNU way of doing things is when a user changes the software to suit him/herself. So you say, user genuinely wants to harm him/herself. It depends on a user whether he wants to have a good experience or not. It`s his wish, not the developer.
FSF requires a physical document with a physical signature according to their policy of how they do business, not because it's required by law. All that's required is a license stating what can happen. The FSF demand a physical signature because they want to make certain that there is no room for ambiguity. An electronic license is good enough for 99% of situations but the FSF want to cover 100% of the situations with this policy.
I've met (semi) normal female programmers that aren't completely autistic and nerdy. Oil & gas industry.
One of them straight up told me she doesn't want to date an intelligent person because she wants to be able to control her partner.
Do I have any hope of hooking up with an intelligent woman?
This world is cruel.
That's all lovely, but see >>46899456
Whether you agree with their policy of single assignment or re-licensing is nothing to do with it: they do, and therefore LEGALLY, the documents must be signed in your legal name.
In situations where assignment or re-licensing isn't required you're free to use a pseudonym all you like, but that simply isn't the case with the FSF and therefore they have a de-facto real name policy.
Holy fuck. I know several female photographers who regularly carry dSLRs and big telephoto zooms. These women are also petite. They do not complain because those are the tools they need to get the job done.
Did this speaker even *try* to find a smaller camera?
I'm going to stop here because shit is ridiculous.
I swear that if some of these SJW people heard the normal dialogue in my work place we would all be sued to oblivion.
Fortunately few SJWs choose to do engineering work on airplanes
It helps if you can somehow find someone who is smart in different ways than you are.
I'm a typical math/science nerd type of guy who got some engineering degrees. My wife is a biology nerd who was a high school teacher and is now a college administrator. She's smart, but smart in different ways than I am, so that makes it interesting
>Reminder that India (a country with a literal rape culture) has a higher percentage of women in engineering that Sweden.
That's because the women in India use their bodies for opportunities in tech, derp
Women want equality, but don't want to share the heavy lifting
You know what? Gender equality is just a topic everywhere and I'm fine with it. We need more women in tech and sci fields, you are acting just like those shitty scared prep guys who said women would never enter in University. Grow a pair /g/ this is actually a good thing if we want to advance as civilization
> Gender equality is just a topic everywhere and I'm fine with it.
This is true
I also don't mind more females in tech, if they're at least somewhat good programmers.
However, I don't believe anyone with above 50 IQ can use the word "privilege" unironically.
I'm guessing "Being X Company's affirmative-action hire" is in there somewhere.
I'm pretty sure the reason women like these talk about this kind of nonsense is only to hide the fact that she can't code for shit (if at all) and to mask their total ineptitude and practical irrelevance. It doesn't take any skill or knowledge to complain.
Need? Why should women do what you want them to?
There seems to be a marginal majority of competent women in organic chemistry. That's wonderful. I don't think there are enough technologically-interested and competent women to get the technological field anywhere near that gender distribution yet. Shovelling women into a field they're largely disinterested in will only harm them. The field needs intrepid people, not laypersons only there because it's the "happening" place to be at the moment (like game development right now).
Focus on teaching all subjects equally to both genders of children.
And why do we "need" more women in technology, yet not "need" more women in coal mining, waste management, plumbing, and boiler construction?
Why is game development a "happening" job? The hours suck, the pay is horrible and there's a good chance you'll be laid off after your current project, basically turning you into a freelancer.
This. CS/engineering lines in universities should enforce a strict 50:50 gender divide even if it would mean letting girls get in "easier" to lessen the rampant sexism in tech related fields.
I know you're saying that sarcastically, but I don't know why the added diversity wouldn't be worth it.
Republican bullshit aside, the rest of the first world seems to be aware that diversity improves productivity and makes the environment more enjoyable for everyone involved. The only people who hate it are the shitty conservative beta males who want to remain in control of their little sand castles.
Can someone explain this "cisgender" "cissexual" thing to me?
Yes, I've skimmed wikipedia. It doesn't make sense, as though it has a garbage set of philosophies and idea (I don't agree with) fundamentally embedded into it. So it resolves to gibberish haze in my mind.
I've said this in 10 threads or so. Never gotten a response.
you're not thinking inclusive enough.
EVERY line in universities should enforce a strict 50:50 gender divide.
You can't let another guy in until you have 50% females. If a female drops out, you must make a guy drop out. This should be strictly enforced.
The same thing should be done for jobs, although for a transition period I would allow a little less strict rules, let's say 60:40.
Want another coder? If you already have 60 guys, it has to be a woman. You can't hire anyone until you find one. Need more miners? Well my friend you're shit out of luck, better create some more office jobs in your company to hire women.
Need another kindergarden teacher? Oh shit you already have most women, gotta hire that fat sweaty guy with weird mustache that's been applying for the last 5 years.
This will make the job market at least somewhat equal and everyone will be happy.
After it's completed, we'll start enforcing at least 20% of employees to be transsexual.
I've worked in par with women as Sysadmin and they have ways to resolve problems different than men thanks to her I've learned a lot.
Tech and sci fields would get a lot of needed feedback this century from women. Also I get mad every time she comments me how much she get paid for the same task I do (almost half because lol she is a woman). I find this situation unfair.
The problem is it's disjointedly trying to coerce women into tech (at the expense of others) rather than addressing or even remotely acknowledging why they aren't interested and perusing these fields on their own.
Its base nature needs to be considered with hones. This is the first step to building a self iterating framework of knowledge that can be used to weigh information and derive an accurate and realistic perspective. I do not believe that has happened yet, whether collectively or for the prominent individuals involved.
>I know you're saying that sarcastically, but I don't know why the added diversity wouldn't be worth it.
Worth what? Hiring people who don't know shit only because of their sexual organs?
>diversity improves productivity
not really true but ok
>and makes the environment more enjoyable for everyone involved.
yes sure, having feminist harpies in your workforce improves enjoyment.
More false words have never been spoken my friend.
Nobody's saying that diversity is a bad thing, people are saying that FORCED diversity is bad.
If someone is gay you can't force them to be straight, if they're straight, you can't force them to be gay. You can't force people to be something they're not. but some people try anyway.
I still don't follow.
We don't know what, if anything, we intrinsically are. Gender might very well be constructs, whether socially or individually derived. They might not have such a hard physiological basis they stem from.
I don't get it. It's still a meaningless haze that seems to just float in a void, on its own. Maybe that's the point.
Don't see what it's referencing, still.
All things are often reducible to grand interwoven framework, interlocking chains of elements. This says almost nothing, and seems to connect to nothing.
They say the word over and over and over, but I still can't derive any true meaning. Very bothersome. Reminds me of cults.
There are functional MRI studies showing that male students can't pay attention to female voices effectively as their brains interpret it as music.
We should ban women from teaching mixed classes.
>(I would add military high ranks)
Why not the lower ranks too?
Anyway, I want to know what's fuelling the notion that companies are rejecting job applications from competent women.
We must force men into gender studies. Otherwise they won't educate themselves.
If they won't come of their own will, they should be selected from population at random and forced to attend at gunpoint.
You're preaching to the choir here, guys. I think most of them are batshit insane. Genuine gender disorders are hard enough to deal with without bullshit from 'womyn' who just want the attention.
Then what's all this "Cisgender and cissexual (often abbreviated to simply cis) describe related types of gender identity where individuals' experiences of their own gender match the sex they were assigned at birth." about?
What is gender?
What is sex?
Where do these things come from?
They don't state anything meaningful or direct and just rely on hazy undefined references that leave the listener to interpolate and fill in the blanks.
I don't think you understand what the basic premise is and your republicanism is showing badly.
The suggestion is not to "force," women into the field, it's to "encourage," women to enter while preventing men from over-representing and crowding women out.
And you are correct, at some point we'll have the same battle for representation and diversity of sexuality as with gender. Unfortunately society is still too closed minded to afford gays the same privileges as women, but we are getting there and I think continued support for the right policies will make it happen sooner rather than later.
>Did this speaker even *try* to find a smaller camera?
She's probably complaining about your above scenario of a normal DSLR with telephoto lenses.
Doesn't matter. It's physics. You want certain qualities in a camera and lens, you're sure as fuck aren't going to get it in an iPhone sized device.
I'm living in Sweden, and their mindset is already starting to have an impact on the politics here. As a white cis-male it's impossible for me to join the discussion IRL unfortunately.
That's because your presence in the discussion is oppressive. You dominate the current structural paradigm and therefor you need to be excluded from areas where you have marginalized others.
It's a label they created for normal people.
They create labels and words so they can set definitions and change them at will and create associations with said labels and words.
Only men would be interested in destroying the environment with myopic hydrocarbon consumption instead of green energy sources that are more efficient anyway. Take your shilling report back to Exxon, asshole.
>tfw I knew a female programmer who was absolutely brilliant at programming. Worked at Google and everything
>turns out she's just come out as female-to-male transgender (the far less common trans)
>even the best female coders feel like they're actually male
>Know some other excellent female programmers on IRC
>they're actually aspiring male-to-female transgendered
>they're actually biologically male
It's not a subjective matter.
Males tend to be better at certain types of thinking than females.
The opposite is true as well.
What's the big deal about it? It's simple biology.
Cis- is a latin prefix, with a meaning opposite to trans-. To tumblrists, cisgender is having a physical sex and a mental notion of gender that match eachother eachother. A cissexual is presumably a person who has not undergone reassignment surgery -- being the same sex you were born as.
Normal is an insidious term too.
>They create labels and words so they can set definitions and change them at will and create associations with said labels and words.
That's not to say that a great deal of women can be intrepid engineers and programmers if they hadn't found their place in life as pieces of gossiping marriage-obsessed fuckmeat, though.
>muh social constructs
I don't understand how people accept all physical differences between men and women, but can't accept that there are any differences in the brain.
These people usually believe in evolution (right?). They can accept that we went from being monkeys to this, but that the brains of men and women never ever became any different.
>normal is insidious
Not it is very straightforward and hasn't changed in who knows how long.
- Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
That definition alone implies specificity based on variations in locale for example.
There's nothing nefarious that can even be done with it aside from the usual demonizing so it can be used to publicly shame and silence opposing opinions.
>Implying psychiatry didn't needed to create a disorder just to get these people get a proper hormone treatment and be candidate of operation because "lol no insurance otherwise".
You need to go deeper.
Nobody encouraged men to get into computing. Just the opposite, we were insulted as nerds and discouraged at every opportunity. Our love for computers was strong enough that the discouragement failed. It's highly offensive to suggest men had encouragement that women did not.
because its predicted that there wont be enough men to fill the jobs in technology. Only fostering women in tech can the need of the industry for workers be filled. Same reason you cant /only/ hire whites, etc