because lennart is pushing for systemic changes from the kernel (which failed rather violently), through the init system right down to the gnome desktop environment. This means that any distro wanting to support gnome has to run systemd and its kin.

I think what he's implying is that the tradeoffs systemd foists on the admin aren't worth whatever benefits it has.

It prevents regular user programs from masquerading as system services, which usually sit below port 1024.

what better to hide level playing fields than to find some twisted way to 'prove' they're actually part of the patriarchy?

Of course not. Those jobs aren't in the spotlight nor are they were the money is.

Ah I get your rules now.. Only you're allowed to say your anecdotes are correct. I'm not. I forgot. Sorry. That's about the kind of logic I'd expect from a feminist or any social 'justice' warrior, really. Maybe your area wasn't the norm? Oh, oops, sorry, another failure to conform. When will I ever learn never to question?

You're engaging in the same sort of systemic shaming towards me that you would not tolerate towards women. The only arguments you've made are an ad hominem and a generalization that men are more selfish than women. Knock it off with the shaming language if you expect people to take your morality seriously.

As far as toxic environments go, school has always been a place where you are told to sit down, shut up and do as you're told, which can be good or bad depending on the circumstances. Today, though, mainly because of feminism's push in government and education to focus on women and girls at the expense of men and boys, students are encouraged to express and focus on their feelings and feminine traits (as long as they are 'positive', definition to be set by the faculty) like conformity and group awareness, instead of on objective measurements of achievement and competition. Naturally, girls respond well to this, but the boys? not so much. This cultural toxicity to individual expression and achievement (which tend to be masculine traits) has long since spread into the faculty dynamics as well. There are fewer men involved today because education isn't very rewarding to them anymore. Like the boys in class, the men are expected to behave/express themselves like dominant female space expects them to or face career-ending fallacious accusations. It has nothing to do with selfishness, not on the part of men anyway.

A quick search gave me this
http://www.edweek.org/media/po...
go to page 12, there's a graph that shows the trend from 86.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/d...
read under demographics.. 76% of teachers are female in 2008.

These sound about right to me. I don't know where you're justifying your 'more male teachers today than in the past' prideful patriarchy shit, but it's not in alignment with at least this cursory reality check.

Well, as long as we're comparing anecdotes.

When my parents were in school, many of their teachers were male, especially for math and science. When I was in elementary school in the 80s, the ratio was maybe 1/4. In hs? less than 1/6. Today? With all the 'men are sexist pedophile rapists' shit thrown around, it's gotta be less.

You're just pretending like your definition is the standard one. It's not. When someone says 'gamer' it conjures up a particular set of attributes and lifestyle. A gamer is someone for whom gaming is a large part of his life, whether it's chess, traditional DnD/roleplay, or video games too. Playing candy crush on a cellphone every so often does not make that person a gamer for the same reason someone driving his toyota to work every day does not make him a car enthusiast. The term 'gamer' means 'gaming enthusiast.'

This article tries to redefine the term as a meaningless definition where just about everyone is a gamer which makes no sense at all. That's a distinction without a difference. I guess that's what identity politickers want, though. If they can't make everyone into drones, they alter the language to make it harder to define what makes us diverse...all in the name of diversity of course..

The men will follow? Did you mean 'should follow'? What are you saying, that they'll follow along like mindless idiots and just consume what they're given, even if game devs focused primarily on what women want?

Women deal with 'true, real life concerning' issues and what? Men don't? I think there's a ton of anthropological, biological, psychological, and socio-economic history that proves you have it backwards.

Would you call someone a car enthusiast because he drives his toyota corolla to work every day? Not necessarily. Car enthusiasts can and do drive to work, but driving to work alone does not make them car enthusiasts. The term gamer is associated with gaming enthusiasts, as it should be. This means gaming is a large part of the person's life.

The problem with this argument is that it waters the definition down to the distinction without a difference level in order to justify (very poorly) feminist incursions into the gaming sphere.

I suppose, if you count the social engineering as a true part of culture.

I wouldn't call those games. The plot and gameplay is linear, with only one or two outcomes, and the 'difficult' parts QTE'd to the point of brainless button mashing. I can see why women would like those interactive soap operas, but I wouldn't call them games. A game requires practice and mastery.

Perhaps the problem with 'real life' for many of these guys is that it's now too wrapped up in gynocentric imperatives and preferences for their liking. Gaming (and athletics too) is one of the last few areas where guys can go and be themselves, though recent events suggest the social 'justice' war front has moved in, staking its claims, and "making history her story." Too bad.

Does it really matter if he is? The question is whether he's telling the truth. The fact is, school systems have become quite toxic to men. There used to be a lot more of them, and now they're leaving for a reason.

..or maybe nursing offers a social and psychological environment more suited to them. It's not that women are corralled into it, it's that they want it.

Men who try on nursing often find that long term exposure to 'female space' politics is toxic to their sanity and productivity. While both men and women have their own set of group work dynamics, the problem is that feminism demonizes the existence of men's while praising the existence of women's. In fact, it goes out of its way to justify "make history, her story", turning male spaces into female ones. ....and feminists wonder why they're labeled hypocrites?

The social justice warrior push into tech is getting brazen. The article goes to the edge of suggesting that women are smarter than men, but then says when the applied knowledge gets specific enough, they fall behind? The problem is that the best way to measure mastery of knowledge is to measure how well it is applied to open ended problems. If most women are dropping out at that point, it means they can't hack it. If the majority of high performing employees at places like google are male, that suggests a problem with how the schools measure performance more than anything else. It's not like google isn't rolling out the red carpet for them, and if they were truly better, google would snap them up in an instant and have a female majority by now. Do women earn more credits and get better grades? Probably, but these days, high schools and colleges are bending over backwards to give women the fast track, so I wouldn't trust any of the statistics they present. In fact, the whole article reeks of political think tank style 'research.'

I think this unintentionally presents the real motivations behind this whole piece: The justification of more regulation from the feminist lobby.

If this is even true, I wonder why they expect to find such barriers? Maybe because the media, school system, and society have beaten it into their heads they they're victims of the evil 'patriarchy' keeping them out of everything?

Exactly true. I would say this is so with all technology, not just computers. However, it takes passion to stay afloat in these fields. You can't just get a degree and then expect to operate as a drone for the rest of your career if you want to move beyond the internship. Perhaps this is the reason why women drop out of the highly competitive applied fields. Hell, most men can't hack those positions either. It's one thing to be motivated by general ideas as the article suggests, but tech people have to have the ability to break those down into individual steps and then build something that executes them.

If anything, the ubiquity of an open, relatively cheap platform like the PC grants the majority of the population the opportunity to learn computing skills at nearly all levels in a meritocratic environment. Other than the cost of the hardware and an internet connection, there is no boundary, except motivation and interest. Sex has nothing to do with it. It doesn't surprise me that SJWs have a problem with such open meritocracy: it provides objective measurement of individual achievement, which is a big emotional hiccup for those who want to believe we're all intrinsically equally capable, yet 'oppressed' by class warfare.