if they replied with something like "Since Android One decided not to sell in physical stores during its launch, we as part of modern trade, have decided not to stock Android One either" we'd know their motivation.
If they spoke like you write we'd be none the wiser.
Indeed, but at least you'll be better informed
(Parent quoted directly out of the article)
in India and Saudi, a woman can be killed or brutalized or ostracized for getting snippy
It seems that places with institutionalised sexism (like India) produces more females in tech than those without. Whatever the reasons for having fewer females in tech is, I highly doubt that sexism is amongst them.
The anger here is directed at professional-victims, self-righteous SJW's, self-hating white knights--and hypocrites in general.
You say that, but if you actually look at the majority of posts they are attacking women.
This is something that is easy for you to prove, so why don't you show us the evidence?
While PC-BSD would work for a lot of people who want a desktop, it didn't work for me. There was simply too much cruft. I installed FreeBSD 10.1 and am much happier with it than I was with PC-BSD.
The problem with PC-BSD is not the system, but the add-ons installed-by-default things that I don't want, like the control panel, or the software centre. Now, I could have simply uninstalled those things but I wasn't sure what dependencies existed that might kill my install. With FreeBSD it is all terminal only, until you install Xorg and a window manager. It is simple to work things out without the extra user-friendly software. I found it much simpler to simply edit a few files than to make changes via a GUI - I never knew what changes were actually being made on disk.
OTOH, perhaps it is because I used PC-BSD first that I found FreeBSD a good desktop
Slashdot, will you please end the fucking obsession with feminist gripes.
Not yet. Slashdot thrives on controversial stories, pitting ideologies against science and reason. Remember when they used to post Florian Muellers every article on Sco? Or when they used to post creationist stories? Or that brief period when we had at least one LGBT discrimination story a week? Bitcoin, even?
Slashdot fully understands that creationist/feminist ideologies are subject to a wide range of debunking methods. So
It's actually a win-win-win situation. Slashdot gets eyeballs, the ideological minority gets to feel that their axe is finely ground and the rest get to point out logical fallacies by the ton (thus getting to feel superior to that religious minority). A winning formula.
Perhaps a betting pool on what logic-less ideology gets bumped into the headlines next year this time? My vote goes towards the coming recession
Why did there used to be more women in IT than there are now?
You repeatedly answer that statement with "It must be due to misogyny/sexism!". What makes you so sure that that's the answer? That's a leap of faith usually made by creationists when making their god-of-the-gaps argument. Just because no one yet knows the reason does not mean that your proposed reason is correct. Did you even look for any study that might disprove the "regression to the mean" answer for this statement you keep throwing out? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Seriously, arguing this is like arguing with a creationist: you assume that your answer is correct, because, well, you just feel it! Anyone who asks for actual, well, evidence that your answer is correct get's called names. Well Done!
He has a point.
So, wait... you're going to get your troll in before the other trolls arrive? Yeah, that makes sense...
You should not tell anyone what to ware, within the bounds of the law.
Other than (perhaps) AC's, no one on slashdot tells other people what to wear. Maybe you should direct your outrage towards cases where people have been punished for what they wore instead of complaining that many developers are into necrophilia with no evidence other than your outraged opinion over something that doesn't exist (many developers being into necrophilia, that is).
I believe you're criticising someone for their choice of clothing.
Yes, yes I am. There are plenty of forms of clothing I'd criticise. You see, clothing is part of someone's behaviour and behaviour is not above criticism.
So, does that mean it is okay to criticise women who dress scantily? Because ISTR that one of your previous arguments was that you cannot and should not criticise a women for the way she dresses.
So? What does that have to do with it? Why are women so special that one speaks for them all?
You tell me - it's a few feminist activists who are presuming to speak for all women.
Ah so all the complaints "don't count".
It's not that they don't count, it's just that the people who are his peers and who work with him count much much more than the opinion of someone who's only claim to fame is talking on behalf of the worlds women. It's an incredibly damaging stance to take - "world-class scientist must acquire fashion sense" - and one that is especially demeaning to actual female scientists (who may have actually worked with this man). This author who first complained about the shirt, and all others that came after her to do the same, are determined that the role of women in this endeavour that is displayed to the public is reduced to "fashion critic". If they were interested in equality they would have simply interviewed the leading female scientists instead of making fashion critiques.
I'm not sure your outlook is as egaletarian as you feel it is, because your next paragraph leads into random ad-hom about large sections of the population merely because you don't like them. Remember: there's no such thing as reverse bigotry. If you're bigoted against rich white women then you're a bigot plain and simple. The fact that they're rich and white (not sure what that has to do with this anyway) does not make your bigotry worthy, nor does it make you egalatarian.
Pointing out that the demographic (rich white women) who are complaining are the most well-off in the world, as a group, is not bigotry. I like rich white women just fine. It's only rich white women who complain that they are not getting enough that are the ones I don't like.
Disliking people because of their opinion hardly counts as bigotry.
There is nothing wrong with dressing sexy, the problem is that many developers like to combine nameless sexy females with necrophilia.
So, are you agreeing or disagreeing that you should tell women what they should be and should not be wearing?
What I don't like is that people are stepping into my video games now, continuing to try and tell me what content is appropriate for me to see in the games and change them to suit their agendas.
So would you really be that upset if in the next Zelda game Zelda managed to save herself without having to rely on Link yet again? Or if Princess Peach managed to jump on Bowser's head without Mario's help? It's not like it would affect the game play or anything, just make the story a bit less lame.
Or how about in the next "edgy" game you don't sex sexy, half naked female corpses all over the place? It can still be edgy and violent, just maybe in the cut scene the nameless girl doesn't fall with her panties on display or the inevitable brothel level is skipped over for something a bit more imaginative? Might even make the game better, not relying on lame tropes... Or were you really hoping for some necrophilia, to the point where your experience is ruined without it?
What do you have against scantily clad women? It's not "empowering" for women if they are told repeatedly by people like you that it is wrong for them to dress a certain way, or be a certain thing. In real life, prostitutes in brothels and strip girls in clubs are exercising their right to do what they want to - now you come along and tell them that it's wrong? Doesn't this message conflict with the one they got from Slut Walk?
Stop it. " continuing to try and tell me what content is appropriate for me to see in the games and change them to suit their agendas. " Telling you the game contains sexist attitudes is not telling you it's not appropriate. It's giving you informaiton so you can make the decision as to whether or not to play the game.
So is sexism appropriate or not? Seems to me by saying "it's not inappropriate" you're essentially saying "it's appropriate". Which is it?
I asked two - they both disagreed with *your* physicist.
What precisely did you ask them (it's meaningless if your question isn't the same) and what precisely did they answer?
I asked if they would consider a place where someone wore that shirt a hostile workplace - they both said they wouldn't. FWIW, I know a few biochemists and computer scientists too and plan to ask them as well.
Most sane people realise that victim-shaming because of your choice in clothing is not a good thing and makes you a stupid and bad person!. Ref: see Slut Walk.
How the fuck do you equate "these clothes are offputting to a significant fraction of the population" to "yeah she deserved to get raped for wearing slutty clothes".
Straw man. I never equated those two things - Slut Walk, as declared by the founders, is to remove the negative connotations of the word "slut" ("reclaim", I believe) and allow women to wear whatever they wanted to without criticism. I believe you're criticising someone for their choice of clothing. I'd actually like to refer you to the fact that this shirt was designed by a women who saw nothing wrong with it, worn in front of women scientists (his team leader) who also saw no reason to complain. The complainers, in this case, are not even qualified to work under the man, much less as his peer. None of his peers the world over have complained; only feminist activists.
Are you really as dense as you appear to be or do you have the mother of all axes to grind?
I'm afraid my egalitarian outlook does indeed make me seem dense. I find it highly inappropriate to push for further "protection" of the demonstrably and measurably most well-off demographic in the world. There are demographics who are much worse off but who get a fraction of the publicity that these rich white women get. Seriously, there was a time when trust-fund crybabies were ignored regardless of gender.
I think I would have fell out of my chair in trying to get up and cheer... and so would most other men.
Please don't lump me in with you.
I actually went and asked a female physicist about it.
I asked two - they both disagreed with *your* physicist. My anecdotes trumps yours (double the data points). Most sane people realise that victim-shaming because of your choice in clothing is not a good thing and makes you a stupid and bad person!. Ref: see Slut Walk.
Because you are slow, I will repeat the important bit from the poster you are replying to:
"women are more likely to be displayed in roles perceived as *de*grading, whereas men are portrayed with attributes perceived as positive"
Maybe you need smaller words until you can pass 6th grade comprehension?
You state that like it's some kind of fact. You have any study to cite?
Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!
