Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Your attitude is sexist (Score 1) 613

Had you bothered to read the article you would have found out that there is copious evidence of sexism in science.

I RTFA and I did not see "copious evidence" of sexism. It seemed like the author was grasping at straws to prove a preconceived notion. Seriously, the examples given boarder creepy/inappropriate but to extrapolate "copious evidence of sexism in science" or in the authors words "institutionalized sexism" is an exaggeration.

The professor who leaned in just a little too-close-for-comfort, not to everyone, but to one girl in particular. The student invited to an academic event one evening, only to find out that her lecturer viewed it as a date. And the one professor who always looked me (and the other young men) right in the eye when we spoke, but whose gaze always drifted downwards, towards their chests, when he spoke with the young women.

The professor who’d talk to a student professionally and politely, then stare at her rear end while she walked away. ...

The graded assignments that would have flirty little comments and smiley faces, only for the female students.

Gossipy conversations—about other people in the department, obviously—that would mysteriously fall silent whenever certain women walked by (but never the men).

And the way word choice would change ever-so-subtly—like how remarks were “ejaculated” instead of “uttered”—in the presence of certain people.

This is your evidence?. That doesn't sound like "institutionalized sexism". It sounds like a guy acting like a guy that may be inappropriate in a professional environment. Here is a clue, sexism, racism, agism, etc are illegal if someone makes sexual advances, ask for favors, etc; it is already illegal and there is legal action the woman can take to protect herself. The article links to some studies, but what is also frustrating about this topic, you can find studies to back up claims on both sides.

If you think the gender imbalance is the entirety of the evidence for sexism then you are likely part of the problem.

Or maybe the gender imbalance is due to other factors of a complex system. Maybe, what is described as "institutionalized sexism" isn't institutionalized. because in the authors own words:

Most authority figures in my field aren’t sexist, aren’t sexually harassing anybody, and treat everyone based on their own merits as people.

How can it be institutionalized sexism if "most authority figures aren't sexist"? The real issue the author is pushing is:

if we want to really change the culture of our field

Comment Re:Agile. (Score 1) 507

Yes, because what you have seen and experienced is obviously the only reality of one methodology in software development. The only people that promote such a methodology is a shill because they are selling books. I cannot validate these claims but we all know its true. I experienced therefore what you say is wrong.

Did I miss something?

Comment Re:acceptance is the only fair outcome (Score 2) 301

keeping in mind none of us have read the paper and that we do not know the background of the reviewer.

When it comes to social sciences, potential is a loaded word. You can have similar studies and conclude completely different results. Does hiring in science favor men or women? Which of those studies represent the 39/100 studies that have not been reproduced and possibly wrong (poor methods, biases, justifications, etc)?

Is a shirt keeping women out of stem and is that shirt evidence of misogyny and/or discrimination or is it a complex issues that is hard to study because it's hard for a microscope to look at itself?

Was the underlying idea behind the reviewer legitimate? He may have said it wrong, but was his premise grounded in scientific inquiry? Is it ok to ask about gender bias in a gender biased research paper?

Comment Re:WTF?! (Score 1) 634

As it turned out, MADD deterred a war.

MADD also had a small risk of leading to a war that would have killed most of humanity. We were lucky.

A war that was assuredly avoided vs. a war that could have happened. I would rather have been lucky playing the odds instead of the known alternative... A war that would have rivaled ww2.

If the Soviet Union and the U.S. had

I am willing to bet that if we were put in the same situation, MADD would win. Even the most selfish, sociopathic tyrant will not kill an enemy if it means suicide. Why would any future belligerents be different?

anybody who adopted a strategy of cheating and exploitation would be tremendously successful. There are a lot of dangerous people out there, and we have to put a lot of resources into protecting ourselves from them.

And that is why weapons can be good for a society. If a society has any worth. It is worth protecting.

Comment Re:WTF?! (Score 1) 634

During the cold war, a lot of American and Soviet scientists and engineers came to the conclusion that designing weapons systems that could destroy the entire world several times over was not a societal good.

Are you saying that MADD was not an effective deterrent to war?

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Working...