Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Is it the Apps? (Score 1) 96

Google copied it's user interface and general device layout

Android has been announced before the iPhone came out. Apple copied Android as much as Android copied them, for example with the notification shade and app support.

The iPhone was an evolution. The interface was nice, but not quite as revolutionary as was made out at the time. That was just the Apple hype machine, which started to look increasingly silly as every new device was described as "revolutionary, again" because it had a slightly better than average screen or half working voice input.

Comment: Re:Time to start masculanism movement (Score 1) 555

That started long ago with he Men's Rights movement. It got a bad name pretty quickly because it was basically a bunch of misogynists. I mention this because I'd love to see a real masculinist movement, but if you want to start one you need to be careful not to let it fail like previous attempts did.

Comment: Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score 1) 555

You are making two massive massive assumptions. You assume most guys are interested in STEM, and you assume most girls are not. Neither of those appears to be true.

Even if those assumptions were true, so what? Boys can already study STEM just fine in mixed schools, they don't need a boys only one. So what would the point of building one be? Just to satisfy some childish "she has one, so I must have one as well" feeling?

Comment: Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score 1) 555

Watch a couple of minutes of this: https://youtu.be/2BzDmZHYCrw?t...

I linked to the right place for you. Those are real girls, with real experiences. They are being discouraged by a variety of factors. I'm afraid your anecdote is not data, but the study that video is based on absolutely is.

Comment: Re: I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score 1) 555

There was a professor on the radio talking about this the other day. It was BBC Radio 4, but I can't find the details now. Anyway, they were saying that when they looked at it they found that children with less self esteem actually tended to do better. Particularly Asian children and girls where were less confident than boys on average. It seems that having too much self esteem makes it harder for children to accept failure and learn from it, or to take chances (such as volunteering information in class or groups) because of the possibility they may be wrong.

Comment: Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score 1) 555

Providing facilities for physical differences has never been regarded as discrimination, as there is no exclusion going on.

That's my point, you are agreeing with me. This isn't discrimination at all, it's providing facilities for each gender that are suited to them but don't disadvantage or advantage either.

Comment: Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score 2) 555

There has been a lot of research into this topic. Wikipedia has a good overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

TL;DR there is no difference between men and women in general. In some specific areas there are small variations, such as higher variability (but the same average) on IQ tests for men. The old "men have better spacial awareness" thing isn't quite right either; men are better are mentally rotating objects, women have better spacial memory. Ultimately though the differences are fairly minor and subject to a huge amount of variation from individual to individual, and gender itself is far from binary.

It's actually quite easy to see that claims about certain genders "naturally" preferring certain things are bogus. Maths used to be considered a male subject, but girls now outperform boys at school. Something social changed for them to overtake boys. In Japan basketball is much more popular with girls at school than boys, but in other countries it's the exact opposite.

Comment: Re:Appropriate vocational training (Score 1) 555

The point of these social experiments seems to get more and more women into the desk and office jobs. That leaves only the grubby, dirty, outside jobs for men. And nobody gives a shit about that.

That's the standard MRA line - that for women to have good jobs, men must lose out and have dirty, low paid jobs.

It's not a zero sum game. It doesn't justify ignoring the problems because fixing them might take away someone else's privilege.

But the "it's so awful, get all the training for girls and ignore boys!" hysteria seems pointless.

I agree, but you are the one spouting that hysteria! It says so right in the headline! You didn't even have to read the summary. There is a school opening just for boys to help them in the areas they are behind.

A boy growing up now who didn't have all these special programs will have a tough time competing with the girls who were prepped and trained for this their entire lives

Ignoring the fact that they have their own special, boys-only school, you are assuming that there is no disadvantage for girls. There is, so any extra help they get is just making up for that, not giving them an advantage over boys. If a boy wants to study CS there are already fewer barriers in their way, and there are other programmes aimed at removing the ones that do exist.

You are trying really hard to make this a conflict when it really isn't.

Comment: Re:Black and White? (Score 1) 555

It failed for race because the schools were separate but definitely not equal. They could never be equal until the races mixed, because black people started from a disadvantages position most of the time (i.e. poverty and poorly educated parents). The situation is very different for boys and girls at the moment, and sex segregation is proven to work in education with minimal or no harmful side effects.

Single sex schools are not that uncommon in the UK, for example, and don't seem to have created any major problems.

Comment: Re:Sexes ARE different, thankfully (Score 2) 555

Feminists would like us to think, all of that is due solely to upbringing, but they offer no evidence â" while denouncing detractors as "sexists" themselves.

Untrue. There is plenty of evidence. There are endless studies where girls are quoted directly complaining about how they are put off STEM because of their gender. They get it from all sides - parents, teachers, other students of both genders. It's a social problem.

On the other hand there is zero evidence that girls are genetically predispositioned to be less interested in STEM. Some people try to cite apes playing with toys associated with one gender or another, failing to notice that apes actually have pretty ridged and highly structured societies too.

Even if there were some genetic factor, it doesn't matter. What matters is that girls want to do STEM, but there are barriers in their way because they are girls. We know this because they tell us, and because people observing them (parents, teachers) tell us.

In chess too, for some reason, there are very few female Grandmasters (GMs). It got so embarrassing, a lesser title of Woman Grandmaster (WGM) was introduced... And there are some â" but very few (all of them from countries with "traditional" views on gender-roles, BTW).

So to become a chess grandmaster you need to spend vast amounts of time around other chess players, who are mostly male, learning and improving. You need to immerse yourself in the world of chess as much as the game of chess. It's rare for grandmasters to appear out of nowhere, they tend to be known in chess circles for years before reaching that level. So, it could easily be a case of chess culture putting girls off from participating, the same as with CS.

Unless you are arguing that girls are just less intelligent than boys, and thus less able to become chess grandmasters... But there is a lot of scientific evidence to support the theory that men and women are of equal intelligence at a genetic level.

Comment: Re:Hurrah for sex-segregation! (Score 2) 555

Is there a theory that the boys underperform in english -because of- the presence of girls?

Actually there is. Well, it's more a theory that girls and boys need to be taught in different ways for some subjects, English being one of them. Girls and boys like different kinds of books, for example, so getting the class to read something that girls will really enjoy might put some of the boys off. It matters less at higher levels so the best kids will do okay either way, but at the mid to low range it's pretty important.

Comment: Re:Feminism ruins society again... (Score -1, Flamebait) 555

Why would view a program intended to help girls as a put-down on men?

Because he's an MRA (Men's Right Activist). Anything that doesn't apply equally to boys causes instant outrage and is seen as evidence of the matriarchy taking over, which is ironically the same thing they deride "feminazis" for.

Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.

Working...