I won't comment on the merits of this article, but before anybody comments, please take a moment to consider if what you to say is new. We had this dicussion recently, and having the same discussion isn't productive.
Maybe you are right and it's an old discussion. But repeating things and repeating discussions is in no way a bad thing. In fact, most of the ideas presented here on Hacker News are repeated ideas, maybe with a twist.
Either way, if you are tired of this discussions don't participate on one, but don't tell other people to not discuss. Maybe someone new here wants to express his/her ideas or maybe someone old really loves discussing this topic.
> For every woman who contributed in some way to the founding of the internet, there were hundreds of men. That's just reality, and to use that fact to argue any point about the state of the technology industry today is retarded.
How is it retarded to remind readers that women made critical or at least significant (if not necessarily numerous) contributions to the evolution of the technology we have today? The work of these women has been overlooked, overshadowed, ignored and discouraged throughout history so much that there is a whole month relegated to reminding US school children of that fact. You may have heard of it.
I agree that one blundering sentence does not an endorsement or thesis make, in the case of the New York Times piece. Perhaps the intent was to satirize the "lore" that it's all about men, men, men in tech, which is why women (in this case, Pao) get so much shit for even trying. Xeni took it literally. I can see where you might see that as an overreaction, but frankly the way that opening line is written doesn't instill much hope in me that the average NYT reader will catch the knowing wink, if it is in fact buried in there somewhere.
Finally, no one's saying men shouldn't receive credit for their work because they had the misfortune of being born into a gender fraught with examples of the underqualified being showered with recognition. What is being said is that women should receive credit for their work because they had the misfortune of being born into a gender fraught with examples of the perfectly qualified being mocked, ostracized and all but forgotten. If that frustrates you, I would be curious to know why.
Edit: original comment deleted. I'm a little disappointed because it indicated the writer felt a very potent irritation with the dialog on feminism/sexism in reaction to Xeni's response and I do wish we could engage each other when those difficult feelings rear up.
Women may have been invisible, but the work we did laid the groundwork for more visible advancements now credited to more famous men.
But what aspects of that work specifically led to the invention of the Internet? If "laying the groundwork" is the criteria then Newton, Tesla and Turing had a hand in inventing the Internet as well (an assertion I think few would make...). The fact that Lovelace and Hopper were women and programmers doesn't mean that "women" deserve credit for every invention that came after them.
Of course they don't deserve credit for every invention after them. I think the basic premise is that if you are going to say that only men's contributions to computers and the Internet are important, you are probably wrong as many women have advanced the field.
If we are talking about a particular invention we can talk about specific inventors. But the Internet is not one but many technologies put together invented and developed by different people, which include men and women (maybe not specifically Lovelace).
Apart from that, saying that women did not contribute enough to the Internet, is like saying black people did not contribute enough to the invention of cars; it's mostly true, but it could be argued that that's because they were an oppressed group.
Really? Maybe BB did say that, but that's not of the point of the article at all. Most of it is just criticizing the NYT views that men's contributions to computers and the Internet were more important than women's contributions.
Where does she say that the NYT is male dominated? Where does she say that the NYT is sexist? As far as I can tell she is only pointing out that the person who wrote the article is ignorant of reality. That has nothing to do with being male-dominated or sexist.
[+] [-] tomjen3|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lomegor|14 years ago|reply
Either way, if you are tired of this discussions don't participate on one, but don't tell other people to not discuss. Maybe someone new here wants to express his/her ideas or maybe someone old really loves discussing this topic.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] coridactyl|14 years ago|reply
How is it retarded to remind readers that women made critical or at least significant (if not necessarily numerous) contributions to the evolution of the technology we have today? The work of these women has been overlooked, overshadowed, ignored and discouraged throughout history so much that there is a whole month relegated to reminding US school children of that fact. You may have heard of it.
I agree that one blundering sentence does not an endorsement or thesis make, in the case of the New York Times piece. Perhaps the intent was to satirize the "lore" that it's all about men, men, men in tech, which is why women (in this case, Pao) get so much shit for even trying. Xeni took it literally. I can see where you might see that as an overreaction, but frankly the way that opening line is written doesn't instill much hope in me that the average NYT reader will catch the knowing wink, if it is in fact buried in there somewhere.
Finally, no one's saying men shouldn't receive credit for their work because they had the misfortune of being born into a gender fraught with examples of the underqualified being showered with recognition. What is being said is that women should receive credit for their work because they had the misfortune of being born into a gender fraught with examples of the perfectly qualified being mocked, ostracized and all but forgotten. If that frustrates you, I would be curious to know why.
Edit: original comment deleted. I'm a little disappointed because it indicated the writer felt a very potent irritation with the dialog on feminism/sexism in reaction to Xeni's response and I do wish we could engage each other when those difficult feelings rear up.
[+] [-] angrycoder|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cantastoria|14 years ago|reply
But what aspects of that work specifically led to the invention of the Internet? If "laying the groundwork" is the criteria then Newton, Tesla and Turing had a hand in inventing the Internet as well (an assertion I think few would make...). The fact that Lovelace and Hopper were women and programmers doesn't mean that "women" deserve credit for every invention that came after them.
[+] [-] lomegor|14 years ago|reply
If we are talking about a particular invention we can talk about specific inventors. But the Internet is not one but many technologies put together invented and developed by different people, which include men and women (maybe not specifically Lovelace).
Apart from that, saying that women did not contribute enough to the Internet, is like saying black people did not contribute enough to the invention of cars; it's mostly true, but it could be argued that that's because they were an oppressed group.
[+] [-] spindritf|14 years ago|reply
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html
[+] [-] Tangaroa|14 years ago|reply
BB: The NYT is male-dominated and sexist for pointing it out.
Flagged as bullshit.
[+] [-] coridactyl|14 years ago|reply
NYT: Ahem. LINKBAIT!!!!!114!234 Okay, now that I have your attention: "News!"
BB: facepalm You're really not helping.
NYT: Oh and PS, Pao's husband is TEH GAY!!!!
BB: Seriously?
NYT: Shut up I'm relevant.
[+] [-] lomegor|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GiraffeNecktie|14 years ago|reply