Thank you for making better points than I did. I feel like there is no "discussion" here, just blatant attacks on anyone who disagrees with any of the conclusions made by the authors.
Ironically I bet they would not consider that statement hateful or hyperbolic. I bet the next tweet was something like "Why don't people want to identify as Feminist?"
As another guy in tech I share your experiences. I have never witnessed anything like what was described in that article and I have been working in tech for around 10 years now in a very diverse workplace.
I also know of at least 1 woman who if she was a man would have been fired long ago yet she stays on because managers are basically afraid to fire her.
I'm not saying these problems don't exist, I just find it hard to believe they are as widespread as is claimed. I know many women in tech and not one of them had a problem finding a job which is a good thing. This is my personal experience so make of it what you will.
A bug report with no evidence or sources making claims that cannot be verified by the readers. I could just as easily say I am being terrorized by my Female boss and shut down any women who disagree using your argument.
I'm not convinced there is a problem. It sounds like some women seized upon this conference as an opportunity to point out a perceived bias.
The article is clearly written to suggest that you are either with us or against us and I take issue with that. The academic content of that kind of conference should not be limited by a speaker's gender, even if that means there are no women speakers. Just to be clear, I would feel the same if there were no male speakers
You are ignoring a larger history and the institutionalized sexism that currently exists in all sects of government, industry, and society as a whole.
Of course you would feel the same if there were no male speakers, because men haven't had to suffer through centuries of exclusion, therefore it would not threaten the position of men. When you take a deeper look at the issue and realize that we have the utility to create a gender-balanced (and gender-fluid if you want to trim some more ignorance) society, it is upsetting that yet another conference has no female speakers. The comment by the dunce about race/body-type/ablism etc completely undermines the position of those speaking out. The people pointing out that women are underrepresented are the same people that will also point out those other imbalances. They are working on their own fight--and yes, there is still largely internalized ignorance of race/gender-identity/ablism and beyond within the movement, but that does not mean they should completely abandon progress just to appease someone that thinks it is only 'perceived bias'. Thoughts?
To say that having a conference which does not represent a certain group threatens the position of this group is hyperbolic.
When you take a deeper look at the issue and realize that we have the utility to create a gender-balanced (and gender-fluid if you want to trim some more ignorance) society, it is upsetting that yet another conference has no female speakers.
Your comment on "trimming some more ignorance" in relation to postmodern gender theory does not speak well. I'm not sure what you even mean by a "genderfluid" society. Your statement implies that gender is learned rather than innate, which if John Money's (the person who pioneered this hypothesis) research is anything to show, is dubious.
I am not ignoring anything. This particular conference was not called to address historical issues with gender favoritism. This is a scientific / academic conference dealing with actual ongoing research not related to gender studies. If there is a woman in this group that has something relevant to speak about she should definitely be considered but I don't think that the controlling board should be required to select a woman just to make the speaker list look statistically better to activists.
They are free to boycott the conference though I do not think they are doing themselves any favors. They will only cause those not involved in this gender conspiracy to lose patience and empathy with them.
Are there biased men AND women out there? Yes. Are they in complete control of all current events? No.
So sorry to interrupt 'actual ongoing research'! Oh no! How dare progress be stopped!? There is an actual ongoing struggle for women to feel just as appreciated as men and not feel like they have to fly to the moon in order to be taken just as seriously as their male counterparts. Sure, they don't NEED to be required to select women--exactly the point! This article is useful in that it points out the disadvantaged position women still face. If a board does not intervene to try and create a gender balance, then there will be no gender balance, precisely because the issue is unregulated and ignored. Hmmm... sounds a lot like ignoring regulation on economics--clearly there are actual ongoing issues that can be solved by the private sector and so we should just ignore the potential solutions of the people so that the private sector can really get things done. Your argument is underdeveloped. It seems to make logical sense, yes, I credit you that, but the logic is baseless if you ignore the larger picture.
Just curious, do you have any evidence at all to back up your assumptions that without forceful intervention this particular organization will have a gender imbalance from now until the end of time?
If there were no male speakers you would think there was no bias? It just happened that every female scheduled had something truly "scientific" to talk about, but the available men had none?
There is no guarantee that just because there are scientists of X gender in a field that they will have something important to say at Y point in time. It may seem suspicious, but I still don't see any proof of sexism.
It is very slanted and dares you to disagree, which has become the modus operandi for some groups. Now there is the distinct possibility that someone was purposefully excluded it also is quite possible that with so few in the group that none stood out. Did the query the female members (what, are there like four?) if they wanted to present?
Still, make a competing organization. Don't follow the route of protect the children/etc/etc. Just as bad as highly educated groups are in thinking they are too intelligent to be sexist/racist/etc we don't need strawman arguments or worse.
While it would be nice to have some minor integration with my car using something like Bluetooth I do not want a fully integrated system between car and phone as it will of course be proprietary and locked down tighter than anything you have ever seen. With a fully integrated system it won't take long before car's come with their own "Parental Controls". You could restrict any car function, music/radio content, phone functions, more stuff than I can imagine.
I don't even want to imagine what Automotive Bloatware would be like.
Think of the children legislators would jump on the opportunity to enact a ton of new laws to "protect" us
Its bad enough that cars with the "old" iPhone dock connector are now permanently obsolete, these new integrated systems will likely be the same.
"Its bad enough that cars with the "old" iPhone dock connector are now permanently obsolete"
They need something like ISO 7736 which about thirty years ago was formerly known under some now obsolete DIN standard, so naturally 30 years later we still call it single or double DIN mount.
I'd be happy with a secondary ODB-II port for charging and read only access. The physical side of car audio is pretty standard via the ISO standard aka "DIN mounts", but the electrical side is eternally messed up with embrace-extend-extinguish every decade another fad connector.
Well, the key selling point for the carriers is that they can do whatever they want with the software without the Ubuntu branding. There is no one breathing down their neck telling them what to do. Naturally, the carriers will screw up thinking more crapware is better. What they really should do is understand less is also better.
If Canonical were smart, they should also work with handset manufacturers on a clean version of their software without all the crap - the Nexus phone approach. When given the option, most people opt for the crap-free phone. I have a feeling that if Canonical does not push this option it could really tarnish their name - like how Microsoft is always associated with viruses and malware.
Well the iPhone didn't come to Verizon for years because Apple would not let Verizon put its bloatware on the phone. Verizon only caved because Apple sales were so strong. iPhone only comes with Apple software, you have to manually download any Verizon apps.
My parents both got Androids recently, and while you can "hide" the pre-installed bloatware you still can't delete it. It took me about 30 minutes to clean the phones of all the widgets and crapware.
As the newcomer, a Ubuntu phone really wouldn't have any bargaining power and would be as bad or worse than Android.
Part of the problem of an "open" system is that the very flexibility/openness means your position is weak - there's very little you "can't" do.
Especially if you do it for one carrier - you can't easily say no to the next one.
Whereas with Apple, the carrier has no idea if the product is capable of their needs, and besides with the Apple brand it will sell millions regardless.
http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/its-time-publicly-execute-...