> He is saying that characterizing it as "reshaping mathematics" is likely an exaggeration
No, it's not and actually reading the article points out how Hilda Geiringer helped change the course of mathematics. The author may have used flowery language but is not "wrong" or an "exaggeration" as you or the other commenter claim.
The title of the article is fine. You take umbrage that the article also points out something else along the way...
> What was being said is that writing an article pointing out how few opportunities women had at the time is trite
So again, you're saying articles the use of the past as an example of why discrimination and equal opportunity in STEM fields are important topics is trite. How trite of you ;)
It's amazing how easily men can call exemplifying past gender discrimination to highlight why it's not a good thing as "trite".
After all, racism was solved by the civil rights movement right? No need to revisit the past as that would be... trite ;)
As I said before, had the original commenter been a bit more neutral in his take, I would have given your original defense of his argument more salt (that and I probably wouldn't have commented in the first place).
Since people are saying the article doesn't, and you are saying it does, it behooves you to demonstrate this. Where is the article demonstrating this? I see only an impact to one small subdiscipline of engineering. I see other achievements in math, but nothing indicating the impact those had.
> You take umbrage that the article also points out something else along the way...
Blatantly false. I take umbrage that the article is about her exclusion from the community, and it along the way points out she made some contribution, and that the title of the article does not reflect this. Had the title been "Yet another example of an accomplished woman in mathematics who was denied X, Y and Z" I would have been fine.
> It's amazing how easily men can call exemplifying past gender discrimination to highlight why it's not a good thing as "trite".
It's amazing you draw conclusions about people's gender.
> After all, racism was solved by the civil rights movement right? No need to revisit the past as that would be... trite ;)
Throwing in non-sequiturs is not helpful.
And frankly, I do not think you understand what "trite" means. It doesn't mean irrelevant or not worthy of discussion.
> As I said before, had the original commenter been a bit more neutral in his take, I would have given your original defense of his argument more salt (that and I probably wouldn't have commented in the first place).
And as is often the case in such discussions, this seems to be more about you than about LanceH or me. Why would you even tell me/others your criterion for what you would give more salt to? We are not in an arena aimed to satisfy your perspective, and you are not doing an adequate job of backing your perspective. Furthermore you are avoiding addressing the comments/arguments made to you, and have not even attempted to acknowledge that you understand the counterarguments.
The article stands on its own and I don't have anything to prove to you. It's funny because while I don't think it's a very well written article, I will (and did) highlight biased within critiques.
> Blatantly false.
This made me laugh, thank you. Again your bias is showing through and I stand by my original comment on this aspect of language.
>It's amazing you draw conclusions about people's gender.
Bravo! Spoken like a true alt-right "warrior" mocking liberals with "did you just assume my gender?". Good re-phrasing though.
Now I'm not saying you are, but the tone is unmistakable my friend ;)
>Throwing in non-sequiturs is not helpful.
Ahhh but it was a relevant comparison to your position. You may not like it, but you framed the gendered example the exact way.
>And frankly, I do not think you understand what "trite" means. It doesn't mean irrelevant or not worthy of discussion.
I used the word exactly how you defined it in your comment. Again you may not like the comparison, but it's your own framing looking back at you. ;)
>And as is often the case in such discussions, this seems to be more about you than about LanceH or me. Why would you even tell me/others your criterion for what you would give more salt to?
So providing context for others regarding the sentiment of original comment is all about me. Interesting analysis.
>We are not in an arena aimed to satisfy your perspective, and you are not doing an adequate job of backing your perspective. Furthermore you are avoiding addressing the comments/arguments made to you, and have not even attempted to acknowledge that you understand the counterarguments
Oh I understand your position well enough. It's a decent job, a bit dressed up, but it succumbs under any positive pressure. I'm glad to hear you and your friend are close, and seem share the same biases. Thank you for exemplifying them in your own words.
And also thank you for attempting to clarify the original commenters words as I initially thought it was well meaning, this past comment a little less so.
"I do not want to defend my stance. My positions are obvious so no explanation is needed from my side"
"I see bias everywhere, but I won't do anything to try to understand how what I see may not be a bias."
"I will attribute intentions to the person I am speaking with and make assumptions about who the person behind the computer is. I will view what (s)he says through that lens that I have chosen to wear. I will not supply any avenue for that person to point out defects in the lens."
"Thanks for trying."
There is no substance here, so nothing I can respond to.
He's trolling hard.
Again, the article was badly written. We just differ in opinion on the substance and therein lies the rub I suppose.
In our highly charged social climate this is not surprising.
I wish you well.
Let me fix this for you for your own edification:
"Please don't refuse to explain your position to me even though I've already proven I won't hear a word you say! I promise I won't listen again."
"I can't see my own biases so I can't understand anyone explaining them to me. Please don't try to explain them, it's upsetting!"
"I hate it when people peg me with my own words! Just let me use my anonymity to help you ignore my everything I've just said!" waves hands
"I resent it when people try to be nice or acknowledge my attempts at communication after I've insulted them, I won't let you!"
Oh and your last insult is a real gem... :)
"Since I lack real substance in my positions, I cannot see or acknowledge any substance from any alternate point of view"
As as side note, brick walls are fun conversation only if you're interested in hearing an echo ;)
(Of course that all depends on the acoustics of the space as well but I digress)
Regardless of it all I'll say it again, had the original commentor been more altruistic in his take, I'd say you gave thoughtful feedback. I had thought your comments were well-meant initially in regards to clarifying that commenter. I had even acknowledged some ideas (we agree the article was not well written even if we differ on the substance). However by your words it's shown that wasn't your real intention - you being more interested in defending the negative bias of the comment (and it was negative) than the underlying content of the comment.
I do wish you well.
LanceH said:
> there is a bit about her contribution which is over inflated
to which you said:
> Why do you diminish this woman contributions to mathematics?
LanceH didn't. He acknowledges her contributions elsewhere in the comment. He is saying that characterizing it as "reshaping mathematics" is likely an exaggeration. At the very least, the BBC article doesn't give an indication of how she did this, and doesn't back the stance. Even a great contribution to the theory of plasticity is not one that reshapes mathematics. It's an extraordinary claim. While in academia, I worked with people who made incredible contributions to a sub-sub discipline of physics. Within the sub-sub discipline they are recognized as the leaders/pioneers of the field. Yet they are unknown to most physicists, and no one (including they themselves) would dare make a claim that they "reshaped physics". Mathematics is a broader discipline and it takes even more to reshape it than it does physics.
LanceH said:
> to make a trite statement about equality of opportunity
To which you responded:
> Are you saying equal opportunity is trite?
LanceH wasn't. What was being said is that writing an article pointing out how few opportunities women had at the time is trite (definition: "boring from much use : not fresh or original"). If they want to write yet another article documenting this, that is fine. But they should title the article to reflect it.
A famous blind programmer once complained of the same phenomenon: That articles written about him focus more on his blindness than on his achievements. I don't know how Hilda would feel about this article, but I would not be happy if I made an achievement and all that is written about me is related to my gender/race/disability and not the work I've done.