In the specific case of women in CS/CE, I think it's fair to say that the lack of women is rather troubling, and has roots in prejudice. So yeah, who knows. Maybe recognizing the success of women in this field might help restore some balance and one day make this positive discrimination unecessary. Then we won't need any special terms and all programmers will be called programmers.
How do you define 'balance' in this scenario?
Trying to correct this at the college level or later is like trying to bend a paper clip back into a straight wire.
That said some of the socialists parties here in Denmark made ending that kind of discrimination part of their election reform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
> Edit: for the clown who accused me of "fallacy of relative privation
edit: sorry, no. It's easy to work out, but as a matter of policy I don't enter into serious debates with people who casually throw around words like "clown". I find that it's not usually worth the attempt.
Please don't do this on HN. Stock snide responses, like this one or LMGTFY, are a way of insulting someone while ostensibly answering them. That violates the HN call for civility.
> sorry, no. It's easy to work out, but as a matter of policy I don't enter into serious debates with people who
Obviously dudul was wrong to call you names, but these comments were worse. Subtle insults do more damage to the discourse than crude ones do. Please reply respectfully.
The difference is:
Fallacy: "What about Y. X isn't a big deal as long as Y is an issue."
Not Fallacy: "What about Y. Y isn't a big deal because A, B, and C. A, B, and C also apply to X, so shouldn't that mean X isn't an issue as well."
The problem comes in that the second sentence in each scenario is left shortened if not completely left out, making it hard to tell which version of 'What about' a person is using.
The vast majority of people are emotion based creatures. Logic tends to be used after the fact to justify their emotional stance. Women are socially more allowed to express their emotions, and thus the stereotype that they are more based on emotions arises, but while men express their emotions less due to social pressures, I've seen no evidence they are ruled by their emotions less.
So these groups are important. They allow for people to advocate for themselves and to be heard as something more than a lone voice in the wilderness.
Interesting, any data to support that?