CTO Megan Smith explains how women in tech are erased from history

Your ideology is showing, zip yourself up.

If people stick to the facts, as you are determined to interpret them into a pre-existing system of neurotically constructed theses, then no one can ever prove you wrong because it is ‘factually’ impossible to find such evidence.

When you have constructed your ‘universe’ to reflect the biases that inform the ideological framework that underlies the way in which you respond to evidence, you will be happy to find that no one is capable of supplying you with any information whatsoever that can penetrate the defence mechanisms of said ideology. Literally only you can break out of this framework and that starts with having a mind open enough to listen to evidence without reflexively subverting such information in an attempt to entrain it to your predispositions.

It’s not clever, stupid people do it all the time too. They just don’t take such a round about, sophist and frankly, meandering path to their interpretation.
Has it ever occurred to you that you might get the same effect by sticking your fingers in your ears and humming instead of speaking at people? Quicker, uses less resources, and you can smugly smile all the way through for effect.

6 Likes

Is this non-existent wikipedia entry evidence of the same kind of chauvinistic discrimination at play?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Rose

http://www.storiesofapple.net/interview-with-caroline-rose.html

Caroline was the technical writer of the Mac development team,

but

deleted page Caroline Rose (A7: Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.WP:CSD#A7)

Is this another example of Wikipedian realm-protection or what?

Another article wherein Caroline’s technical expertise is qualified as invaluable.

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Inside_Macintosh.txt&characters=Caroline%20Rose&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium

(and for completeness’ sake, (but actually not covered by this topic so OT) there are 3 men who also appear to have been omitted from Wikipedia: Donn Denman, Bob Belleville, Larry Kenyon. Their pages were not deleted though, just looks like they never existed… :disappointed:)

2 Likes

Gah!, Server issues.

I bookmarked it and will return!

Regardless, pop culture shapes who we want to be and if it shows that STEM jobs aren’t for women because these people aren’t even included/recognized that has an impact.

When we have a culture that encourages males to do certain things while females are encouraged to do other things that is not good. Yet that is the culture we have.

Its a well documented point for example that there aren’t a lot of movies about women in Hollywood. Biopics are frequent when it comes to telling stories about men. Kind of rare when it comes to telling stories about women. Hint: It isn’t because there are a shortage of badass women throughout history. We also see tv shows/movies with fictional characters that have no real reason to be about mostly white men.

Anyway, the point is our culture certainly shapes who we want to be and when women don’t see themselves represented in our culture in anything other than traditional roles that is not good.

Women are more than half the population of the United States, that is more than half our population that isn’t reaching its full potential. That holds everyone back.

4 Likes

“Your ideology is showing, zip yourself up.”

Giving in to bullying? No, it doesn’t take too much courage to stand for reason.
My stance to consider facts and apply reason is a way to eliminate ideology, so it is exactly the opposite. But if you want to call it ideology, fine. I won’t zip up because of bullying, so I continue.

There are three possibilities:

  1. Women are underrepresented
  2. Women are represented appropriately
  3. Women are overrepresented

I agree with Megan Smith that 1) is undesirable. I favour 2), which is why it is necessary to consider the facts. As argued in a previous post, I think that ought to be a general principle, but if the treatment one receives on this board if one actually tries to promote that, it is not surprising it isn’t more popular.

I’m not in the movie business hiring people, I don’t write articles or whatever. So, it follows that even if you were correct that I’m determined to interpret facts falsely. It also doesn’t matter whether I can be proven right or wrong.

Your post contains a whole construction about what I think/don’t think etc. And amazingly opposite to what I promote and how I actually behave. The confrontation with name calling, the straw men etc. doesn’t leave me cold. The level of a discussion is usually at the level of the lowest common denominator, but I exert restraint and try to take care that that’s not me. In the folklore story you quoted, Andy Herzfeld already took questions Caroline Rose might ask into account, thus improving the quality of his work. I’m doing the same thing, imagining an independent person reviewing the discussion in this thread.

I don’t understand people. But their behaviour does explain how people like this senator get elected.

I am quite tired so will only venture so far as to say that I offer, merely, a critique of your reasoning, which I’m fairly sure you just underlined by associating your self so strongly with it that you consider such a critique as a bullying attack on your person.

That’s what stands out here. ‘Universe’ etc. At least, an indication of an unhealthily strong association with your form of ideation.

I’ll return later to engage with the rest of your… you.

//discourse-cloud-file-uploads.s3.dualstack.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/boingboing/optimized/3X/4/5/45ab84a8aa4780ae3af0633a7683832a77d5ee28_1_337x250.png

2 Likes

You have proffered both the fact the the primary technological development of the Macintosh was it’s user interface and that the women on team designed it, but discounted their contributions as not technological, and highlighted the contributions of the men who were merely implementers. And you keep trying to bully everybody else by with a wall of opinions that you label “facts” as though they were periodic elements or universal constants.

8 Likes

Well, the asshole male argument would be that it guarantees more employment for the men if you do.

2 Likes

Given that you joined BB just to troll this post, this is hilarious.

5 Likes

Hold on, is she trying to tell me that a terribly cast, historically inaccurate, stereotype-heavy, poorly acted and critically panned movie is wrong!? NEVER! Movies are not history people - especially not Ashton Kutcher movies.

the precession of simulacra


toungue-in-cheek reference to the phenomenon.

1 Like

Whether I’m a first time poster or not or any motivation I may have had, has no bearing on whether there is anything wrong (or right) with the facts/arguments/reasoning I provided.

It is not a given that I joined BB to troll. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll), see Usage section, one can learn that a troll is a person who doesn’t have the view he claims to have. From my posts which are painstakingly supported by verifiable facts, it is not hard to see that the facts are correct and that there is no reason why I wouldn’t believe those facts to be correct. Wikipedia also says that the word troll is abused to refer to anyone with controversial opinions that are disagreed with. So, your qualification of me trolling is an ad hominem attack.

Interestingly, I didn’t expect that my first post would lead me to the insight that one can learn a lot from a discussion that is not a fair exchange of thoughts. I’ve learned that people don’t value truth, that if a person (Amy Smith) objects to a distortion of the truth, it can attract supporters who strangely enough aren’t interested in truth.

Look at the hostility one who tries to discuss fairly experience.
Look at the support (likes) posts that clearly contain fallacies get.
Look at your own ad hominem (which scored 4 likes at this point).

I see the parallel with topics like creation, global warming, religion, politics etc.I do know that facts and arguments don’t work. I can’t understand why not, although from this thread I’ve now the hypothesis that there are social forces at work, where scorn is poured on someone who does try to use reason. That is in addition to the one I already had, that is that thinking is harder.

It is not a given that you joined BB to troll. However, you have posted in no other thread. You have made more than 1/6 posts in this thread. You are trolling.

4 Likes

Is that a fact or opinion?

2 Likes

“You are trolling” is my personal analysis of the facts. So, “educated opinion” as is everything that isn’t a number (like “But that is not technology.” “This is not erasing women tech.” “Her artwork would have looked just as beautiful if printed on cardboard.” “People paid the top dollar for that computer because they wanted the technology, not just the art.” “The fact that Rolling Stone only makes mention of men of the Mac team in itself does not mean that it was an unfair representation of the actual situation.”).

3 Likes

I only ask because if it’s not a fact* he’s not going to listen.

* - In this person’s case, just a personal belief that they can find information supporting their current opinion

2 Likes

Don’t care?

3 Likes

“However, you have posted in no other thread “
So if I’d made a post in another thread, everything would have been fine? Strange. The only thing I can come up with that would have been different is that some posters would have missed out on an opportunity to divert from what I had to say by questioning my integrity.
Why should there be any relevance in who said something? What women had to say has not been taken seriously for years, or they were even told to shut up (source: bible, quran). These days there are quite a few men who think different about that and consider what they have to say as more important. I believe that the substance of the contributions should determine the discussion, not who posted it.

“You have made more than 1/6 posts in this thread. “

In a discussion, should a person be limited in his/her opportunity to a rebuttal to replies to his own contribution if such replies contain fallacies (irrespective of whether these fallacies comprise personal attacks, distortions of what he stated, logical fallacies etc.)? One way of answering the question would be to put yourself in the position of that person.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.