These discussions on HN tend to spiral to the point where I don't really want to be a part of them. But I guess talking about something is always better than the alternative, no matter how uninformed or flawed the discussion is.
I think the "issues" category on the geek feminism wiki does a good job of summarizing the "female-unfriendly" things[1]. Objectification and a "sexualized environment"[2] is what the poster refers to can be common on other sites. Sexism[3] and essentialism[4] is something that generally takes the form of attitudes or opinions, and therefor is less obvious. I see this here on HN in various forms e.g. this comment[5] saying "women are less likely than men to engage in deeply focused solitary activities". "Othering"[6] is something you can see even on this page.
I see this here on HN in various forms e.g. this comment[5] saying "women are less likely than men to engage in deeply focused solitary activities".
I don't understand this. Are you saying that statements like that are objectively and obviously false, that they're meaningless, or that their truth or falsehood is irrelevant because it's not something that should ever be discussed?
Really, "essentialism" being entirely false would be a surprising result. Men and women have these very different hormones flowing through our bodies, which have no effect whatsoever on our mental processes?
I wouldn't say that the statement is meaningless, but I would say it's both false and irrelevant to the lack of women in technology. I also think this is a view which is common among people who don't know the subject very well and is similar to to what has been used to explain why women couldn't do other things which are now commonplace.
I think essentialism is problematic as a concept because of it's different usages and I only used it because it was featured in the wiki. I much more comfortable talking about sex and gender. Sex being your biological properties and gender being your cultural or socially constructed identity. I see a lot of argument offering flaws in the sex or gender of women as explanation, but not very many considering the flaws in tech culture.
I'm not saying there aren't differences in biology between women and men, I just think these are grossly overshadowed by the difference in gender. I also believe gender to be variable. For example I believe encouraging women to take risks, e.g. with an startup incubator, could change their social role even if it would be "based in" biology (which I don't think it is in this case).
For the record I do think these things should be discussed, I just wished the discussions were better. Like I've expressed before I find that when it comes to social sciences, the bar lowers significantly for what's considered a good argument.
Wikileaks is about trying to implement the right to know, the right to inform and source protection via technology. This is laws[1] that in Sweden[2] is part of the "constitution" via the freedom of press act and the fundamental law on freedom of expression (free speech). If more countries had similar laws, Wikileaks would be unnecessary. If you don't agree with or understand why these laws exist, then of course your view on the necessity of Wikileaks might differ.
Wikileaks, just like laws on rights and freedoms, will sometimes facilitate the distribution of, for governments, "problematic" material. Does this mean we should remove these laws and/or outlaw Wikileaks? Not in my opinion. Of course there will always be some limitations.
Nothing stops government and organizations from protecting their information in the first place. Wikileaks doesn't pick what information they get access to. If someone in your organization is leaking your most inner secrets, you probably have more serious problem than than the existence of Wikileaks. Also the public nature of Wikileaks distribution model means that intelligence agencies are free to do all the operation security analysis they want when something is published.
At that time, they only made tyres, galoshes and toilet paper.
Eh? I don't think that's true. Nokia, just like Ericsson, made telephone switches and was involved in NMT, back in the 80s, when they started to make phones.
Of course it's not true, it's not even a hyperbole, it's simply completely false. Nokia was, for most of the 20th century, large industrial group, making many various things, consumer electronics and telecommunications equipment included. It wasn't like some backward poor finnish rubber-makers in the late 70's or 80's decided to get in a new business, not even remotely.
"My father, a good engineer with a university degree"
Are you sure you (and those who upvoted) know what social class is? To be fair there are many definitions, but having a university degree would be put your father as middle class in most of them.
"All it matters is to have good parents who really support and nurture education."
And that's in most cases parents who themselves are educated, which has been shown in countries with free education.
"That is simply not true."
Just because you have a different experience doesn't mean you're the norm or that the argument is invalid.
> And that's in most cases parents who themselves are educated.
Read my comment again. My mom wasn't educated past 7th grade. She knows simple arithmetic enough to count money and pay bills. She doesn't know what an isosceles triangle is though.
My father was educated well but he had lost his job and didn't have work for years. We didn't have enough food to eat. But what my parents had, was a desire for me to be educated. Not by forcing me to necessarily get good grades but by encouraging my hobbies.
EDIT: removed an unclear sentence
> Are you sure you (and those who upvoted) know what social class is? ... having a university degree would be put your father as middle class in most of them.
What about a homeless person on the streets who has a PhD? What class are they in? I would say they are in the "poor" class. What about not being able to buy food or clothes? What class is that? I would say in the Western society nowadays that would qualify as "poor". Granted there were some who didn't have a place to live and fared a lot worse, but we were not far from it either (at least that's how I felt and remember it). Education and social class don't necessarily go together.
> Just because you have a different experience doesn't mean you're the norm or that the argument is invalid.
Of course. I think that is implied since that statement is followed by my personal story. However I knew some kids my age that went through a similar experience.
It seems in general these type of situations are common in countries that have decent education but ultimately suffer an economic meltdown. So my experience was probably more common for those who grew up in ex-Soviet union and experienced its collapse. We ended up with a lot of educated people who, despite their education, became very poor.
I would recommend listening to audiobooks or talks with your phone or music player. But if you really wanted to, you could try and chest mount a smaller laptop like the military does sometimes.
I think a lot of men actually stay away from technology both for the same "cultural" reasons as women and because of the lack of women. I know you generally start college earlier in the US, but when you get older you start thinking about what friends you'll spend your life with etc. When you're 23-25 the prospect of spending 5+ year in a quite homogeneous environment can be unwanted.
This might be a complete misconception, but I've gotten the impression that American twenty-somethings are quite childish. And with people attributing Israels startup success partly to youths "growing up" during military service (which I don't recommend), mixing things up seems like a good idea.
This is not aimed towards your comment, but I've notices that a lot of the time when non-technology and especially social science topics comes up here at HN. Everyone seem to disregard research and suddenly becomes experts based on what they feel. It's quite obvious that most people here aren't going to be experts in sociology or women's studies.
Especially if you consider that the base was abandoned a week later [1]. Looking forward to seeing "Restrepo"[2] when it becomes available. I can't say I like the "action theme" in the trailer, but at least it seems honest.
I think the "issues" category on the geek feminism wiki does a good job of summarizing the "female-unfriendly" things[1]. Objectification and a "sexualized environment"[2] is what the poster refers to can be common on other sites. Sexism[3] and essentialism[4] is something that generally takes the form of attitudes or opinions, and therefor is less obvious. I see this here on HN in various forms e.g. this comment[5] saying "women are less likely than men to engage in deeply focused solitary activities". "Othering"[6] is something you can see even on this page.
[1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Issues [2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment [3] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism [4] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Essentialism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism [5] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Othering & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other#The_Other_in_gender_studi... [6] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1550429