zlacker

[return to "Leap: An Online Community for Women"]
1. cbcowa+F4[view] [source] 2018-01-16 17:40:36
>>stable+(OP)
Hi! I'm the creator of Leap. Glad to answer questions here.
◧◩
2. probab+Q9[view] [source] 2018-01-16 18:07:19
>>cbcowa+F4
I'll go straight to the difficult questions:

1. I thought gender-based discrimination was illegal. How is Leap not illegal?

2. One of the main objections of "gentleman's clubs" was that their (male) members had access to important networking contacts, putting women in unequal foot in an unfair way when it came to businesses. Wouldn't Leap be unfair in the same way?

◧◩◪
3. rev_bi+ic[view] [source] 2018-01-16 18:22:02
>>probab+Q9
>Wouldn't Leap be unfair in the same way?

This assumption completely disregards the measurable advantage men have in the tech community. If you have identical programs, one for a historically disenfranchised group, and one for the group that's been in power for decades, only one of those programs is shitty.

edit: "Advantage" was a poor choice of words, but since it's been quoted in replies I'll leave it. I meant something more like "given the gender disparities in the tech community."

◧◩◪◨
4. fvdess+Pc[view] [source] 2018-01-16 18:24:26
>>rev_bi+ic
> The measurable advantage men have in the tech community

What is that advantage and how is it measured ?

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. beat+xu[view] [source] 2018-01-16 19:54:38
>>fvdess+Pc
Measurement is easy. Just look around you. The majority of people working in tech are men. An even larger majority of its leadership is men.

Why is this?

There are only two possible causes that I can see - genetic, or cultural. The genetic argument is basically that men are, by nature, better at being programmers and leaders than women - that women are inferior. The cultural argument is that there is a social advantage to being male (and a social disadvantage to being female) - that, all else being equal, things tend to default in favor of men.

Personally, I reject the genetic explanation. Most people do. If you also reject it, then you're stuck with the cultural explanation, or finding something I haven't come up with.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. advent+aB[view] [source] 2018-01-16 20:27:18
>>beat+xu
So your argument is that men and women are exactly identical on all tasks for genetic purposes? Or are you arguing that such just happens to be the case as it pertains to programming?

From my observation, women are frequently proclaimed to be superior to men in numerous ways. My entire life I've heard that women mature faster than men. Women are proclaimed to be more nurturing. Women have higher 'emotional intelligence.' You'll see it almost universally proclaimed that if women ran the world, conflicts (eg war) would be far less common, this is a constant refrain in the US across all media.

There are very well understood differences between men and women when it comes to things like vision, physical strength, hand-eye coordination, spatial awareness, physical aggression, and so on. We also have many different health risks due to our genetic differences. All of these things add up to women universally living longer from one culture to the next, and women commiting drastically fewer acts of violence (and thus making up a far smaller percentage of the prison population).

If any of that is actually true, why can't men be superior at various tasks due to genetic differences? Why not programming? What I'm asking is: what's the scientific argument to say that men are not superior at programming, how can that be proven either direction? Just saying such is the case (either direction), is not enough.

[go to top]