>“I realized that to program in a feminist way, one would ideally want to use a feminist programming language.”
Tell that to Admiral Hopper.
Programming languages aren't masculine or feminine. Programming is hard because you're a human trying to express yourself in the language of a computer. Not because you're a woman trying to express yourself in the language of a man.
There are barriers to women in tech, for sure, but those are social and cultural barriers, not "sexist tools".
I'm almost afraid to ask if they think there needs to be a "feminist mathematics" as well. Because, really, the division between "mathematical notation" and "programming language" is somewhat arbitrary, especially with languages such as Prolog and Metamath.
I read a dozen dumb ideas a day without feeling the need to comment. What about this one incited you to compose this (well-worded) comment about it? Methinks thou dost protest too much.
I, personally, am curious to see what comes of it. I'm not familiar enough with the feminist philosophies mentioned to really understand what she's talking about, or to tell whether or not she's just making things up. But, I'll certainly be qualified to comment when I see a code sample, and I think it might be interesting either way.
I don't feel like you actually stopped to understand what the author was saying before disagreeing with it. To me, the piece reads more as sort of whimsical, preliminary musing about different ways of viewing interactions and how they can be enshrined in programming paradigms (e.g. OO, functional and logic programming all have different ways of expressing the relationships between program entities and have different ways of deciding what to do with those relationships).
It doesn't sound to me like Arielle's hypothesis is "Programming languages are sexist," but rather that it might be interesting to see what a programming language would look like that subscribes to certain philosophies derived from feminist thinking. I don't know enough about feminist philosophy to say what this means in specific terms, but it doesn't strike me as necessarily less reasonable than, say, Clojure's attempt to implement Rich Hickey's philosophies about complexity and identity.
This seems pretty close to "if you can't do better, don't criticize."
Abstract concepts and figurative thinking are important factors in not being completely ignorant of the world around you and the existence/potential of things you may not entirely understand or be able to implement.
Many of the people who talk about this could probably have studied maths or science, though - they just chose not to in favour of other fields which are traditionally more attractive to women. Yet somehow they never question whether their fields of study - which, naturally, they have far more influence over - are drawing women away from maths and science in a way that they aren't men (and I suspect they are in a pretty big way). It's always exclusively the fault of male scientists and mathematicians, who must obviously be sexist if they're not attracting as many women to courses as men.
I have yet to hear a man tell me he was discouraged from entering some field (with the two possible exceptions of nursing and elementary education) by a woman, telling him 'boys aren't good at that'. (Fathers on the other hand are great for making sure their boys don't do too good at the sissy stuff).
On the other hand, I have directly witnessed math teachers and professors telling women that they needn't worry too much about understanding the class, "because you girls don't need it - you're graded on effort" (despite actually wanting to know). I've heard plenty of stories from women about being told "girls are bad at math, it's natural you don't understand". I've seen one little girl break down and cry because a man told her girls can't be engineers.
For the same reasons that those who chose not to study culture see themselves fit to comment upon it...well at least those who suggest studying math and science in order to share their latest sexist snark with the world.
Or to put it another way, so that there are some voices which are not like the author's and Rush Limbaugh's. What a boatload of misogynist horse shit.
>“In the scope of my research, a feminist programming language is to be built around a non-normative paradigm that represents alternative ways of abstracting. The intent is to encourage and allow new ways of thinking about problems such that we can code using a feminist ideology.”
>“I realized that to program in a feminist way, one would ideally want to use a feminist programming language.”
How does this drivel pass for serious academic rigor? How does constructing a "non-normative paradigm" centered around a "feminist ideology" for the purposes of creating a "feminist programming language" further the cause of getting more women into computer science? What relevance does it have to the titular question of the blog post? Maybe I'm just particularly nasty today after being sick all week, but this ivory tower gobbledygook really rustles my jimmies.
I'm guessing that people think twice before speaking up because there is not all that much to gain but a lot to lose if people misinterpreted their argument.
The last citation about "feminist programming languages" actually has nothing to do with women in computer science.
It's basically an ostentatious and empty blog entry about how the formal logic encoded in programming languages is constrained and that it affects our way of thinking and formulating ideas, which is also illustrated by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis for natural languages.
All of which is valid, except for the completely incoherent and non sequitur idea that applying "feminist theory" to programming languages will somehow make a liberated master language.
That's where it all falls flat. Also worth noting is that less mainstream languages have already solved some of her (quite abstract and difficult to solidly interpret) complaints.
Because job demand and the way people make a living has changed since these pundits were in school? 30 years ago, there was a greater demand for legal knowledge, so Barack Obama attended law school. That doesn't mean he can't recognize a higher need for technologists in today's workforce.
This is like criticizing successful farmers for encouraging their children to go into mechanics during the Industrial Revolution.
[Among existing technologies, my personal choice for a feminist programming language would be SQL. The woman expresses her demands for data with five lines of code; a team of 100 men writes 2 million lines of C that must consider all possible ways of satisfying the the query and ultimately supply the answer.]
Man, what an unfortunate way to end an otherwise interesting article. The project honestly sounds pretty interesting -- I have no idea what a feminist programming language is, but it doesn't sound particularly more far-fetched than other graduate studies I've run across.
Well, putting aside the feminist-programming-language drivel, it's certainly possible for intelligent and honest people to recognize the value of paths that they did not themselves take.
Also, if I made a mistake, I might encourage others not to repeat my mistake.
"Also, if I made a mistake, I might encourage others not to repeat my mistake."
Mistake? Obama and the other high-level people in government who advocate STEM seem to have done pretty well for themselves - probably better than they could have done by studying STEM.
I wonder if Obama is encouraging his own daughters to pursue STEM careers, or just other peoples' kids?
I like the question itself - my friend went into journalism and now preaches STEM. I believe there is a disproportionate representation of those folks (rather than STEM folks preaching STEM themselves) because they are aware of the media distribution channels while the STEM crowd is more of a dark-room thing... And not-as-able to spread our ideas to the non-STEM crowd due to unfamiliar channels we by nature deal with less. Because of that we should continue to observe this paradigm - And I, one of the crowd, will meanwhile warn the potential traveller that the STEM road is harder, but the reward is inherent to the choice of going through it. I find the following applies much:
"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim
Because it was grassy and wanted wear,
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
-R.Frost
I teach basic mathematics to adults in a couple of institutions in the UK.
Fact: Most of my students are women, but the male proportion increases significantly for evening classes compared to daytime classes
Fact: A lot of my students (both genders) begin to realise that basic mathematics is stable, has a logical 'rule' based structure, and that it is possible to reduce most of the technical parts to checklists on 5by3 cards
Opinion: I spend a lot of time encouraging students (both genders) to take the slightly harder and more challenging exam[1]
The upshot is that a disproportionate number of male students have a go at Higher compared to Foundation because of perceived valence of maths. They will make time for the extra study whereas the female students feel constrained not to take time away from other commitments (children, jobs, older relatives) and will suffice by working in the lesson times only, not between. I do what I can.
Anecdote: I was teaching probability today[2]. I managed to link a two coin tossing experiment where we tossed a couple of different coins 20 times per student (aggregating to 400 tosses) to genetics (Punnet squares where Heads represented dominant alleles, and tails recessive).
Historical note: Mendel's rivals refused to see aA as distinct from Aa (HT as different from TH using coins). Links to sickle cell anaemia and Hardy Weinberg equilibrium. Not a bad two hours...
[1]UK:GCSE Mathematics is offered at Foundation and Higher tier. There is a significant gap between the two. We used to have a middle path called Intermediate that really suited adult students, but some Tory idiot removed it on the grounds that we should do the same in mathematics as in other subjects. But we have subjects so that we can address the different traditions...
>>Why would folks who apparently preferred other subjects suggest that women and particular minority groups be encouraged to study tech subjects that they themselves did not like and ended up not needing?
What does this person think women & particular minorities like? Can I safely assume this person is still thinking in the stereotype world? "Girls like flowers and talking on the phone!" "Minorities like gangsta rap and basketball!"
"did not like and ended up not needing?"
So if women & particular minorities don't like or need them; I guess that implies only white males and non-particular minorities do. The amount of incorrect assumptions that one must have in the mind to make such a statement in 2013 is... I don't even.....This blog post is just off the charts filled with privileged/sexist/racist mindset. This has to be a troll/flame-bait/prank.
EDIT: WOW!!! Did this article get blown off the HN-frontpage in under 2 mins? This is an example of how tech-scene buries issues about sexism & racism. You have people in Harvard who think like this... I hope the mainstream media picks this up to let anyone else out there quietly holding these views know how wrong they are and to show sexism & racism still exists in places like Harvard and how it contributes to the lack of women & minorities in tech. Holding this kind of attitude will affect how you interact with women & minorities.
EDIT2: And don't think I haven't noticed the bury-team that always tanks my comments on these issues. Probably the same people I'm always talking about here:
Supporting examples:
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6885123
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6365495
3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6448409
4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6857739
5. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6035263 - This is the most obvious one.
The entire premise of the article is the fallacy of equivocation: when the people referred to are advocating study of STEM subjects, it isn't narrowly focussed on STEM degrees (especially obvious when that advocacy is for general, primary/secondary STEM education), but to set up the "people who chose not to study" is based solely on the fact that those people don't have STEM degrees.
35 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 88.9 ms ] threadTell that to Admiral Hopper.
Programming languages aren't masculine or feminine. Programming is hard because you're a human trying to express yourself in the language of a computer. Not because you're a woman trying to express yourself in the language of a man.
There are barriers to women in tech, for sure, but those are social and cultural barriers, not "sexist tools".
http://us.metamath.org/
I, personally, am curious to see what comes of it. I'm not familiar enough with the feminist philosophies mentioned to really understand what she's talking about, or to tell whether or not she's just making things up. But, I'll certainly be qualified to comment when I see a code sample, and I think it might be interesting either way.
It doesn't sound to me like Arielle's hypothesis is "Programming languages are sexist," but rather that it might be interesting to see what a programming language would look like that subscribes to certain philosophies derived from feminist thinking. I don't know enough about feminist philosophy to say what this means in specific terms, but it doesn't strike me as necessarily less reasonable than, say, Clojure's attempt to implement Rich Hickey's philosophies about complexity and identity.
Abstract concepts and figurative thinking are important factors in not being completely ignorant of the world around you and the existence/potential of things you may not entirely understand or be able to implement.
On the other hand, I have directly witnessed math teachers and professors telling women that they needn't worry too much about understanding the class, "because you girls don't need it - you're graded on effort" (despite actually wanting to know). I've heard plenty of stories from women about being told "girls are bad at math, it's natural you don't understand". I've seen one little girl break down and cry because a man told her girls can't be engineers.
There is a big difference there.
Or to put it another way, so that there are some voices which are not like the author's and Rush Limbaugh's. What a boatload of misogynist horse shit.
>“I realized that to program in a feminist way, one would ideally want to use a feminist programming language.”
How does this drivel pass for serious academic rigor? How does constructing a "non-normative paradigm" centered around a "feminist ideology" for the purposes of creating a "feminist programming language" further the cause of getting more women into computer science? What relevance does it have to the titular question of the blog post? Maybe I'm just particularly nasty today after being sick all week, but this ivory tower gobbledygook really rustles my jimmies.
It's basically an ostentatious and empty blog entry about how the formal logic encoded in programming languages is constrained and that it affects our way of thinking and formulating ideas, which is also illustrated by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis for natural languages.
All of which is valid, except for the completely incoherent and non sequitur idea that applying "feminist theory" to programming languages will somehow make a liberated master language.
That's where it all falls flat. Also worth noting is that less mainstream languages have already solved some of her (quite abstract and difficult to solidly interpret) complaints.
It's an absurd exercise in philosophical masturbation, basically. Nothing to do with feminism or women in the least. It did inspire this piece of satire, though: https://github.com/FeministSoftwareFoundation/C-plus-Equalit...
> feminist programming language would be SQL. The woman
> expresses her demands for data with five lines of code; a
> team of 100 men writes 2 million lines of C that must
> consider all possible ways of satisfying the the query
> and ultimately supply the answer.]
I will print it and put on the wall. rofl
This is like criticizing successful farmers for encouraging their children to go into mechanics during the Industrial Revolution.
Man, what an unfortunate way to end an otherwise interesting article. The project honestly sounds pretty interesting -- I have no idea what a feminist programming language is, but it doesn't sound particularly more far-fetched than other graduate studies I've run across.
Also, if I made a mistake, I might encourage others not to repeat my mistake.
Mistake? Obama and the other high-level people in government who advocate STEM seem to have done pretty well for themselves - probably better than they could have done by studying STEM.
I wonder if Obama is encouraging his own daughters to pursue STEM careers, or just other peoples' kids?
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/2/28/spot-the-imposto...
I teach basic mathematics to adults in a couple of institutions in the UK.
Fact: Most of my students are women, but the male proportion increases significantly for evening classes compared to daytime classes
Fact: A lot of my students (both genders) begin to realise that basic mathematics is stable, has a logical 'rule' based structure, and that it is possible to reduce most of the technical parts to checklists on 5by3 cards
Opinion: I spend a lot of time encouraging students (both genders) to take the slightly harder and more challenging exam[1]
The upshot is that a disproportionate number of male students have a go at Higher compared to Foundation because of perceived valence of maths. They will make time for the extra study whereas the female students feel constrained not to take time away from other commitments (children, jobs, older relatives) and will suffice by working in the lesson times only, not between. I do what I can.
Anecdote: I was teaching probability today[2]. I managed to link a two coin tossing experiment where we tossed a couple of different coins 20 times per student (aggregating to 400 tosses) to genetics (Punnet squares where Heads represented dominant alleles, and tails recessive).
Historical note: Mendel's rivals refused to see aA as distinct from Aa (HT as different from TH using coins). Links to sickle cell anaemia and Hardy Weinberg equilibrium. Not a bad two hours...
[1]UK:GCSE Mathematics is offered at Foundation and Higher tier. There is a significant gap between the two. We used to have a middle path called Intermediate that really suited adult students, but some Tory idiot removed it on the grounds that we should do the same in mathematics as in other subjects. But we have subjects so that we can address the different traditions...
[2] see below for a sample of my methodology
http://www.sohcahtoa.org.uk/pages/probability-sorting-statem...
http://www.sohcahtoa.org.uk/pages/rolling-two-dice-experimen...
>>Why would folks who apparently preferred other subjects suggest that women and particular minority groups be encouraged to study tech subjects that they themselves did not like and ended up not needing?
What does this person think women & particular minorities like? Can I safely assume this person is still thinking in the stereotype world? "Girls like flowers and talking on the phone!" "Minorities like gangsta rap and basketball!"
"did not like and ended up not needing?"
So if women & particular minorities don't like or need them; I guess that implies only white males and non-particular minorities do. The amount of incorrect assumptions that one must have in the mind to make such a statement in 2013 is... I don't even.....This blog post is just off the charts filled with privileged/sexist/racist mindset. This has to be a troll/flame-bait/prank.
EDIT: WOW!!! Did this article get blown off the HN-frontpage in under 2 mins? This is an example of how tech-scene buries issues about sexism & racism. You have people in Harvard who think like this... I hope the mainstream media picks this up to let anyone else out there quietly holding these views know how wrong they are and to show sexism & racism still exists in places like Harvard and how it contributes to the lack of women & minorities in tech. Holding this kind of attitude will affect how you interact with women & minorities.
EDIT2: And don't think I haven't noticed the bury-team that always tanks my comments on these issues. Probably the same people I'm always talking about here:
Conspiracy theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6441795
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893756