Comments of mine (Jason), and someone else's, on The Wire's recent article on the recent Paul Graham comments.
The guy actually admits there's a disparity, suggests what needs to be happen to solve it, admits he doesn't know how to do it, and you crucify him.
What do you want him to say? That people who start programming at the age of 10 DON'T have an advantage?
Focusing on strategies that might encourage young females to take up programming is not sexist.
Well had he actually suggested that such strategies involved he and his cohorts in some way, perhaps it would seem less that he implied he has no responsibility or contribution to the current system that sees such disparity.
P.S. May I ask why you eschew "women" or "girls" in favor of the word "females?"
But you don't know what his opinion on his involvement in that is, because the quotes are cherry picked. Can I ask why you use the term cohorts instead of peers or colleagues? It's like you're bracing for a fight when in fact everyone is on the same side.
PS using a particluar term doesn't imply any eschewing. Your loaded questions betray your desire for a fight, when everyone is trying to work toward the same end.
And because the interview is behind a $400 paywall, all I have are the people involved and their statements outside of that. Which is what this article, the one in Valleywag, and Graham himself are responding to, so I don't much see the issue.
Wow, you sure got the hackles raised right quick. How about this? While you may see “What we should be doing is somehow changing the middle school computer science curriculum or something like that” as an indication that Graham cares and has a positive thesis, I see
"If someone was going to be really good at programming they would have found it on their own […] God knows what you would do to get 13 year old girls interested in computers. I would have to stop and think about that."
as more of an indication that he doesn't quite get how we arrived at the status quo (since any good programmer would have found it on their own gender and cultural norms be damned) or have more of a solution than a vague “do something somehow.” I don't exactly see this as worth celebrating.
why not just take him at face value? That he believes that people who find hobbies/passions on their own tend to be better skilled at them than those that don't (not exactly an earth shattering insight) and that he personally doesn't know how to get 13 year old girls interested in computers... That he would have to give it some considered thought...
How that proves he "doesn't see sexism as a problem" as this article claims makes no sense to me.
If someone asked me how to fix racism in Australia, and I said I think it's the result of how young kids are raised, and I don't know how to fix that (in the middle of this interview, I would have to give it some considered thought), am I a racist?
He is simply pointing out (imo) that the sexism is not perpetuated by a handful of gatekeepers with all the money, but is a larger issue permeating through all of society that affects decisions made by young boys and girls.
If we can take a more holistic approach to the issue, i.e. give young girls every opportunity and encouragement to get in to programming, he seems to think the outcomes would be better.
What would you rather have? Someone who pays lip service, says the politically correct thing, and have nothing change? Or have robust and thoughtful discussion on how to approach the issue, and put all our ideas and suggestions on the table?
As I look to the right of this comments section I am hit with a bunch of popular articles to read. There's a britney spears image where she's nearly naked, an article on a famous race car driver (have you seen the women they put next the winners of those races on podiums for god knows what reason), an NBA story (a sport which still uses skantly clad women as half time "entertainment" for families). Sexism is rife, and it would be great if Connor Simpson and the wire pointed their guns more often at the blatant sexism.
One thing's for sure, if every time someone doesn't talk about the issue in exactly the way Connor Simpson or Nitasha Tiku think they need to, and doesn't hold the exact opinion of Connor Simpson or Nitasha Tiku, they get publicly lynched, then all discussion on the matter is going to dry up. People who could offer helpful opinions or insight that might actually affect positive change will stay silent for fear of an irrational mob misquoting them and misrepresenting them.
Look at how many big names in the tech world have made only subtle references to this issue without weighing in. It's not because they are sexist, or because they think the articles deriding Graham are spot on and they don't need to add their voice to the chorus.
It's because people will go and lynch them next.