It's not just Cook and the typical SV types it's also the FOSS world that would like all students to get some coding experience. My honest opinion is coding in 2018 should be the shop class of 1960 everyone should have at least a little skill in it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
High School Student Interviewed Apple CEO Tim Cook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not just Cook and the typical SV types it's also the FOSS world that would like all students to get some coding experience. My honest opinion is coding in 2018 should be the shop class of 1960 everyone should have at least a little skill in it.
I know simple wiring and home repairs because of shop, I know how to sew because of home-ec, but I can't think of an example where coding would benefit most in day to day life, especially as computers continue to grow a more finished user experience.
That said, just like algebra, I still think basic coding should be taught. It expands the mind and leads to new ways of thinking, and could lead people down paths they didn't consider before.
Your username definitely doesn't check out
I agree though. We do have a long way to go for laws to start making sense and be applicable to everyone. We'll see how the world turns out
I've received this response a thousand times before. How exactly do I feel threatened?Someone's feeling threatened...
You probably are tired of it all and just being misinterpreted.
Generally, the perception or impression a lot of people come away with when confronted with strong expressions of disgust with certain points of view on social issues, is that the person making them is coming from a place of insecurity or defensiveness.
Think about it, usually when people don’t feel threatened or backed into a corner their language and tone is more neutral and academic. When people start feeling less secure, threatened, attacked, their expressions become more aggressive or hostile. So maybe that’s why people keep telling you they think you feel threatened, if you’ve been similarly abrupt and blunt expressing your point of view in the past.
However, I’ll take you at face value and believe you are just tired of the way things are going, the way things are discussed and you are genuinely annoyed by Tim Cook because he’s always bringing up topics or points of view you’d rather the CEO of a tech company leave out of his public discourse.
However, I am curious at what you have against women-specific organizations when there are still very many exclusively for men, for example a lot of fraternal organizations and lodges that exempt women or relegate them to auxiliary groups. Not that I myself have a problem with that. I’d look terrible in a fez.
With women still and possibly always a minority in the IT field, it makes sense they would want to network or exchange information to help them navigate with their unique concerns and questions through a male dominated field. A lot of these organizations hold workshops to help women work and communicate more effectively with men and that’s a win for everyone.
If it makes any difference, there are organizations for male nurses to help them navigate the traditionally female dominated nursing profession. There are quite a few bit here is one http://www.aamn.org/
Someday some gender specific organizations in occupations will feel anachronistic and die out. Others may remain relevant and viable.
I am willing to consider your argument, but you need to back this up with statistics. I'll show some of mine.
We can start here with impressions - where most women agree sexism is still common, most men do not.
This is making the same blanket style statement as the poster you replied to. I do not see how demonizing an entire subpopulation helps.
Perhaps instead we could illustrate this as...
There is a wealth gap and an income gap.
The income gap seen within the US is notably significant among industrialized nations.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html
And it varies considerably by state.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/us-states-by-gini-coefficient.html
It is increasing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics...t-for-us-individuals-families-and-households/
The net worth of white families is, on average, significantly higher than black or Hispanic families.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econ...-the-survey-of-consumer-finances-20170927.htm
And there is a significant gender wealth gap, but less significant than quoted.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jpmorgan-on-gender-wealth-gap-2017-5
And there are indeed industries where studies suggest that women are still pretty far from being welcomed into the workplace. Economics is one of them.
https://www.economist.com/news/chri...n-could-be-problem-economics-itself-women-and
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41571333
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2018/01/daily-chart-11
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...ers-are-more-readable-face-longer-publication
And in regards to who pays taxes
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ok-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/
Last edited:
I sincerely appreciate your civility. Having said that, the URL you provided was to an article written for English paper "The Guardian" a well known very left-leaning liberal paper. I read a small portion of it and it really just boils down to subjectivity. There are no statistics or facts that would sway me to believe anything they say.
[doublepost=1516230594][/doublepost]
Thank you for the thoughtful and understanding response.You probably are tired of it all and just being misinterpreted.
Generally, the perception or impression a lot of people come away with when confronted with strong expressions of disgust with certain points of view on social issues, is that the person making them is coming from a place of insecurity or defensiveness.
Think about it, usually when people don’t feel threatened or backed into a corner their language and tone is more neutral and academic. When people start feeling less secure, threatened, attacked, their expressions become more aggressive or hostile. So maybe that’s why people keep telling you they think you feel threatened, if you’ve been similarly abrupt and blunt expressing your point of view in the past.
However, I’ll take you at face value and believe you are just tired of the way things are going, the way things are discussed and you are genuinely annoyed by Tim Cook because he’s always bringing up topics or points of view you’d rather the CEO of a tech company leave out of his public discourse.
However, I am curious at what you have against women-specific organizations when there are still very many exclusively for men, for example a lot of fraternal organizations and lodges that exempt women or relegate them to auxiliary groups. Not that I myself have a problem with that. I’d look terrible in a fez.
With women still and possibly always a minority in the IT field, it makes sense they would want to network or exchange information to help them navigate with their unique concerns and questions through a male dominated field. A lot of these organizations hold workshops to help women work and communicate more effectively with men and that’s a win for everyone.
If it makes any difference, there are organizations for male nurses to help them navigate the traditionally female dominated nursing profession. There are quite a few bit here is one http://www.aamn.org/
Someday some gender specific organizations in occupations will feel anachronistic and die out. Others may remain relevant and viable.
To respond to your question about what I have against female specific organisations is that they are simply discriminatory in its nature and in my opinion promote the idea that women are these helpless beings who cannot work themselves to the top. Your mention of male only organisations, I can see your point. Although I think you could have made a better case for yourself. Fraternal by definition means "of or like a brother or brothers." so it's by definition a male organisation and people who sign up to these organisations know this, so I really have no problem with that. Same goes for sororities. It's just when you start an all female (or all male for that matter) organisation to help perfectly capable women get in the door into an industry, albeit a male-dominated one, is just not fair.
For example: As I've laid out before, I currently have 2 girls in my class of about ~50 students. It's a software degree. These 2 girls chose on their own accord to take-on this course. They're perfectly capable of coding and doing everything the guys are doing. So in essence what these organisations are doing is making it easier for the very few girls, who already chose to do IT related course, to make it in the industry. Does that seem fair to you? Considering we're in the age of gender equality and what not!
I would also like to add that I have no problem with organisations who want to help communication between men and women or vice versa, but why make it women-only? Why not allow men to attend as well? I hope you understand where I'm coming from and I apologise for the long rant-like response.
Oh thank you for explaining. Your answer makes sense in many ways.
Yes, I think the men could be an asset to such organizations. I wonder if the male nurses ever wish to include the female nurses in their organization.
I would venture to guess the reason for the segregation is that the minority group in that profession probably have many unique concerns they want and need to discuss without feeling the need to self censor around the gender that predominates their profession. But I would not know firsthand. I’ve never had the the opportunity to join one when I was working. (I left the workforce just as my career opportunities were opening up because I had developed serious health problems that meant I could not both work and have children. I had to choose one or the other).
I imagine if the women and men who participate in these organizations ultimately find they are of no value, these gender based groups will wither away.
I don’t know if I would join one myself if I were still in the workforce. I was never much of a “joiner” and hated anything that took up my free time or took me away from my workday. There would have to be some really excellent catering to entice the likes of me.
I have read and gotten the impression they’re often a vehicle for networking. We are unfortunately still not always comfortable networking with members of the opposite sex. There’s too much of an awkward mingling of the social with the professional that not all people are comfortable with across the gender lines. It can be a nice opportunity for women to network and form social and business connections with the few other women in their profession. And the same for men who find they are a minority in theirs.
Like I said, someday a lot of these gender based organizations will feel anachronistic and die out. We just aren’t there yet. We ideally should be equal and our conditions and organizations should reflect that. But the reality is still not the ideal. We are slowly getting there. Some circumstances unfairly favor the men. Some, the women. It is my hope that these groups help provide support and help level the playing field where noticeable disadvantages exist. However I acknowledge at times they could do the opposite and can create the unfairness you discussed.
I certainly understand your frustration and dismay that that happens. It’s a reasonable concern. Real life is unfortunately very messy and requires more patience than any of us have to spare on any given day. I don’t know about you, but for times like that, I have coffee!
It’s been very nice having this discussion with you. You certainly do not seem threatened at all and I hope in the future you will continue to adeptly deflect such attempts to dismiss your point of view. You have insights that need to be heard. Thank you for sharing them with me.
I thought it was interesting to hear Tim Cook responsed to this young person’s email and agreed to speak with her. It is inspiring that Tim or the people he works with would catch this and take the time.
Sometimes topics like this are used to troll, but I was really happy to read some of the responses to those initial comments. I am especially appreciative of the least grumpy grumpymom ever for taking the time to engage.
Sometimes topics like this are used to troll, but I was really happy to read some of the responses to those initial comments. I am especially appreciative of the least grumpy grumpymom ever for taking the time to engage.
The actual sources of content are below it. The Guardian link is one to a survey examining the perception of gender bias in the workforce rather than actual evidence of it. The links lower in the post reference evidence that it is quite pronounced in some industries than others.
I think you should distinguish between observations of sexism and observations that can easily be explained by numerous other effects. For example, the mere presence of gaps (wealth, income, workforce %) does not say anything about their cause. Nobody denies that these gaps exist (and nobody denies that sexism exists). But the problem is a) the automatic attribution to sexism without even trying to understand the effects at work, and b) taking uninformed actions.
Unfortunately, the distortions caused by diversity programs promote sexism. Instead of accepting equal abilities but unequal interests as supported by science, diversity programs assume complete equality in everything. If women get access to certain programs easier than men, if women are promoted instead of men just because they are women, this automatically means that, statistically, a man who has achieved the same as a woman had to do more to get there, or had to do it better due to more rigorous selection.
Generalize the effect and you have (statistically correct) sexism. For example, in reference to one of your linked studies, let's create a fictional diversity requirement that journal X has to publish equal amounts of papers by women and men, even though there are only 20% female researchers working in that particular field. All else being equal (esp. unbiased distribution of ability among the researchers), the quality of papers submitted by men will have to meet higher standards and will in general be of higher quality. If you take the two equally sized groups of best female researchers who were able to publish and the best male researchers, and compare them, the average male researcher WILL ACTUALLY BE THE BETTER SCIENTIST than the average female researcher. And this would not be perceived bias, but simple math, statistically provable.
Obviously, nobody knows how big such distortion effects are in reality. But it is certain that they exist because they are specifically designed to promote unequality. And every additional diversity requirement will add more to it. On the other hand, whether sexism has anything to do with the observed gaps, and especially the extent of which, is all but certain in this day and age of equal opportunities.
