swa14

Hell, software engineering isn't even engineering.

'you will discover that software engineering has accepted as its charter "How to program if you cannot.".'

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036...

"Software engineering" has little to do with engineering and its principles and everything with applying buzzwords to squeeze the most money out of whomever was suckered into paying for the project.

"Yes, most girls JUST don't like to go into IT."

I'm sorry but that's religion, not science. There's an observable difference, which is maybe related to biology, society, or maybe something else completely. What's it's not is magic. Things don't "just" happen; they happen for a myriad of reasons.

"Two years ago feminists said that girls are "too smart" to go into IT."

Whatever alleged feminists (of both sexes) have said at some point in time, is not that relevant. The blog posts we're discussing gives an experience and a data point. It points out that in this case, the prevalent gender-schism as perpetuated by commercial interests, might not be in the best interests of her child. And if she had not "investigated" this, her daughter might have (over time) closed of a route of development (not just by this one incident of course), that, large and by, is considered to be an accomplishment. To what degree remains an open question, but it should be clear to even the most casual observer that it cannot simply be ascribed to "biology" and be done with it. I'm sure the girl can later on in life decide to pursue her heart-felt wish to become a hairdresser, or a nurse, if she so desires. Or maybe she will be flogged into pursuing a career in science by her "feminist" mom. But either way it is not that relevant to the question.

"Oh, and let me tell you another non-pc truth that is so unpalatable for you:"

It is neither unpalatable nor palatable for me. I don't understand why you would assume so, or whether that particular truth would interest me.

I will leave you to your thoughts.

"Easy: Look at the gender balance in engineering, and you'll find that there are not many women."

True but irrelevant. It's the "just" in "most girls just don't like technology" I object to, like it's an innate aversion against technology that can't be overcome.

"Another issue is, and this is a highly non-pc one, that the female IQ distribution doesn't reach the same highs (and lows) as male IQ distribution."

Irrespective of being true or not, engineers, for example, would mostly be placed in the higher ranges. If any difference in the distribution of intelligence could account for the gender imbalance in technical occupations, the difference would be markedly less than would be expected from a potentially deviating IQ distribution.

Regarding "brain differences: it's called spatio-relational reasoning."

Seeing how there are, in absolute numbers, even if not in relative numbers, many women who excel in highly technical occupations and environments, this does not account for any differences, unless it could be shown that this particular subset of women have a different "male spatio-relational reasoning" part of the brain, as opposed to other women.

I do not agree or disagree that biology might have part in a difference in interest in technology in men and women. The point is to identify which part if any. And even if it is ultimately shown that there are biological limits to technology adoption by women in the high ranges of (say) 75%, that still means there are 25% who might be persuaded to become involved in technology by a change in societal behaviour instead of being "sucked into" what at this time is a stereotypical profession for a gender.

"most girls just don't like technology"

The "just" in that line needs a [citation needed], and a pretty good one at that.

"There are differences between male and female brains, and this is why they prefer different activities."

That might be true, but unless it's shown that these differences lie in the mental faculties that govern the skills for math and engineering, these differences are moot.

"Read up on science before making your absurd statements."

Not to sound too smarmy, but it should be easy for you, all read up on the relevant science, to cough up the relevant citations then eh ?

"just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls."

We just call them 'robots'

"Blame biology but not society." The larger point is not to assign blame, but to improve the situation if possible.

There's nothing keeping men from wearing skirts in public either. But most of us do not do so because of gender differences ingrained in out society.

Identifying yourself by your gender can be harmless and doesn't need to be detrimental to society or equal treatment. But the premise of the blog is "the virtues of Legos for teaching math and engineering concepts to children."

If this premise is taken as true, this particular distinction in gender is harmful to equality of the genders. It's not just that the particular pink set reinforces certain stereotypes, but also that it's simpler and requires less abstract thought to put together.

That said; I'm sure the people at lego have done their market research, and have found that girls (or their mothers) find the "girly" sets more pleasant. Also the people at the outlet will have their reasons for a "blue isle" and a "pink isle".

I guess the morale of the story is for the parents. To not let themselves fall into the trap of the largest common commercial denominator, but to drag your daughter/son at least once through the "wrong isle" when buying toys in an unbiased manner.

">Richard felt that this "ports tree" of ours made OpenBSD non-free. He came to our mailing lists and lectured to us specifically"

to complement this story a little. rms had heard from one source or another that OpenBSD was "completely free" too (probably based on their hard and much appreciated work on wifi drivers and blobs), and looked into the matter to see if it could be included in the list of FSF endorsed operating systems (which thus far have only GNU/Linux systems). He found references to non-free software in the ports tree and wrote to the openbsd mailing list to ask for clarifications. There were actually a few saner voices who politely stated that was the intent and that OpenBSD as a project had a different definition of "free" and as such should not be included in the officially endorsed FSF-list.

Of course, for the less stable elements, it was a good pretext to scoff and insult the the man. Some even riled on and created a song about it. OpenBSD is a fine operating system, but for a normal person the culture around it can be quiteoffputting.

You must mean the OpenBSD guys.

FreeBSD is pretty much neutral on the GPL, but BSD licensed software is sort of their "thing", so it's natural they'd prefer a BSD licensed compiler.

NetBSD used to be pretty hostile until control was wrested from wasabi systems which disliked the GPL because it prevented them from closing down GPL software.

Dragonfly never really took a position, so it's safe to assume they're neutral too.

That leaves only the OpenBSD guys, of whom (some of) the vocal part thinks anything not OpenBSD is a joke.

I think that's a bit more of a qualifier than "The BSD guys", most of which don't particularly care about phasing out GNU (even though that happens when accumulating BSD licensed software in their OS), some of which are sympathetic but simply like BSD systems more, and what seems to be a fringe minority which is actually hostile for one reason or another.