this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
2702 points (97.1% liked)
Don’t You Know Who I Am?
3817 readers
1 users here now
Posts of people not realising the person they’re talking to, is the person they’re talking about.
Acceptable examples include:
- someone not realising who they’re talking to
- someone acting more important than they are
- someone not noticing a relevant username
- someone not realising the status/credentials of the person they’re talking to
Discussions on any topic are encouraged but arguements are not welcome in this community. Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
The posts here are not original content, the poster is not OP and doesn’t necessarily agree with or condone the views in the post. The poster is not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.
Rules:
This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:
- Be civil, remember the human.
- No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name calling.
- Censor any identifying info of private individuals in the posts. This includes surnames and social media handles.
- Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
- Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum. If you wish to discuss how this community is run please comment on the stickied post so all meta conversations are in one place.
- Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
- Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
- No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
- No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.
PLEASE READ LEMMY.ORG’S CITIZEN CODE OF CONDUCT: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
PLEASE READ LEMMY.WORLD’S CODE OF CONDUCT: https://lemmy.world/legal
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Basically they're scared and intimidated. Here is a person who is beautiful and intelligent and has made something of herself and that highlights their own inabilities.
I think sexism is only part of the problem, they'd have a similar response to a male model who had a successful tech career.
I'm not sure tbh. This reeks of a regular techbro sexism, not a regular insecurity. Intelligent male model will be a point of envy, not hate
I'm involved in technology and race mountain bikes on the side. Other than the occasional "it must be nice to be fit" comments from the neckbeard techbros, they're not as openly hostile to me as they are to women who are in tech. There is definitely a strong sexism part of the equation.
I'm sorry to tell yuu this bro, but nobody gives a shit about mountain bike racers. I don't think a bunch of poorly socialized boys who were proficient with computers were ridiculed by mountain bike racers when they were young. Good looking people on the other hand...
What kind of school did you grow up in to not have the nerds vs athletes click battles?
We did have it, it's just that mountain bike racers were considered nerds too.
That's certainly a part of the problem here, but let's be honest: how often do tabloids or other low effort media publish such "inspirational" stories that turn out to be absolute bullshit. Like the 10 year old who invented some quantum stuff, but actually his father just let him play around with some tools in the lab.
This story here unfortunately fits exactly this pattern, but apparently just happens to be true.
Even when they're not factually bullshit, the rhetorical framing is often ick. I'm disabled, and something that I, and a lot of other disabled people hate is "inspiration porn". It's patronising as hell, and most frustratingly, if you try to call it out, people get extra offended because they refuse to see how otherising and infantilising people isn't the same as advocating for them.
What's the point of your comment? "There's sexism, sure, but it's only 90% sexism!" Why downplay what's going on? How often do you SEE THIS happen with men shitting on men? Come the fuck on.
Not everything needs to be fact checked.
Whether this is real or fake, it doesn't matter. I'm never gonna encounter her in any way, there is no relevance in it. If I read stuff like that, I think "good for her" and move on.
What's the point of being super sceptic of something that has no impact on you?
That's a fair point^^
It's not necessarily being "scared and intimidated".
We're just conditioned that when someone at the top of their field talks about their hobbies / interests / skills outside that field, it's very often a very shallow level of skill. Why? Because being at the top of your field in almost anything takes a lot of focus. You don't really have time to develop other skills / hobbies.
There are countless examples. Actors or athletes who release music albums that are just awful. Celebrities who write really amateurish novels which would sink into obscurity if they didn't have a famous person's name attached.
Making the problem worse, often the entourage of those rich and famous people is filled with sycophants who heap praise on the celebs. That leads them to believe that they really are good at their hobbies.
Then there's the fact that the world is so hungry for celebrity gossip and special interest stories that "journalists" often get a tiny nugget of information and use it for the basis of an entire article. So, if a celebrity mumbles something about liking their backyard barbecue, it will spawn countless articles about how that celeb is an expert at the art of BBQ, they might release their own branded BBQ sauce, their skills were endorsed by some celebrity chef, etc.
So, given all that, it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical when you hear something like "This [insert celebrity type here] can [insert hobby here] like an expert!"
You know damn good and well that if this was a hot dude that could do these things, the comments towards them wouldn’t be nearly as hostile.
This is a complete strawman, and pretty much completely wrong. If you look at the heroes of the IT community, Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak, Gabe Newell, or the lesser known Terry A. Davis. These are not conventionally attractive people living a glamourous lifestyle.
This does not mean this post is not sexist, but the strawman of "if this was a male they would idolise him" is just complete horseshit, and in no way better than assuming a "pretty little woman" couldn't do programming.
You're moving the goal posts. I said if this was a hot dude the comments wouldn't be nearly as hostile. Both of us know this, but you're busy insisting these incels are only making these comments because the media or some bullshit. You know they're doing it because they're jealous and you're no better for trying to justify their bullshit.
But didn't you move the goal posts first?
No. I made a pretty clear statement that if this was a hot dude, the commenters wouldn’t be as hostile. That’s setting the goal posts. Saying I said they’d be praising the man is moving them.
And you made that statement on a post that was about a different statement.
"This [insert celebrity type here] can [insert hobby here] like an expert!"
The original post doesn't say "like an expert", but you continued to create a strawman argument focused mostly on this aspect.
No, no. The vast majority of people who are interested and good at computer science are men or male. It is the truth. The world is also replete with women who say things like this, but basically can only write hello world to the console.
But exceptions exist and people who don't fit the common stereotype absolutely deserve to be allowed to do what they're good at.
So you learned enough about the history of computing to make claims like this, but not enough to know that practically all the first programmers were female and some even pioneered theory, techniques, and languages? For example Grace Hopper, who you are erasing from history here.
I call bullshit. Either you purposely ignore these facts, or your sexism prevented them from being remembered when you learned them.
Don't forget Ada Lovelace, the first computer engineer and the namesake of the Ada programming language.
She was a okay mathematician that did indeed "get" Babbages nonexistent machine (I forgot the name of it, analytic engine?). She wrote incredibly simple software for it. Who knows what she would have accomplished if she had a proper computer, but she didn't and we'll never know.
In the immediate Postwar years there were indeed some gifted women in the field, but they were never the majority.
The person who coined the term software engineer was a woman.
There is a reason several people have pointed out facts to you. You clearly want to deny the fact that women were very much a part of computer ENGINEERING
You're just being pedantic. Women were extremely pivotal in the creation of computing [insert more specific subfields if you want, doesn't change anything]. Your comments certainly all read as refuting this. It's not controversial to the non-incel community.
Oh so then perhaps you can link to these 1940-1960 statistics that somehow neatly and consistently segmented out computing roles into easy to define categories despite the fact that it was a new field and the lines between subfields were and always have been changing? Got a link handy?
Oh weird, apparently no such link
Grace Hopper literally invented the first software compiler.
If you dismiss software engineering as a form of engineering, then you have no qualifications to be an engineer and no business even commenting.
The original post didn't say the word 'majority'. I did not say the word 'majority'. Hell, you didn't even say the word 'majority', until that last comment I'm responding to anyways.
You said the word 'backbone'. Well, when you think about it, aren't compilers like the backbone of software engineering?
You're not gonna get very far writing your new fancy game by manually flipping all the bits one by one with a panel of switches, you need a compiler.
Why do you think the human computers weren't the majority of people creating the first electronic computers?
Yeah very true, and credit where credit is due. The majority of "computers", when that was a job title, were women who were very good at running quick calculations.
I'm not so sure I'd call them "mathematicians", but they were very good at what they did.
In my book mathematician implies someone who studies mathematics academically. Not someone who performs calculations for their job. By no means am I downplaying these women. In fact I'm certain they could do a lot of this stuff quicker than many or all academics.
Ada Lovelace, who was mentioned in one of these comments as the first programmer, was a proper mathematician.
Lol, I'm sure. They invented the integrated circuit, the instruction set, and most modern day programming languages. But all of their achievements were hidden by mean, jealous men.
Typically, smart and powerful people have the wherewithal and know-how to not let that happen, let alone en masse. That's part of why we might consider them smart.
The reality is that there were many female computer operators. Engineers and inventors, not so much. A few exceptions, but they were, as I have said, the exceptions.
Motherfucker, women used to be the vast majority of programmers. A woman was the one who led the team that wrote the code to get to the moon. She also coined the term 'software engineer.' So don't give us that bullshit that the vast majority that are good at computer science are men. And no, the world is not replete with women who claim they can choose but can only print to the console. Where the fuck have you come across that?
People like you are the main barrier for women getting into programming.
Absolute moron. I knew damn-well that you were going to mention Hamilton at some point because every simping imbecile does. Every single exception to the general rule, that males are more interested in IT in general, is proclaimed across the world as though it disproves said rule. Look, these women are smart, capable and deserve all the success they've attained. That does not mean there is not a general rule.
People who are generally smart and capable should not care about my approval to enter into programming. They'd do it because they love it, not for someone's approval. Frankly, if some woman doesn't enter into programming because of something some rando like me said online, I very much doubt she was much interested in it to begin with.