It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    25 days ago

    Did they ever mention the history of the CS field generally being sexist towards women? Yes, of course. WTH? Why would you ever think someone passionate about this would not bring that up?

    I would also argue that women being “averse” to terms like killing is equally presumptive Ok I think you’re intentionally misinterpreting my words now. This is not a dichotomy.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      25 days ago

      Yes, of course. WTH? Why would you ever think someone passionate about this would not bring that up?

      well that’s good to know, i figured they would, but that seems like a more historically relevant point to me.

      Ok I think you’re intentionally misinterpreting my words now. This is not a dichotomy.

      i mean maybe, but it just seems weird to me that we would establish that women comprehend words like “kill” differently, and that we should cater towards that, while we’ve spent the last like, thirty years if not more trying to move away from these things.

      I mean we literally have deer hunting seasons to cull the population of deer as they no longer have natural predators, what’s the harm in using the term “killing” for referring to ending a process. It makes sense when you think about it. A process is born or created, and then it may fork, or it may not, and those forks may be killed, they may not be, the mainline process will inevitably be killed, either at its own discretion, or forcibly. through a termination.

      It might be violent, but it’s a process, it’s literally just lines of code that are being run. There’s nothing special or fancy behind them, it makes perfect sense to use terms like “killing a process” and “stop” and “terminate” for shutting them down, it’s immediately interpreted.

      we know from raising children that it’s not good to shield them from potential allergens (the get allergies if you do that) and that it’s also good to expose them to generally more unsanitary environments (they build up a better immune system response ability) as well as encouraging them to do things they may or may not be capable of, teaching them how to deal with failure, and teaching them how to deal with the general pain and suffering of life. Why have we suddenly decided that “maybe we shouldnt use kill as a terminology to describe the act of ending a processes lifetime” that seems inconsequential to me in the grand scheme of things.

      There might be data to support it, but i think the data to support that we simply don’t push younger girls towards the field of CS is significantly more evident. It has a historical basis, and it tracks with what we’re doing today, and the majors and degrees that they’re focusing on as well. While we’re here, we should probably also do something about younger men in the education space, and the world at large, as they don’t exactly have anything to aspire to or focus on.

      just another moderately relevant example here to extend upon my point.

      The one thing men had was control and responsibility over women when they didn’t have rights. Now that they have rights, we haven’t exactly changed anything in regards to how we raise boys, and we’re surprised when they start following the likes of tate and the manosphere crowd. Women haven’t previously had this opportunity to the same level they do now, so they’re still taking advantage of it because they can. But we’ve basically forgotten about an entire sect of society accidentally at this point.

      I don’t think it’s intentional, i just think it’s a consequence similar to the decline of the tradesman over the years. Now those jobs have generally better prospects than getting into college, and they’ve become a very tempting opportunity.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        25 days ago

        There are many problems and many solutions. We don’t need to focus on one problem and pick only one solution.

        My entire point here was that there is concern that industry jargon can be accidentally exclusionary to some demographics, interest and research on it isn’t new, and the effect is usually a “death by a thousand cuts” type thing, like migroaggressions are.

        I didn’t specialize in this, so my knowledge on it is from one part of one class I took like 15 years ago, but I can absolutely see how it could matter.

        People aren’t rational and society doesn’t raise us rationally. We can be perfectly ok with something in one context but not ok with it in another context. We can be ok with one thing, but not ok with another similar thing.

        I agree there are deeper societal issues about how we raise boys and the incentives/traumas we put on kids. That doesn’t mean we cant pick off this low hanging fruit at no cost.
        It’s important to meet people where they are, not where we think they should be.