Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Hansen <me+python@ixokai.io>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language
Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 01:02:16 -0700
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <mailman.450.1462608139.32212.python-list@python.org>
References: <ngg56k$t7f$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.413.1462474786.32212.python-list@python.org> <d2733a28-f4d9-491b-b04c-2fed46d4bde5@googlegroups.com> <572d620a$0$1617$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <dp5h53F7udrU1@mid.individual.net> <1462608136.590130.600748113.38B9CEA2@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <dp5h53F7udrU1@mid.individual.net>
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:108260

On Fri, May 6, 2016, at 11:43 PM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Who is setting and enforcing this quota, and given that only about 1 in 20
> > Python programmers is a woman, do you think men are seriously missing out
> > on any opportunities?
> 
> Suppose there are 100 people wanting to ask questions, and
> there is only time to answer 10 questions. If the 1 in 20
> ratio holds, then 5 of those people are women and the other
> 95 are men.
> 
> Alternating between men and women means that all of the
> women get their questions answered, and only 5/95 of the
> men. So in this example, if you're a woman you have a 100%
> chance of getting answered, and if you're a man you only
> have a 5.26% chance.
> 
> Whether you think this is a good strategy or not,
> beliavsky is right that it's not "equal".

This is a pedantically and nonsensical definition of "equal", that
ignores the many, many reasons why there are 1 in 20 women in that
conference. Its looking at the end effect and ignoring everything that
leads up to it, and deciding its instead special rights -- this is the
great argument against minorities getting a voice, that their requests
for equal *opportunity* are instead *special rights* that diminish the
established majority's entrenched power. 

Those women are dealing with suppression, discrimination and dismissal
on multiple levels that leave them in a disenfranchised position. 

Recognizing those faults and taking corrective action is fundamentally
an act in the name of equality. 

Correcting for inequalities can not, itself, be a purely "equal" task
done in pure blindness of the contextual reality of what is going on in
the world. 

-- 
Stephen Hansen
  m e @ i x o k a i . i o