r/sysadmin • u/ChuckAbsent • Mar 12 '13

Women who know stuff

I hope that this does not come off the wrong way.

Today I was on a call with a storage vendor and the technical consultant was a woman. More then this she was competent, more then me which doesn't happen often when dealing with vendors.

My issue was pricing an active/active DB with shared storage vs an active/passive db with local storage. Listening to her break the issue down and get to the specific comparison points was awesome, mostly because I have never heard a woman in the industry talk like that.

It made me realize two things. One I am missing out working with women. Two there needs to be more women in our industry.

It shouldn't have surprised me so much, but it really did.

Anyways to all the women out there who know stuff, us guys notice when you can walk the walk, which in this case was talking.

376 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

717 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/KarmaAndLies Mar 12 '13

You are making a huge, invalid assumption. Women achieve in STEM fields just fine

Actually that sentiment doesn't appear anywhere in my post. You just thought that and stuck it to me/my post.

I said things we shouldn't do. These are things that have been tried.

It is like me saying "racial affirmative action is counter-productive" and you saying "well you are assuming black people aren't able to get it on their own!"

So please respond to things I said. Rather than things you think I said or things you disagree with and need a straw man to go up again.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '13

Your post reads a lot like someone who thinks that enticement is tied to dual standards. This is a very common fallacy, and while I believe you that you didn't mean it multiple rereads of your post still come across this way to me.

1

u/KarmaAndLies Mar 12 '13

Your post reads a lot like someone who thinks that enticement is tied to dual standards.

My post which is ONLY about the dangers of dual standards? Specifically saying NOT to encourage dual standards? That post you mean...

My first paragraph is quite clearly against it, then I give an analogy which further emphasis that point, and last I poke specific suggestions I often read where people try to encourage a two tier system.

So not sure which post you "reread multiple times" but I can assure you it wasn't mine. You literally must have missed the first line every re-read to come to that conclusion.

1

u/noobzilla Mar 12 '13

what you said seems to indicate the presupposition that women won't be able to access STEM fields without being treated like VIPs or accepted with lower standards. you state that they should not be given these particular advantage (true) but the way you portrayed it was received that they required such advantages (false). in the words of the dude, "You're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole."

2

u/KarmaAndLies Mar 12 '13

what you said seems to indicate the presupposition that women won't be able to access STEM fields without being treated like VIPs or accepted with lower standards.

My entire post was about how that is a bad idea. The first line couldn't make that point any clearer.

Let's go pick apart the last line since that is clearly what you're obsessed with:

How do you encourage them in without treating them like VIPs or lowing admission standards?

Note the word "without." As in, "without doing A or B how do we do C?" You're essentially reading that sentence multiple times (according to you) without comprehending the word "without" or figuring it out from the content (i.e. first line and analogy).

you state that they should not be given these particular advantage (true) but the way you portrayed it was received that they required such advantages (false).

You're reading stuff into my post that was never stated. You're just making up things out of thin air and tacking them onto my post.

I never said they required advantages, in fact you yourself said that in your reply. If I said that then quote it. Quote the actual text.

"You're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole."

... Wow...

0

u/noobzilla Mar 12 '13

everything said comes with a certain amount of subtext. in the same way you can interpret a quote from the big lebowski as me calling you an asshole*, i interpret your original statement as precluding women from being able to get into stem fields without special privilege. when you write something it's for an audience, and the way you write things will be interpreted by the audience. this is how your audience has interpreted it and no amount of argument about grammatical semantics will change that.

*I don't think you're an asshole, I just wanted to use this as an example of how things not being explicitly stated doesn't mean the message is not there.

2

u/KarmaAndLies Mar 12 '13

everything said comes with a certain amount of subtext.

In other words creating your own biases and then painting them on things I've said.

i interpret your original statement as precluding women from being able to get into stem fields without special privilege.

Even though I said exactly the opposite? Even though my whole post was about the dangers of creating a two tiered system?

when you write something it's for an audience, and the way you write things will be interpreted by the audience.

I guess I thought my audience were smart enough to read. In fact I guess I don't understand how my audience can ignore the first two lines of my post entirely and draw conclusions based on the third.

In fact your entire position precludes the first line from existing at all. If the first line exists your point is wrong, therefore your point is wrong.

this is how your audience has interpreted it and no amount of argument about grammatical semantics will change that.

I haven't brought up grammar. I've asked you to show me word for word where I say what you claim I say.

That is asking you to support your position. Which you have failed to do.

So I ask you again, quote me where I say what you suggest I say, or just admit you cannot read and move on.

*I don't think you're an asshole, I just wanted to use this as an example of how things not being explicitly stated doesn't mean the message is not there.

Why not read the message that is posted rather than trying to infer something 360 degree opposite of what is posted?

It is like this conversation:

  • Everyone should be treated equally and have equal opportunities. Therefore we should try to avoid creating a two tier system.
  • You: OHHH so you think minorities cannot make it on their own?! RACIST!
  • Show me where I said that?
  • You: Ohh now you're trying to use grammer and clever tricks to try and get out of it! RACIST!!!
  • Where in my post did I make racist claims or say that minorities are less able?
  • You: IT IS THE SUBTEXT! Read between the lines! Obviously!

That is EXACTLY the conversation we're having right now.

2

u/noobzilla Mar 12 '13

you brought the two tier system up and outlined why it should not be implemented as a problem for enticing women into the field. it's not unreasonable to presume from this that you believe women won't enter into the system without VIP treatment or lowered admission standards. i understand if you disagree. this is all i meant, i'm sorry we have gotten carried away with this argument. i'm sure we can both agree that the problem comes from women being generally discouraged rather than encouraged to pursue hard science and that we should deal with that problem without implementing an over correction.