[J3] (SC22WG5.6224) [Fwd: [SC22] ISO Gender Action Plan Survey]

[Van Snyder]

Brian Friesen bfriesen at lbl.gov Tue Jun 2 17:45:16 EDT 2020 wrote

   Gender imbalance in computer science and other STEM fields has been
   studied in enormous depth... there is a wealth of information which
   can help us to understand it in more detail.

Bill Long longb at cray.com Tue Jun 2 18:25:30 EDT 2020 wrote

   Brian is right that the issue of few women in the computer field has
   been studied exhaustively.   While the WG5 effort is good-
   intentioned, I fear it is focused at the wrong end of the career
   pipeline. 

So it's not obvious why UN/ISO need J3 and WG5 to waste our time to
study it in further detail. Perhaps ISO should study the existing in-
depth studies instead of doing yet another one. These pointless and
repetitive studies might be part of the reason that ISO standards are
so expensive. If ISO stuck to standards instead of thought policing,
maybe their overhead would be lower.

My remark that the survey is absurdly irrelevant politics follows from
an observation that the only reason for such surveys is an asssumption
that "inadequate" diversity is somehow the fault of everybody who isn't
sufficiently diverse. I find that proposition intensely offensive.

   "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Gender diversity (or the lack thereof) is not the collective fault of
WG5 or individually of every WG5 member -- unless you're one who
believes that every social evil implies collective instead of
individual guilt. Any individual who opposes any kind of diversity can
rightly be castigated. Any group that opposes any kind of diversity as
a matter of policy can rightly be castigated. But I don't oppose
diversity, and wouldn't join a group that does. Assuming everybody is
at fault is profoundly offensive. It's not my fault that primary school
teachers who don't have any knowledge or understanding of science,
technology, engineering or mathematics start at a very early age to
convince minority and female children that "STEM are anti-social, and
even if they aren't, they're too hard for you." I observed this first-
hand with my own daughters, and my friends' neighbors', and colleagues'
children. This starts in our schools of education. My son-in-law had to
take a Master's Degree in education to get a certificate in the county
where he teaches. He calls it a "Master's Degree in Drivel."  That's
where UN/ISO should start if they really believe it's their
responsibility to address the problem. That's where I started, with my
local school board and PTA, and the California State Superintendent of
Public Instruction (whose daughter was in my Russian class in 1963).

Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash brycelelbach at gmail.com Tue Jun  2
21:13:02 EDT 2020 wrote

   I also want to make this clear: comments like this are not
   acceptable.

Thought police are not acceptable anywhere. If Bryce really believes
that thought policing is important, perhaps a career move from SC22 to
a twitter or facebook censorship position would be in order.
Fortunately, the WG5 mailing list does not yet have a censor.