[annabellish]

The point is that when _anyone_ thinks about role models in computer science and programming, all of the options fit into a pretty small niche. It _is_ relevant to have those examples, because there's a world of difference between nobody having any role models at all, and every role model being from one group.

Think about how much the existence of these role models obviously matters to you, and realise that nobody wants to take that away from _you_, they simply want to give it to other people as well. When I look at the field of programming, I don't see people like me. Things are getting better, but we still live in a world where if you aren't a white man then you have no examples to point to and say "look, I can do this!"

And you might say, "well, I never needed that", and that might be true - I obviously never needed it either - but appreciate that whether you needed it or not, you _had_ it, and a lot of other people do need it, whether white man or not. We all need role models to aspire to. Stop acting like other people getting the things you've always had is taking anything away from you.

[doorbumper]

Those four role models don't look like me, and I think they're all awful examples of people someone should look up to. But you need to acknowledge both sides. Stop being so stubborn and look at it objectively. We do need more diversity in role models, however by saying you want less of the current role models you are initiating a direct attack. It's tricky business either way. But perhaps it would be better to say that you wish four great role models that look like you also held such prominent mindshare.

[annabellish]

>We do need more diversity in role models, however by saying you want less of the current role models you are initiating a direct attack.

Literally nobody is saying this. If people are reading "we should have more role models who aren't men" as "we should have fewer male role models" then that is _their_ problem, not a legitimate point which needs to be debated.

[cup-of-tea]

Did you even read the post? It says he wants more Grace Hopper rather than more male role models. It's an absurd and offensive thing to say but unfortunately one which will be cheered in many echo chambers.

Practically speaking, how can anyone make more role models that satisfy some arbitrary appearance standard? The implication is that we have those role models because of their appearance and reject equally deserving ones of other appearances. Again that's absurd and offensive.

[annabellish]

"I'd rather have more X" != "I want less Y". This is not a zero sum game.

[marcstreeter]

<throws wrench> ... why does X need role model X? Can't an X have role model Y? Why wait for there to be role model anything. Those who want to come in, come in!

[annabellish]

Some X don't. I didn't. Some X do.

Realise that you're talking about human beings, not machines. Human beings are raised from birth in human society and do not make decisions like "what kind of things do I want to be interested in?" in a perfectly logical and informed manner.

When you come across popular figures in any area, if they look like you the immediate reaction is "wow, so I could do that too?". If none of them look like you, then the reaction is not that. You might end up doing that thing anyway - no corellation is 100% - but the idea that children have role models that they can relate to is not some hard hitting hot take.

[cup-of-tea]

> The point is that when _anyone_ thinks about role models in computer science and programming, all of the options fit into a pretty small niche.

Men are not a "niche" and, again, I really don't care that those people all have penises. To equate Donald Knuth and Steve Jobs because of their genitalia is absurd. Those men have actually done things and it is those things that we might choose to admire.