The original article on the problems with Computer Engineer Barbie got flag killed, although later the moderators restored it. For those who missed it during its dead time, here is the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8625092
The comment you're applying to seems correct enough without doubling down on it and using it as a barb. Sometimes people can just be wrong without being bad people.
How'd you even find this post? The community flag killed it within an hour of it being posted.
And the OP is being incredibly condescending to a project that is specifically trying to help deal with that exact condescension. Who is he to ask they rename their project? And specifically to make him feel better about the fact that it promotes feminism. He deserves derision.
There's probably no less effective way to persuade people than by pointing out that people who disagree with you "deserve derision". It's a uniquely bad rhetorical strategy. It makes you look like you care less about the underlying issue than you do about status.
The word "feminist" is simply a single word to replace the longer concept that women should have equal rights, equal opportunity to men.
A feminist hacker is a woman who is not content to be paid a lesser amount to a man for the same work, and will not accept being passed over for work opportunities she is fully capable of.
I have a feeling the kind of parents who (proactively) buy their kids Barbie dolls would probably be horrified if their daughters expressed an interest in software development.
You're correct. And if your daughter wants the toy, then I guess that's understandable.
But my point is that by design Barbie as a character is shallow, anti-intellectual, materialistic, snobbish, etc. I guess my assumption is that most parents who buy their kids the toy actually want that as a role model for their kids, and that this is inherently at odds with a toy that encourages kids to go into STEM or whatever.
First, the "character" you infer from Barbie isn't fixed in stone, or some universal truth. It's a kid's toy, it isn't going anywhere, and the way we react to it imprints on children. So don't dismiss efforts to change its connotations.
Second, be very careful when you dismiss "Barbie as a character", because it is awfully, scarily easy to end up dismissing attributes of women instead of just what you don't like about the character. Just for instance, it's easy to single out elements of "materialism" that stick out to you because you don't care about (I don't know, say) clothes, without giving equal time to shit guys are (as a demo) materialistic about, like (I don't know, say) cars, or FPS games.
Finally: my guess is that virtually none of the parents who allow their kids to have Barbie dolls are thinking exactly what you think they're thinking. I think you've forgotten about the fundamental attribution error.
Not really. Do you think parents who buy their kid a teddy bear want them to be grow up as a bear?
I think you're overthinking it. Kids will play the way the want, and get what they want. Just trying to make them eat mushroom is hard enough; you're unlikely to influence your kid's opinion on computer science by buying or not buying Barbie dolls.
That said, the book in question is definitely cringe-worthy.
If your kids are at an ordinary age to be interested in Barbie, I recommend not being "horrified" by anything they do. (That doesn't mean you have to give them Barbie dolls.)
Yeah, good point. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that I'm horrified by Barbie. It's like they're trying really hard to invent more ways for her to be shallow and ditzy.
Nevertheless I let my daughter consume the Barbieverse in moderation and wear her Princess dress to school every now and then. I just try to make sure she sees the world through other lenses as well.