Ruby was the most approachable language I found and sheparded me from my limits of bash scripting and Windows batch file scripting into the next level.
The author derides Ruby’s easy readability and syntax because it has issues scaling to large enterprise applications. I don’t disagree there is a performance ceiling, but how many hundreds of thousands of Ruby projects never rose to that level of need? The author is also forgetting that Ruby had Rubygems for easy modular functional additions years before Python eventually got pip.
I don’t write in Ruby anymore, and Python has evolved to be much more approachable than it was when Ruby was in its prime, however if someone came to me today saying they wanted the easier programming language to learn that could build full applications on Linux, OSX, Windows, and the web, I’d still point them to Ruby with the caveat that it would have limits and they would be better served by Python in the long run.
My point is that neither men’s nor women’s suicide are dismissed. A woman committing suicde is an equal tradegy to a man committing suicide. I’m not aware of any social convention which dismisses men’s suicide. This is what I meant when I said they are equal. Society treats men’s and women’s suicide the same.
First, you’re right on your very specific example, but that is a very very very small representation of job inequality. However, even in the case of male and female elementary school teachers where you’re calling out discrimnation, it is men that are out earning women in the same jobs as elementary school teachers.
Further, the scare around male teachers being around young children is a construct mostly from the last 20 to 25 years. Trying to use that as a statement to suggest that there is equal job (and pay!!) discrimination against both men and women would be disingenuous.
What you’re describing is an example of “toxic masculinity”. I see a lot of irony in you citing it here as supportive of a position that would negate the argument of discrimnation against women vs men.
In short, we both agree that “just man up” is a problem and that philosophy should be discarded, but it isn’t on women to fix that when its largely perpetuated by men.
Strawman. I didn’t say because men are in charge that all men are responsible. Thats a common strawman on this topic. Please don’t introduce it here.
You’re straying pretty far from the topic here. This isn’t “women leaders good, men leaders bad”. The point you’re replying to is specifically in the context of defining public policy in which discrimination occurs. There have been so few women leaders, and their tenue in modern politics so short that I’m not sure if we can really measure very much impact (positive or negative) on discrimination yet.