I simply cannot read any other point into this article. If you want to "create entanglements" in a language, that sound perfectly reasonable, but there's no reason to use the concept of a "feminist programming language".
By spliting languages in feminist, imperative, functional, object-oriented, and logic, you're telling me that the four traditional types of programming is somehow not suitable for a feminin mindset. Why else seperate them like that?
These seems like a project that has feminism tacked on to it's label for no good reason.
The idea is applying feminist theory, which (among other things) analyzes the way gender-normativity shapes intellectual constructions, to the field of programming languages, and see what would a programming language derived from that critique look like.
By spliting languages in feminist, imperative, functional, object-oriented, and logic, you're telling me that the four traditional types of programming is somehow not suitable for a feminin mindset.
I believe the idea of a feminist [X] is not that X is unsuitable for women, but that it was shaped by men (which is true in the case of most programming languages, and probably paradigms). Maybe this doesn't matter, and a programing paradigm made by women would look the same, but you don't know without exploring the possibility.
It's similar to Feminist Aesthetics[1], Feminist Epistemology[2], etc.
But how would comparing programming languages made by men versus ones made by women provide any useful info about what a 'feminist programming paradigm' is, might be, could be, etc.?
I was more than a little offended by the author conflating 'feminism' with para-consistent logic. Does no one else think that the idea of 'feminist' thinking embracing 'contradictions' smack of almost ridiculously self-caricatured sexism?
But how would comparing programming languages made by men versus ones made by women provide any useful info about what a 'feminist programming paradigm' is, might be, could be, etc.?
I don't think the idea is comparing existing implementations, but creating a new language, based on that analysis.
I was more than a little offended by the author conflating 'feminism' with para-consistent logic. Does no one else think that the idea of 'feminist' thinking embracing 'contradictions' smack of almost ridiculously self-caricatured sexism?
Maybe; I'm not familiar enough with the feminist critique of logic that the author mentions.
Comments
I simply cannot read any other point into this article. If you want to "create entanglements" in a language, that sound perfectly reasonable, but there's no reason to use the concept of a "feminist programming language".
By spliting languages in feminist, imperative, functional, object-oriented, and logic, you're telling me that the four traditional types of programming is somehow not suitable for a feminin mindset. Why else seperate them like that?
These seems like a project that has feminism tacked on to it's label for no good reason.
The idea is applying feminist theory, which (among other things) analyzes the way gender-normativity shapes intellectual constructions, to the field of programming languages, and see what would a programming language derived from that critique look like.
By spliting languages in feminist, imperative, functional, object-oriented, and logic, you're telling me that the four traditional types of programming is somehow not suitable for a feminin mindset.
I believe the idea of a feminist [X] is not that X is unsuitable for women, but that it was shaped by men (which is true in the case of most programming languages, and probably paradigms). Maybe this doesn't matter, and a programing paradigm made by women would look the same, but you don't know without exploring the possibility.
It's similar to Feminist Aesthetics[1], Feminist Epistemology[2], etc.
[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-aesthetics/
[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/
But how would comparing programming languages made by men versus ones made by women provide any useful info about what a 'feminist programming paradigm' is, might be, could be, etc.?
I was more than a little offended by the author conflating 'feminism' with para-consistent logic. Does no one else think that the idea of 'feminist' thinking embracing 'contradictions' smack of almost ridiculously self-caricatured sexism?
But how would comparing programming languages made by men versus ones made by women provide any useful info about what a 'feminist programming paradigm' is, might be, could be, etc.?
I don't think the idea is comparing existing implementations, but creating a new language, based on that analysis.
I was more than a little offended by the author conflating 'feminism' with para-consistent logic. Does no one else think that the idea of 'feminist' thinking embracing 'contradictions' smack of almost ridiculously self-caricatured sexism?
Maybe; I'm not familiar enough with the feminist critique of logic that the author mentions.