BBC Admits Its Famous ‘Women Write Better Code’ Story Was Fake News
This seems like a classic &#x27;counter SJW&#x27; article - i.e: an angry counter at the supposed &#x27;feminist oppressors&#x27;.<p>The BBC overhyped a bit of research - this happens <i>constantly</i> with research. They take a study, misrepresent it&#x27;s findings a little and make it sound bigger than it is. Doesn&#x27;t make it right, but it&#x27;s hardly &#x27;fake news&#x27;. The story was reporting on a study that happened, and the content was - if a little quick to jump to conclusions - based on reality.<p>The article has been corrected to &quot;Github coding study suggests gender bias&quot; - while different, clearly it&#x27;s the same underlying story.<p>Meanwhile, this article casually claims that the original title is wrong - not just an unsubstantiated claim:<p>&gt; While this is a possible conclusion, it is far from being  the only, or in this case, the most accurate one.<p>They claim there is a more accurate conclusion, which is...<p>&gt; In fact, the study authors themselves later admitted that they had left out a pretty crucial point from their analysis: their data also revealed that women coders are in fact “harder on other women than they are on men.”<p>This is a point that doesn&#x27;t refute the core idea, nor is it a conclusion to replace the given one, it&#x27;s just another bit of data which the article appears keen to promote as though it is particularly important. Presumably because the author thinks this is some kind of &#x27;men vs women&#x27; war and that &#x27;women do it too&#x27; makes anything OK.<p>Don&#x27;t get me wrong, the original study has issues - without knowing how many pull requests &#x27;should&#x27; have been approved (which is probably impossible to judge well), it&#x27;s hard to say the meaning of increased rejections - maybe more rejections show better code because it is structure so that flaws are more obvious to a reader?<p>Clearly, the original reporting of it has issues too - but this article seems drummed up to create anger. Unless you are getting equally angry at the other exaggerated research articles in equal measure, it seems targeted.<p>Edit:<p>Also on this website &quot;Feminist Mother Rejects Infant Son Because of His Gender&quot;. This article talks about the piece &quot;Having a son went from a dilemma to being the most valuable lesson of my life&quot; - which talks about a mother who imagined having a daughter, found out she was having a son, and talks about the fear she had realising she was going to have to explain about feminism and women&#x27;s issues, which she didn&#x27;t know how to do. She then goes on to explain she got past this fear (before he was born) and resolved on how to teach him. The article from this site, however, talks about rejection and child abuse, makes her out to be a crazy woman that hates men - totally unfounded.<p>I suggest reading both to see how much they twist that one:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;heatst.com&#x2F;culture-wars&#x2F;feminist-mother-rejects-infant-son-because-of-his-gender&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;heatst.com&#x2F;culture-wars&#x2F;feminist-mother-rejects-infa...</a><p>vs<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.smh.com.au&#x2F;lifestyle&#x2F;news-and-views&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;having-a-son-has-gone-from-being-a-dilemma-to-teaching-me-the-most-valuable-lesson-of-my-life-20161220-gtex2e.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.smh.com.au&#x2F;lifestyle&#x2F;news-and-views&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;havin...</a><p>It&#x27;s another example, to me, of a &quot;counter SJW&quot; movement that only ever seems to invent enemies. The only place I have ever seen or heard these &#x27;crazy extremist feminists&#x27; they claim are everywhere is in the odd forum thread, hardly a real issue. Instead, it&#x27;s mostly crazy interpretations of normal pieces dressed up to install a fear in men that women are somehow out to get them - not unlike the Daily Mail straight-white-christian-man fear that seems to have driven brexit&#x2F;trump.