It's bad usage, but in sociological terms, women are a minority because they aren't the dominant subgroup.

> in sociological terms, women are a minority because they aren't the dominant subgroup.

This is a useful sentence to read, because it helps remind me that "sociological terms" have little or nothing to do with honest intellectual framing of topics.

I'm going with the idea that you generally misunderstood, rather than the idea that you are trolling.

Consider a monarchy. The king is the majority. It's hard to imagine a world where everyone you see doesn't have the same power and opportunity that we enjoy. But you can see that cultures have existed where one guy was more important than everyone else combined.

You and I know, a pointer isn't a dog. However, people are often irresponsible, and use jargon in common conversation. Take a moment, and consider what is "honest intellectual framing" and what is a "sociological term". I think that while you may disagree, the assertion that women have less power (aren't the dominant subgroup) is a fairly honest analysis.

I haven't commented here in months, and don't plan on replying, but like xkcd says... someone on the internet is wrong. Take a moment to consider the possibility your parent poster isn't a fucking moron.

I had largely the same reaction you did when I saw "minority" used that way.

You're right. "Minority" is a really bad word for what biohacker42 was trying to say, because many "minorities" (in terms of social status) are not numeric minorities. (Blacks in apartheid-era South Africa. Women throughout history.) As jfoutz mentioned, we both know a pointer is not a dog.

It's convenient that you misquoted me, too, because doing so leaves out the part where I already conceded that it's bad usage. Which leaves me at a loss as to what you're trying to add to the discussion--did you say something more than what I've already implied (and exhaustively reiterated here)?

female programmers most certainly are though.