What's worse, you have embarrassed a member in good standing in this community while doing this, and brought shame to perlmonks for having such a pointless discussion.

Please do not reply to this post, I will not make any further points. I will not cast a -- vote on your post, because I feel it has received enough bad attention already. Next time you feel inclined to share something with the community that seems broken, remember: "select is broken".

Anonymous Monk

^* In PL/1, if you tried to say "25 + 1 / 3", the result was 5.333...; not 25.333. This was because of many "reasonable assumptions" the programmer's made in the logic of PL/1.

In a gender-myopic society like the US, maybe. On the Net, when I have no clue (or desire for such a clue) as to the genders of people around me ... no. It's not reasonable.

It is reasonable to view such extremely competent female coders as role models.

I would hope you also view merlyn, tye, and japhy (to name a few) as role models as well! The root cause of why there are so few <gender> in <profession> is precisely because people differentiate between the genders. Gender should NEVER be an issue. Ever. If a woman wanted to be a fireman, great! Just make sure she can lift 250 pounds and carry it 50 feet down a ladder. Most men can't do that. That's all I care about.

It is reasonable therefore to be disappointed if 'Abigail' is a man. 'Abigail' may be a marvelous person. He may not have had to overcome the stereotype of the young male hacker.

No. It is NOT reasonable to be disappointed. Is it important for a role model to have overcome great distress? What about the role model who didn't have to, yet still succeeded? There is too much of a victim-overcomes-strife mentality in the USA (and Europe) today. Just do your best and succeed! Whatever happened to that?!?

What I'm saying, sierrathedog04, is this - you have said "Aw, shucks. <Name> isn't a member of <Group>, so they aren't a role model." Put like that, it doesn't sound so great, does it?

I still strive to achieve Abigail's ease of coding, sparse writing style (!), and willingness to work with those who probably piss her the hell off.

Yes. "her". Abigail is female, irregardless of the typist's plumbing.

Just think about it this way - is her code any worse cause the person typing is male? Is her knowledge any less cause the person typing is male?

Or, you could consider the reverse question. What if george suddenly was revealed as a female. george happens to be a great programmer, similar to Abigail's stature. Is george's knowledge suddenly greater simply because the typist is female?? I would seriously hope the answer is a very quick "No". Cause, if it's not, you have your own prejudicial demons to work through. No, you're not chauvinist. You're worse - you're a pitier. Instead of treating a person differently because of their gender, treat them the same, despite their gender. Try that for a change.