Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Nobody thinks the artificial equalization provided by things like affirmative action actually is equality" Do you really think that if women dominated tech, people would be clamoring for more men in it? The few nurses I know have no trouble with the lack of men in their profession. Maybe they're just sexist?
I know a large number of librarians, some male and some female, and have had a discussion with most of them about the dearth of men in their profession. Most of them are concerned by it. So now we both have anecdotes, hooray!
Sexism
31–40 of 47 posts
Re: Sexism
#32Re: Sexism
#33If you follow the "forced to rename his opensource project" link[1] you'll find that the developer wasn't forced to rename anything. He had an IM conversation with a female developer friend and concluded: "The truth is that I really do want to encourage women in tech, and a project like testosterone does not do that." [1] - https://github.com/whit537/assertEquals/blob/master/ANNOUNCE...
Re: Sexism
#34This person is ostensibly is in favor of gender equality, but he believes that the problem has been overstated and it will simply solve itself. He believes that the world has become more gender-equal in the past decades not because of the relentless struggle of radical feminists, but because somehow men decided to become more civilized. Power struggles are a concept that's alien to him. He's too young to know about a…
I have to believe there is an alternative method for creating that change in society, though I unfortunately cannot think of one.
Re: Sexism
#35"If somebody cannot handle some crudeness, I’d postulate that he or she does not belong at a startup, regardless of gender. Because, when shit hits the fan, as it invariably does, we need people who can take it." What does crude language have to do with ability to handle startup situations where "shit hits the fan"? Someone who dislikes offensive language is somehow unable to handle fast-paced or stressful situations…
He's using it as a litmus test. When people are in fast-paced or stressful situations on the job, the mental "PC filter" can begin to break down, and people may say things they wouldn't have. You can condemn this, but it can happen to the best of us. When it does, it's nice to have a group of people whom the occasional uncouth or unthinking comment rolls off their back like water on ducks.
Re: Sexism
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's using it as a litmus test. When people are in fast-paced or stressful situations on the job, the mental "PC filter" can begin to break down, and people may say things they wouldn't have. You can condemn this, but it can happen to the best of us. When it does, it's nice to have a group of people whom the occasional uncouth or unthinking comment rolls off their back like water on ducks.
A couple of startup could have used people with better PC filters to keep them out of hot water and keep them out of the news with bad PR.
Re: Sexism
#37Yep, that's sexism in action, alright. He's exactly part of the problem, and the fact that he's resistant to changing it just shows how pervasive it is.
One of the toughest problems with structural inequalities is that they hide themselves from those who are benefited, largely because they are not directly and adversely affected by the inequality. This is exacerbated by the fact that on the whole, privileged people are not bad people, and coming to grips with how much the system favors you by virtue of being born into the right family can certainly make you feel like an undeserving wretch, profiting off of the misery of countless others. It is vastly more comfortable not to think about these things, particularly when thinking about them often makes you feel even worse when you realize there's no easy way to correct them.
But that discomfort is one price we, as privileged people, should pay. We should live in a shameful awareness of how we benefit from a system that undervalues and exploits people to greater and lesser degrees. We should recognize that denigration of things through sexist, ablist, racist or heteronormative language is an expression of indifference to the suffering of people. We should live our shame because it cannot match what we collectively allow to happen to other people, because otherwise we are passive participants in the continued oppression of other people, and because maybe being painfully aware of what we are doing to them will also make us aware of steps we can take to end the structural oppression.
Re: Sexism
#38This person is ostensibly is in favor of gender equality, but he believes that the problem has been overstated and it will simply solve itself. He believes that the world has become more gender-equal in the past decades not because of the relentless struggle of radical feminists, but because somehow men decided to become more civilized. Power struggles are a concept that's alien to him. He's too young to know about a…
I agree on all points except the endorsement of Etsy's initiative. I understand that affirmative action-type efforts can lead to changes which are favorable to the oppressed class, however they are still inherently hypocritical in that they shift that oppression to the opposing class. The popular argument is that once this has been done enough times, the two classes will end up on relatively equal footing and society…
Re: Sexism
#39https://github.com/whit537/assertEquals/blob/master/ANNOUNCE...
That mischaracterization aside, though:
I disagree with almost everything in this article, although I think I see where he's coming from. Yes, for us guys in tech, it can sometimes seem a bit scary watching how much damage it can do when a company gets hammered for sexism on Twitter. I think a lot of us get a sort of fear of that happening to us, and can get a bit defensive when we're told that we've done or said something sexist, racist, or otherwise bigoted. And because we are generally blind to the ways our privilege assists us every day, we tend to feel as though we're the ones being attacked, completely missing the fact that sexism still hurts women and holds them back.
>>We cannot beat sexism until gender is no longer an issue.
This point doesn't make much sense to me at all. I think this is supposed to mean that sexism is a problem when and only when people 'make gender an issue' - and to imply that discussing sexism makes everything worse because it naturally 'makes gender an issue.' The question here is natural - an 'issue' to whom? The whole point is supposed to be that sexism is an issue women in tech have to face even if we men have the privilege of completely ignoring it if we want. It wasn't an 'issue' in 1950 that women were forbidden from holding any authority in the office; it was just a fact of life.
What really bothers me about this standard of victory over sexism - 'when gender is no longer an issue' - is that it sounds distinctly like a request that people please shut up about it already. Particularly when coupled with the next sentence...
>>Keeping up the current level of discourse is making things worse.
... which, by the way, seems demonstrably wrong to me. Does anybody care to cite any statistics about women in tech right now? Women in business? I wonder if there's any metric by which the current discourse is actually making things worse. Sure, it's not fun to have to confront privilege and deal with inequality; but it makes us all better human beings, and that's the point.
Re: Sexism
#40It's very depressing to see very intelligent people knowingly ignore their received benefit from serious, dehumanizing and alienating structural problems. Nobody thinks the artificial equalization provided by things like affirmative action actually is equality - the hope is that by putting a finger on the scale in favor of equality of opportunity, eventually society (after several generations of induced equity) will…
> the hope is that by putting a finger on the scale in favor of equality of opportunity, eventually society (after several generations of induced equity) will actually become equitable Admirable principle, are you actually consistent with it? For instance, tall people get paid more (six inches = extra $4,734! [1]) and obese people less [2]. If it turns out that the combined adverse effect of being short and overweigh…
Are you searching for a way to make an ad hominem here, or just fishing for a contradiction? Either way, this seems like a backwards to make the argument. If you believe that the principle behind affirmative action would lead to absurdities if applied consistently, why not just come out and say so?
>What if you think it's not worth your while because it's being promoted through ineffective, destructive methods?
The statement was about whether the goal was worthwhile, not the means.