Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 357 posts

Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)

#111

Post by toolz »

icanhackit wrote: post #75

Meredith makes some interesting points. What I think is missing on both sides of the conversation is that guys will attack whoever they can - male or female - and the things they'll do or say tend to be what will make you feel the smallest. People are hierarchical and like to probe where they sit on the imaginary ladder of life by having a dig at those in their proximity. Meredith alluded to an interesting point towa…

It's interesting to me that you only point out males that do that as if it's a gender specific quality. Where do you live that you haven't noticed women's infatuation with social pecking order?

Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)

#112

Post by afarrell »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #99
rayiner wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "shut up and build things" position embodies the tacit assumption that the world naturally pushes itself to an equillibrium that is fair and just. The assumption that racism and sexism result in elastic deformation of society that will go away as soon as you remove whatever force is warping it. I don't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If you bend it, it'll stay bent. You have to hamm…

The assumption that racism and sexism result in elastic deformation of society that will go away as soon as you remove whatever force is warping it. Yes, this is the economic assumption - folks are greedy and will exploit undervalued resources. I don't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If you bend it, it'll stay bent. This ignores the history of various oppressed groups who unbent themsel…

I'd argue the Irish have "unbent themselves". What prejudice or discrimination do the Irish face in contemporary America?

(My background: Grew up in the New England then moved to Austin. I look Mediterranean but my last name is Farrell and I play the bodhran...mediocrely)

I'm highly skeptical of the idea that this "unbending" is anything but a loud, activist process.

Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)

#113

Post by new_corp_dev »

lukeasrodgers wrote: post #40
et1337 wrote: post #20

The only problem I have with feminism is that it's often a movement against men, and not for women. I think they would be a lot more successful doing things to encourage women rather than disparage men. Meredith would not have had to write this article. Of course, it's a lot harder to be positive rather than negative.

I am a man, and feminist, and have spoken with many other feminists over the years, and read a lot of feminist literature, philosophy, cultural criticism, etc. In my experience I'd say less than 1% of feminism/feminists have anything to do with being against men. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything, actually, I could reasonably describe as promoting this view. Maybe some radical stuff from the 70s, like Fires…

Men are rapists and sexual offenders by default.

Men are violent.

If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.

Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.

Men should not have any reproductive rights.

Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.

Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it, even though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very heart of sexism.

Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed to have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.

Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a "male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-image issues.

Men cannot discuss their issues in a public forum without feminist protestors shutting down discussions.

If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own sexuality.

If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living room window.

Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the same crimes.

Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)

#114

Post by d23 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #71
roflc0ptic wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a cheap argument. I work with business analysts. At first, I didn't think well of them - their job is to turn business rules into software requirements. They kind of understand the business, and kind of understand software. My feeling, which I was embarrassed by, is that I could do their jobs better than they can. After having been here a while, I still feel the same way, but I'm not embarrassed by it…

> I think this is a cheap argument. I think "other careers don't require knowledge and ability like mine does" is the perfect example of illusory superiority. In my experience, competent people are pretty good at making their jobs look pretty easy, but actually trying to do it without their built-up knowledge and ability is another story. The feeling that you can do their job better than they can might fade if you ha…

> I think "other careers don't require knowledge and ability like mine does" is the perfect example of illusory superiority.

Actually that's plenty fine. Just do a quick thought experiment: a career like garbageman or janitor. Some careers require more knowledge work than others. There's nothing wrong with that.

When did this attitude of "everything's equal all the time and nothing's different" become so pervasive and accepted?

Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)

#115

Post by forgetsusername »

Kenji wrote: post #94
KingMob wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... more perceptive women, who see from the outset that they will have to work twice as hard to be only equally respected in the industry, should shut up and get to work instead of pointing out the unfairness? They should toil for a decade or two in order to have the requisite cred before complaining about injustice? You don't even know your "stop complaining and start doing" solution will work. Since the anti-fema…

Any company that arbitrarily discriminates against talented women cuts into their own flesh: The competition will be able to hire this talent. If I were an employer, I wouldn't give two cents about gender as long as the work is done well. As a consequence, female-friendly workplaces have a larger pool of talent to hire from, therefore, they would thrive against the misogynistic competition.

This was a standard argument in economics: any business or culture that systematically discriminates against women (or other races, or other "types") is going to be at a huge disadvantage in identifying talent. And if you believe talent is everywhere, it's hard to argue with.

Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)

#116

Post by afarrell »

geofft wrote: post #7

This is from 2013. It seems like a response to something, possibly one of Shanley's essays that's now no longer on Medium; I can't help but feel that I'm missing context as I get towards the end. This also seems like a straightforward example of how mainstream feminism is bad at intersectionality. Arguably both sides in this discussion are not great at it: I feel like there's probably a good answer that involves neit…

Is it wrong to object to Shanley for the same reason I object to Tourvalds?

Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)

#117

Post by jarcane »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #99
rayiner wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "shut up and build things" position embodies the tacit assumption that the world naturally pushes itself to an equillibrium that is fair and just. The assumption that racism and sexism result in elastic deformation of society that will go away as soon as you remove whatever force is warping it. I don't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If you bend it, it'll stay bent. You have to hamm…

The assumption that racism and sexism result in elastic deformation of society that will go away as soon as you remove whatever force is warping it. Yes, this is the economic assumption - folks are greedy and will exploit undervalued resources. I don't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If you bend it, it'll stay bent. This ignores the history of various oppressed groups who unbent themsel…

Those oppressed groups mostly came "unbent" because they stopped putting up with their oppressors and started killing them.

Are you even at all aware of the history of any of the examples you just cited?

Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)

#118

Post by onion2k »

justuk wrote: post #10

To work in technology, especially programming, you have to put a heck of a lot of effort into the subject. If it's not some legacy technology then that also means learning constantly (on your own initiative). That's what I like about programming, it rewards knowledge and ability - whereas other careers reward other attributes. I look at the Twttier-style feminists (I don't mean the traditional equality types, but the…

There are many examples of girls being actively refused entry in to technology classes[1] based on their gender. When the education system itself is prejudiced against women it's unreasonable to suggest women aren't getting tech jobs because they're unwilling to put in the effort - they can't because they're blocked from doing so.

[1] A recent example http://jezebel.com/girl-fights-library-s-boys-only-robotics-...

Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)

#119

Post by msandford »

afarrell wrote: post #112
yummyfajitas wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assumption that racism and sexism result in elastic deformation of society that will go away as soon as you remove whatever force is warping it. Yes, this is the economic assumption - folks are greedy and will exploit undervalued resources. I don't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If you bend it, it'll stay bent. This ignores the history of various oppressed groups who unbent themsel…

I'd argue the Irish have "unbent themselves". What prejudice or discrimination do the Irish face in contemporary America? (My background: Grew up in the New England then moved to Austin. I look Mediterranean but my last name is Farrell and I play the bodhran...mediocrely) I'm highly skeptical of the idea that this "unbending" is anything but a loud, activist process.

They don't face it in contemporary America, but they did face it when they started immigrating to the US many years ago. Given that you don't discern any anti-Irish sentiment I might argue that they did a fine job of "unbending themselves"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment

I'm not suggesting that "unbending yourself" is the only way to do things, just that it does seem as though it's possible. Maybe not easy, maybe not quick, but to suggest that "it can't be done" would be disingenuous.

Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)

#120

Post by emodendroket »

_bfhp wrote: post #58
myderpyaccount wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, but then it doesn't really make sense to argue about anything, because everything can be statically defined in terms of the environment it exists in. The part can be described in terms of the the discrete whole of which it belongs to, minus the part. I like to complain a lot, about many things, for like an hour, and then I get frustrated without observable resolution. It's all thinking noise, patterns, I prefer…

You can talk about different groups of actual physical women who have different types of thought about sex, sexuality, and men, because waves and groups of feminisms actually do exist. I recommend "Gender Inequality" by Judith Lorber as a starting point

Right, this is what I meant to say. Arguing with "feminism" is a bit like arguing with "politics" or "ethics" or "philosophy" given how disparate the different strains of it really are. I suppose most people who are arguing against feminism have a specific kind in mind but it doesn't do any good to the reader if you don't explain.
Post reply on HN