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

191–200 of 357 posts

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

#191

Post by unoti »

Groundless discrimination based on race, gender, religion, age, and all kinds of other factors happens all the time, and it's a real bummer. The simple fact is that people take all kinds of shortcuts in making decisions, and very little of the workplace is an actual meritocracy.

When I first entered the workplace as a programmer, I was not taken as seriously as I might have been because I was so young. I got my first programming job at 16, and even when I started doing major consulting gigs across the country at 19, I looked really young for my age. One client remarked, upon meeting me, "You don't look old enough to operate a car, much less our computer." It was always a challenge for me to get people to evaluate my ideas based on their merit rather than their source, and to evaluate me based on my work product, rather than where they were at in their career when they were my age.

I have worked for myself for many years now, but if I sought employment elsewhere, I'd probably face some difficulties because I'm much older than the average developer, and people would assume that I'm stuck in old technologies as many professional developers my age are.

But the truth is that unfounded discrimination happens all the time in the workplace, for all kinds of reasons. Almost nowhere is a true meritocracy. At one place I worked, even when I was at the perfect average age for software developers, and white, and male, even then I was cut out of the circle of the key developers. It was because the developers, owner, and key management liked to stop working many days around 10:30am and start drinking heavily, maybe stopping back by the office briefly some time in the afternoon, then go back to drinking steadily the rest of the day until 6 or 7 pm. I didn't really do that with the same kind of endless enthusiasm that they did. I didn't fit in very well.

If you find a group of people that accept you the way you are, and evaluate you based on the work you do, you've found gold. If mere excellence is the currency of the realm, and all they want from you is to be the best you can be, then that's a glorious place to be. But finding such a place is very rare. It's hard to find that in a workplace, a church, a group of friends, or anywhere. And if you're struggling to find that, it's not entirely because of race, gender, age, or sexual orientation-- it's mostly because of people's basic nature.

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

#193

Post by awkward »

d23 wrote: post #114
ceejayoz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 an…

If someone disagrees with the statement "programming is a fundamentally different career from everything else in terms of ability and knowledge required" it does not follow that they believe "all careers including garbageman and janitor are equal in ability and knowledge to programming and none of them are different."

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

#194

Post by CoreSet »

It seems like she's trying to gain credibility as someone who's been "exposed" to the travails of most women in tech, but then her solution isn't to fight the physical violence, intellectual marginalization, or boys-club dynamic in the c-suite - all of which she alludes to and confirms with her personal experiences - it's to just bury yourself in work to the point that non of that (your career, professional life, emotional health, your entire life) matters. What a fucked up apology for the even more fucked up status quo.

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

#195

Post by nofeels »

onion2k wrote: post #118
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-...

Oh look a boys only club. There certainly aren't any examples of women only clubs or minority clubs in college and elsewhere right?

Another fine example of, your rights end where my feelings begin tactic.

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

#196

Post by antihero »

new_corp_dev wrote: post #113
lukeasrodgers wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 to…

Oh my word. Not saying I agree with all of them 100%, but you have utterly misconstrued the arguments.

> Men are rapists and sexual offenders by default.

Nope, the argument is that there is a societal pattern that devalues the severity of rape through humour and other cultural tropes.

> Men are violent.

The patriarchal "masculinity" foisted upon men is one that is competitive and aggressive.

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

If you see a woman only existing as to please your sexual appetite, you are objecting.

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

Women should be paid according to the merits of their work and ability, along with men.

> Men should not have any reproductive rights.

A woman's body is hers to do with as she should wish. Nobody should have operations forced upon them.

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

Due to the fact that often a carer role is taken by a woman in a patriarchal society, this means that her earning potential and career is sacrificed.

> 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.

There are advantages that men get because of their sex/gender, and these should be recognised.

> 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.

Due to many women having suffered terrible experiences at the hands of men, and the tendency for men to dominate discussions, there needs to be a place away from that where people can talk without fear and interruption.

> 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.

Not sure about that one, I think the argument drastically varies, but men are more often portrayed in a powerful, dominant role.

> 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.

Characters are often designed by men, for men.

> 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.

Yes because receiving some flame or smack is the same as constant rape threats.

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

This is bullshit, obviously.

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

#197

Post by cousin_it »

tptacek wrote: post #181
cousin_it wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline From a quick skim, the US and Haiti seem to be the only non-peaceful abolitions out of hundreds.

This is a weird lens to look at slavery through. The circumstances in the US were unique: intense economic coupling to slavery, very large regional identity defined by slavery, &c. More importantly, I'm not sure what this has to do with Rayiner's point. The realization that many plantation slaves would be better utilized as doctors and lawyers did not free the slaves, nor did economic competition from non-slaveholdin…

IMO the blame lies at least partly on American hyper-competitive mentality, where you have people on both sides willing to go to war over slavery, or "wage cultural war on homophobes" today. My link was intended to show that not all countries are like that.

I just can't agree with Rayiner that we should escalate more because the current conflict is all-important. Game theory tells us that if everyone thinks that way, society loses. And game theory offers a way out: you need a shared culture that enables de-escalation without losing face. Conflicts would still get resolved, but without wasting tons of resources on both sides. Many countries have that.

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

#198

Post by antihero »

lsy wrote: post #101
nailer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they just read, say, Dworkin, on how all heterosexual sex is rape? Pretending people who disagree with political movements just need to understand those movements more is presumptuous.

Michael Moorcock: Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying? Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever.… My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a readi…

That's interesting, actually. I think that many radfems have actually got the wrong end of the stick too, as I've seen many an article (not by Dworkin) saying that PIV sex is always rape. But they are seen as kind of wingnuts in the broader feminist community.

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

#199

Post by ianstallings »

KingMob wrote: post #76
astazangasta wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what's happening here. A whole class of people is facing an uphill battle in tech. This is undisputable, and we know that there IS real misogyny, etc. This lady comes along and says, "That's not my experience", which gets instrumentalized by everyone else (viz. this thread) to dismiss the problem. It's fine to have her experience, but she should realize that by being vocal about it in the way she is, she's…

Exactly, given how atypical the author's experience and outlook is, her advice doesn't translate well to others, and unfortunately, she fails to realize this. I have to admit, I never imagined the mindblindness of ASD could ever result in a misguided empathy article.

No she does realize that and goes over it in the article. She's trying to ask you to respect her opinion regardless. Which obviously went over the heads of many here. Even though all she is essentially saying is "listen to me", you refuse to listen and try to invalidate her opinion. Because "her advice doesn't translate well to others". The only advice she gave was to acknowledge her experiences and perhaps digest them.

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

#200

Post by icanhackit »

toolz wrote: post #111
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?

I agree it applies both ways. My point was male-centric to align with the argument being made in the article. Probing the local social order applies to both genders and how they go about it can be slightly different but no less vicious.
Post reply on HN