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

How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#21

Post by busterarm »

dijit wrote: post #7
alphabettsy wrote: post #3

I think if more men were capable of making such a well thought out and logical argument we’d be farther along, but in many cases men have been extremely defensive and the most attention has gone to those responses rather than something more substantial such as this. That women are socialized to not be the aggressors and must be pursued not be seen as promiscuous is another problem that feeds into unclear boundaries r…

I am one of the men who feels defensive, although I try very hard to see both sides. I assume you also wish to know the thoughts of detractors so I'll tell you how I feel and why, and you can decide if you believe me. The topic of social justice is very broad and I'll touch on it broadly as it's (sadly) very complex to distill but needs to be mentioned because the context is incredibly important; I would like to focu…

I have a very similar background to you but well on the other side of 30. I grew up around abject poverty, crime, drugs and watched my neighborhood wither and die from them. Living through that didn't inoculate me from making some of those mistakes myself. I struggled and worked like a dog for almost 15 years barely making it before I landed where I am. I've been through hell -- seen misery -- seen death.

Frequently, in this industry, I am told that my whiteness and maleness puts me in the same socio-economic background as others that are white and male. A lot of assumptions get made about me based on how I look. I don't even make nearly as much as my peers, because why should I get a higher offer when I have no degree, right?

It's hard to hear some of the things that get suggested to me by others that are about me. I worry about a deeply simmering anger that I feel about some of it. It's hard not to tell people, whom I know came from an extremely privileged background, about what real misery and suffering and strife in the world is like. I know they cannot handle it. I know it would sink their ship.

And I would quickly be out of a job.

My advice to others of the wrong gender and skin color in this industry who grew up poor: don't tell anyone. Your longevity in this industry depends on your peers thinking that you are just like them. You would be right to see the irony in that.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#22

Post by ThrustVectoring »

roenxi wrote: post #4

Maybe we've redefined what patriarchy means, but going by the dictionary this article, and the associated viewpoint, is clearly reversing the cause and effect. In context of broad society patriarchy is "control by men of a disproportionately large share of power". It is obvious that, given there are a small number of leadership roles, if one gender is more assertive, aggressive or violent (or indeed prone to risk tak…

And what causes the extra risk-taking by men, though? Male reproductive success is heavily tied to being able to successfully acquire economic and sociopolitical resources. It could easily be argued that women are "responsible" for this via setting up the incentive structure that men responded to in the ancestral environment.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#23

Post by alexandre_m »

"We are told “parents teach your sons not to rape,” but we stop short of examining what that directive means and truly requires"

That's called decency and being gentlemen, which are supposed to be general teachings to young men (and girls) in society.

If only we could be a bit more coherent about the rest.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#25

Post by hanging »

perfmode wrote: post #8
dijit wrote: post #2

I suspect people will be reactionary because of the title, but the content is much different than what I was personally expecting. As a corollary to the article; I've always felt it's critical not to assume too much as a man. The line between being assertive and creepy is very fuzzy and depends entirely on the womans perception of you (which, is essentially unknowable). There is no easy answer, men will in most cases…

I’ve simply come to believe that online dating is the safest way for people to evaluate partners. There is demonstrated intent on both ends. It’s like google’s search intent being the value. Online dating provides safety through... intent of intimacy I guess

Online dating sites unfortunately have become a convenient fraud vector.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#26

Post by [deleted] »

JonGarfield wrote: post #19
woodandsteel wrote: post #14

A while back I read about a study that found that when a woman is friendly toward a man she doesn't have sexual feelings toward, often the male will mistakenly believe that she does, and act on those feelings. My response was, how is the male supposed to tell the difference? If there is a clear, observable behavior difference between how women behave when they are sexually attracted, and when they are just being frie…

Start by assuming that not all women who are friendly towards you "want you." That default assumption seems to be ingrained in some (by no means all) men and that is what gets them in trouble. If you start with the default assumption that women who are friendly are ... just being friendly then misunderstandings are far fewer. Most men who approach you are just being friendly rather than coming on to you. Do you requi…

[deleted]

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#27

Post by MRD85 »

zozbot123 wrote: post #15
MRD85 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a single man, I date, and it's confusing as hell. The examples given in the article are no surprise to me since my whole adult life has been peppered with similar events. Women who later tell me they wanted to sleep with me but I didn't push hard enough, etc. Not pushing women to sleep with me has likely cost me a lot of opportunities, but it's also meant I haven't accidentally assaulted someone. On my birthday I…

I suspect that "how assertive should I be" is the wrong question to ask-- there are many ways of being "assertive", only some of which work well! As a society, we are still in the process of developing-- and raising awareness about-- workable and effective sexual/dating "scripts" that men can stick to, and trust that they won't run into obvious problems. As the article hopefully makes clear, even the outwardly-trivia…

If we develop a set of working scripts to indicate availability, then women will still go for men who are "bold" enough to deviate from the script and seize the day. It's a complex issue, and it's my belief that the traits that women find attractive in men and the traits that women would like to find attractive in men are two different sets with less overlap than you'd imagine.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#28

Post by ralusek »

alphabettsy wrote: post #3

I think if more men were capable of making such a well thought out and logical argument we’d be farther along, but in many cases men have been extremely defensive and the most attention has gone to those responses rather than something more substantial such as this. That women are socialized to not be the aggressors and must be pursued not be seen as promiscuous is another problem that feeds into unclear boundaries r…

> That women are socialized to not be the aggressors and must be pursued

I don't understand why everybody, including academics, are allowed to state outright that effectively every behavior is socialized. Almost every single animal on this planet has the female in the position of choosing among male suitors, who in turn will attempt to outcompete one another with various displays of beauty, craftsmanship, or among many other behaviors, aggression. That doesn't mean that we can't socialize to suppress or alter behaviors, but I cannot stand how totally unsubstantiated these claims of social construction are for literally every human behavior.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#29

Post by magrimu »

roenxi wrote: post #4

Maybe we've redefined what patriarchy means, but going by the dictionary this article, and the associated viewpoint, is clearly reversing the cause and effect. In context of broad society patriarchy is "control by men of a disproportionately large share of power". It is obvious that, given there are a small number of leadership roles, if one gender is more assertive, aggressive or violent (or indeed prone to risk tak…

> Patriarchy doesn't cause male behavior, male behavior causes patriarchy.

There doesn't have to be a behavioral difference between men and women for societies to trend towards patriarchy. The simple fact that women bear children and are pregnant for nine months is enough to have limited their political prospects in pre-modern times.

A society of antiquity that allows women to fight in battle will have fewer women to bear children, which means fewer bodies to grind in the next war. Societies that forced their women into domestic roles could have faster manpower replenishment and win more wars, taking more territory and spreading their customs. Political power was inexorably tied to warfare, and women, often lacking the crucial military influence enjoyed by generals were locked out of the elite decision making classes.

Today, we no longer fight wars of annihilation, and a society that promotes women in the workforce has access to more brilliant minds than one that doesn't. I think there's more to gender relations than human psychology. Natural selection among human societies can be a powerful driver of cultural change.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#30

Post by hobofan »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #22
roenxi wrote: post #4

Maybe we've redefined what patriarchy means, but going by the dictionary this article, and the associated viewpoint, is clearly reversing the cause and effect. In context of broad society patriarchy is "control by men of a disproportionately large share of power". It is obvious that, given there are a small number of leadership roles, if one gender is more assertive, aggressive or violent (or indeed prone to risk tak…

And what causes the extra risk-taking by men, though? Male reproductive success is heavily tied to being able to successfully acquire economic and sociopolitical resources. It could easily be argued that women are "responsible" for this via setting up the incentive structure that men responded to in the ancestral environment.

> And what causes the extra risk-taking by men, though?

Probably Testostorone

> Male reproductive success is heavily tied to being able to successfully acquire economic and sociopolitical resources.

That has only been true for something between a few thousand years to maybe a hundred years (when true upwards mobility was established). So as much as I like to think that humans can overcome their inner animals, it can't be ignored that a lot about us is governed by traditional evolution (which movea much much slower than our social systems).

Trying to place blame here on either sex in the current social system is not really productive here. Trying to place blame on women, who had (and in some places of the world still don't have) little/limited say in their choice of reproductive partners up until a few generations ago, is historically short-sighted at the least.

Post reply on HN