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

Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again

#21

Post by dragonwriter »

vukmir wrote: post #11
kevingadd wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why are you so angry" in native English is not a question; it's a question tied to an implication. The question implies that the person being asked the question is angry. Most answers involve accepting the implication as correct. The stereotypical example used to demonstrate this in English is probably 'have you stopped beating your wife'. 'Yes' implies that you have a wife and you used to beat her; 'No' implies tha…

I'm aware of it being tied to an implication, but I don't agree with you that "why are you so angry?" is in the same category as the example you gave ("have you stopped beating your wife"). In my view, if I ask you "why are you so angry?" I perceive you as being angry.

> In my view, if I ask you "why are you so angry?" I perceive you as being angry.

If you want to ask a question about the reason for the facts on which you make that inference without telling someone how they feel, you ask the question about the reason for the facts, rather than asking them to explain a mental state that you have inferred about them.

Re: Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again

#22

Post by lutusp »

Quote: "At the same time, literally thousands of white men have engaged me solely to derail, discredit and co-opt conversation about systemic inequalities and the lived experiences of marginalized and oppressed people in our industry."

The solution is so obvious that I am astonished that people like the author haven't thought of it -- stop whining, stop listening to haters of both genders, and start schools and companies with the express aim of teaching women technology, and then employing women. Women helping women.

There's no rational basis for the idea that women have any deficits that would prevent this idea from working, indeed all evidence points in the opposite direction: when motivated, women easily produce first-rate technology and personally enriching experiences as well.

There's just one tiny, little, trivial, detail -- women must stop playing the victim and blaming men for their problems. This is simultaneously necessary and fair, because the problems women face in 2013 aren't caused by men, they're caused by women.

Women have the right to vote, the right to self-determination, the right to an education, and 60% of the money:

http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the...

Quote: "More women are taking the reins on their finances, holding 60 percent of all personal wealth and 51 percent of all stocks in the U.S. ..."

Want to keep feminism from becoming a mildly amusing historical footnote? Stop whining, start networking. Anyone who thinks men are the networking experts haven't watched women communicate information they consider important.

The single biggest obstacle to gender equality are women who undermine other women by trying to blame men for problems women can easily solve for themselves.

Re: Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again

#23

Post by vukmir »

dragonwriter wrote: post #21
vukmir wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware of it being tied to an implication, but I don't agree with you that "why are you so angry?" is in the same category as the example you gave ("have you stopped beating your wife"). In my view, if I ask you "why are you so angry?" I perceive you as being angry.

> In my view, if I ask you "why are you so angry?" I perceive you as being angry. If you want to ask a question about the reason for the facts on which you make that inference without telling someone how they feel, you ask the question about the reason for the facts, rather than asking them to explain a mental state that you have inferred about them.

Again, I'm not a native speaker of English, but the obvious way to ask you for the reasons that make you angry is to ask you: "Why are you so angry?" I'm still learning English and would appreciate if you would be kind and teach me an alternative way to ask that question.

Re: Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again

#24

Post by dragonwriter »

vukmir wrote: post #23
dragonwriter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my view, if I ask you "why are you so angry?" I perceive you as being angry. If you want to ask a question about the reason for the facts on which you make that inference without telling someone how they feel, you ask the question about the reason for the facts, rather than asking them to explain a mental state that you have inferred about them.

Again, I'm not a native speaker of English, but the obvious way to ask you for the reasons that make you angry is to ask you: "Why are you so angry?" I'm still learning English and would appreciate if you would be kind and teach me an alternative way to ask that question.

The problem is not with the way of asking the question.

The problem is with the assumption about the other person's feelings underlying the premise of the question.

Re: Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again

#26

Post by theorique »

glenra wrote: post #17

"derailing" is a very strange concept. In a conversation, you generally don't get to declare all your premises off-limits, nor do you get to determine unilaterally what the other participants will find most interesting to talk about. Sometimes people will consistently disagree with one or more assumptions you make. If they do, it might be because your assumption is wrong or because you did a poor job of explaining it…

As near as I can tell, complaints about "derailing" translate into "I wanted to make a speech, but the other guy kept insisting on wanting to have a conversation." Is that all there is to it?

Pretty much, yeah. Derailing implies that there exist "rails" on which the conversation needs to go (i.e. the 'agenda' of the person making the speech). If you don't engage his or her central point, then you risk being accused of derailing.

Now, if you really, really don't want to hear what they have to say, that's one thing - you should probably just tell them so rather than passive-aggressively shift the subject of conversation.

But if a shift in the subject of conversation happens naturally, it's not derailing, it's just the natural flow of conversation.

Re: Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again

#27

Post by theorique »

Fuzzwah wrote: post #16

I'm a white male. I'm a husband. I'm about to become a father (we're avoiding finding out the sex until birth, so there's a 50% chance I'm the father of a daughter). I work in IT. I've worked with a few women. Some of been excellent, some haven't. Just the same as the men I've worked with. I tried to work out what Shanley never, ever wanted to hear again, and I figure that it is the following 7 words..... "I don’t kn…

do not talk about my experiences with women in IT (they are probably outliers like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer)

Oddly, 99.99% of women in IT are not senior executives of large companies like these two. I think what Shanley's article meant is, you aren't supposed to point at these two and claim that everything's cool for women in IT, because they are outliers.

Presumably, it's reasonable to employ anecdotes about the female CTO you worked with, or the female developers on your team with whom you have personal experience?

Re: Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again

#28

Post by polemic »

potatolicious wrote: post #13

I feel like author went off the rails in a few places, and there were more digs at White Men than I thought was justified (note: I'm a non-white male). It's become somewhat vogue to use "White" as a pejorative and synonym with "bigot", and I'm not okay with that. If we want people to stop seeing us as our collective racial/gender/cultural stereotypes, then we can't engage in the same shenanigans ourselves. That being…

Going "off the rails" is, I believe, a fair response. It's easy to call out anger when it's a response the relentless passive oppression. But anger is the correct response. Often it's the only way to break through the heavy repressive blanket of faux-politeness.

Otherwise, I agree with you =D

Re: Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again

#29

Post by potatolicious »

polemic wrote: post #28
potatolicious wrote: post #13

I feel like author went off the rails in a few places, and there were more digs at White Men than I thought was justified (note: I'm a non-white male). It's become somewhat vogue to use "White" as a pejorative and synonym with "bigot", and I'm not okay with that. If we want people to stop seeing us as our collective racial/gender/cultural stereotypes, then we can't engage in the same shenanigans ourselves. That being…

Going "off the rails" is, I believe, a fair response. It's easy to call out anger when it's a response the relentless passive oppression. But anger is the correct response. Often it's the only way to break through the heavy repressive blanket of faux-politeness. Otherwise, I agree with you =D

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with the angry tone of the piece. That part is fine - IMO the opportunity for sober, quiet debate about sexism in IT has sailed.

We work in an industry where blatant sexism can be seen around every corner, and yet every time it is (politely, respectfully, intelligently) brought up the overwhelming community response has been deplorable.

We work in an industry where a large portion of the population does not believe sexism is a real, substantial problem. I think getting angry is about all anyone's got left.

That said, that's not the "off the rails" part I was referring to. Discrimination is, despite the common lay narrative, not frequently about hating anyone, it's about treating individuals by the (alleged) characteristics of some class they belong to. It's about treating someone based on Asian stereotypes if they're Asian, or female stereotypes if they're women, etc etc.

It is an incredibly suffocating environment to be in, where every corner you turn you must first prove "I am more than your mental construct of my class" before you can be treated like an individual.

So it would be doubly hypocritical for those of us fighting these injustices to engage in the same. "White male" is stereotyped with "bigot", but we need not engage in persisting these stereotypes, and we need not paint individuals with large brushes based on the alleged transgressions of their (involuntarily chosen!) groups. This is, after all, exactly what is frequently done to us. The off the rails part is the repeated use of "White male" as a synonym for bigotry and intolerance.

Re: Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again

#30

Post by eevee »

readme wrote: post #6
lutusp wrote: post #3

Quote: "I am less and less interested in engaging with the white male establishment, even though it’s been hard to resist with the deluge of stupid racist, misogynist bullshit they’ve been spewing lately." Translation: because sexism is a problem limited to men, any rhetorical excess is justified by the victim class. I wonder if there's an irony gene, and whether it may sometimes be completely deactivated in some ind…

Agreed. The only person I see stereotyping or blaming any biological group is the author of the article. Not a single example or well articulated point, just diatribe.

You need examples?

Are we on the same website?

Post reply on HN