If you want to join an existing group with an existing culture, you don't get to say "here I am; now change your culture to suit me". As an older gentleman(?) it's bizarre to see how traditional nerd hideaways such as programming and comic books have evolved into cool things that the cool people now feel entitled to participate in...you know, if we could just get these spergy nerds to act like cool, or at least normal people.
Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
201–210 of 357 posts
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand Dworkin says she didn't say that. Here is the actual quote, which seems very different from the 'point' above: > A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth --literature, science, philosophy, pornography-- calls that penetration violation. This…
If you read this in context, it's clear that she's saying "this is the view of patriarchal society", not "this is how things should be". Later in the same chapter you're quoting from, Dworkin says: > Women have also wanted intercourse to work in this sense: women have wanted intercourse to be, for women, an experience of equality and passion, sensuality and intimacy. Women have a vision of love that includes men as h…
This is actually really good stuff, I've never been a fan of Dworkin due to some out of context quotes. I would say that this attitude isn't one held by all women, though.
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#203So, let's see here; Meredith Patterson has:
* "...posted an idea for a new feature to the developers’ mailing list for an open-source project...[but on list she had no access to, it was] dismissed the idea out of hand because a woman had proposed it." The feature only became available because she had the opportunity to implement it in such a way that it became a "rousing success". (I should stop right here because that's about as damning an incident as I can come up with.)
* "...called the police in a foreign country to report an attempted rape at a conference, and argued with them when they told my friend that nobody would consider it assault since they’d both been drinking."
* "...thwarted a wannabe PUA at a conference completely by accident" by "a blazingly single-minded focus on whatever topic I happen to be perseverating on at the moment".
Now, I don't want to seem to be saying that she's wrong to feel as she does, or that her experiences are somehow invalid, or that she's in "denial" as some idiot put it. I'm not. Really. It works for her and others, and I think she would admit it doesn't work for everyone.
On the other hand, I don't think her suggestion of, "What I’ve got, and what I wish the rest of the 'women in tech' community who rage against the misogyny they see everywhere they look could also have, is a blazingly single-minded focus on whatever topic I happen to be perseverating on at the moment," is a workable approach.
Most of the people I know can't ignore those sorts of things and can't be satisfied "...literally [doubling] over laughing at how nonplussed he must have been to see it not only implemented, but implemented to rousing success." Most of the people I know don't want to.
(Ok, here's an internet-reasoning hypothetical for you: I know a lot of geeks who use the term "sportsball"; I believe many of them have this sort of antipathy because they faced some kind of abuse from the sportsball players of the world. Would you, assuming you're one of such, be willing to ignore that abuse because you were passionately interested in baseball or (American) football---both of which have fascinating statistical stories to tell, by the way?)
Now, me, I'm a right cranky, misanthropic rat-bastard and I can certainly single-mindedly focus on whatever interests me at the moment (early Mesopotamian and Near Eastern history, abstract algebra and programming languages, and natural language processing at the moment, fwiw), but I don't want to hang around a community that is casually abusive to anyone, even if it isn't me. And, damn it, maybe I want the goddamn feature that didn't get implemented because the idea was dismissed because of who suggested it.
I notice from some of the other comments that there are those who believe that the single-minded focus is the royal road to success in tech. It's not. How many people do you know who have the focus but aren't successful? (This isn't really an example because he is successful enough that you know his name, but has anyone read Chuck Moore's blog lately?) And how many people do you know who are successful but aren't especially focused---maybe because they didn't have to swim upstream against incidents like Patterson's? (Anyone remember the old Ruby community?) Further, by the way for those of you in the startup community, you probably don't want total focus on tech to be the ultimate. People like that are very easy to take advantage of.
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
> Nothing that happens between twelfth grade and death decreases the percent of women interested in computer science one whit. Statistics [1]: 56% of women in technology leave their employer mid-career, and 24% of these women take a non-technical job with a different employer. "This is double the turnover rate of men." It would appear, then, that actually something does happen between high school and death which decr…
It would appear, then, that actually something does happen between high school and death which decreases women's interest in CS. It is not due to women leaving their career for family either, since many of this 56% decide to continue working, but in a non-technical role.
I would posit, that this "something," if it exists, is also experienced by older programmers and by programmers who, for whatever reason, have a harder time presenting themselves as a "Standard Silicon Valley guy."
As an oddball older programmer, I would attest: I strongly suspect this "something" definitely exists.
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
> Nothing that happens between twelfth grade and death decreases the percent of women interested in computer science one whit. Statistics [1]: 56% of women in technology leave their employer mid-career, and 24% of these women take a non-technical job with a different employer. "This is double the turnover rate of men." It would appear, then, that actually something does happen between high school and death which decr…
The comment you are replying to was deleted before I could read it so I don't have sufficient context to know if this distinction matters, but the part you quoted talks about interest in computer science, but the stats you cite are about practicing computer science. There are many reasons one might stop practicing something other than losing interest in it.
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#206To 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-...
The justification given is extremely interesting as well (if misguided?). We generally wouldn't have a problem with a girls-only tech program because girls are disadvantaged in tech. But boys in school are lagging behind in lots of school subjects. Still, one wonders why robotics is supposed to improve literacy.
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read this in context, it's clear that she's saying "this is the view of patriarchal society", not "this is how things should be". Later in the same chapter you're quoting from, Dworkin says: > Women have also wanted intercourse to work in this sense: women have wanted intercourse to be, for women, an experience of equality and passion, sensuality and intimacy. Women have a vision of love that includes men as h…
This is actually really good stuff, I've never been a fan of Dworkin due to some out of context quotes. I would say that this attitude isn't one held by all women, though.
No, and Dworkin does point out that some women don't have that attitude. Here's a link to the piece in question:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/IntercourseI.html
Dworkin makes challenging reading, and is certainly extremely radical and outspoken. But most of the really unbelievable things attributed to her are misreadings or deliberate distortions. She just doesn't pull punches.
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And yet, prior to World War II, that economic disadvantage had absolutely no effect. Even decades later, systematic discrimination was an open policy, in direct violation of economic logic.
Weird.
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#209Earlier 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…
> Yes, this is the economic assumption - folks are greedy and will exploit undervalued resources. Except that's not what history shows us. Economics didn't free the slaves. Guns did. Economics didn't end segregation in housing and education. Bitter, expensive litigation did.[1] Economics didn't make gay marriage legal. Waging a cultural war on homophobes until it became social suicide in most circles to be one did th…
Economics did end segregation of Asians, Irish, Italians and Jews. Again, the fact that some groups have been violently unbent does not mean that groups can't unbend themselves. Just because you can cite other examples doesn't mean that the ones I cited don't exist.
Incidentally, you are aware that Jim Crow laws were mainly about economic protectionism, right? Raising wages for (white) workers by using guns against the competition. Folks at the time were well aware that greedy employers might tolerate black as long as it came with extra green. In fact, all your examples live outside the realm of greedy economic actors interacting via voluntary trade, so I really don't get the relevance at all.
Re: Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)
#210Earlier 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…
> This ignores the history of various oppressed groups who unbent themselves (east Asians, south Asians, Jews, Irish). It also ignores the fact that women have unbent themselves in most fields, just not math heavy STEM fields.
I almost had a crazy theory about what determines if a group can overcome their oppression and become mainstream, but the Irish provided a counterexample that shot it down.
The theory was that to overcome oppression, a group had to contribute a cuisine or food style that became mainstream. Asians. Check. Jews. Check. Italians. Check. Hispanics. Check. Blacks...they contributed soul food, but it has not gone mainstream the way the others have, and they have not overcome oppression. Indians. Check.
But I don't think I've ever even seen an Irish restaurant in the US, so my beautiful theory went down in flames.