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

211–220 of 357 posts

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

#211

Post by logfromblammo »

justizin wrote: post #150
jimbokun wrote: post #139

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." It does not. It embodies the tacit assumption that some people prefer to spend their time building something tangible rather than devoting their lives tilting at the windmills of eradicating racism, sexism, and all the other bigotries endemic to our society. Tilting…

> Tilting at those windmills is important, and might be a cause worthy of devoting your life to it, but it's not everyone's calling. "Tilting at windmills" means attacking imaginary enemies, you really can't have it both ways of calling work on eradicating racism, sexism, and other bigotries "Tilting at windmills" and then say it's important. Further, eradicating racism, sexism, etc.. IS EVERYONE'S CALLING. If you do…

I respectfully disagree. Those who claim "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem," are fallaciously dividing the field into just two factions.

In reality, there are those part of your preferred solution, those who actively oppose your solution, those who are content with the situation as it stands, and those who may prefer different solutions, or perceive the problem from a different perspective.

What you propose is a world where people are constantly being accused of stupidity and insulted simply because they hold different opinions than their accusers.

I am not responsible for the whole of human behavior. I am only responsible for myself. If I, myself, make a token effort to neither exhibit bigoted behaviors nor teach them to those under my influence, is that not enough? What if one of my personal values is that other people are entitled to their own opinions, even if they are incompatible with my own?

A few of my in-laws and distant cousins are extremely racist, but it is not my job to "fix" them. Nor could I. Their minds are closed tightly. And they too tend to think that "if you are not part of my solution, you are part of my problem."

If you spend so much of your time screaming that other people are doing it all wrong that you have no time to do anything yourself, then who is the dumb-head?

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

#212

Post by im3w1l »

justizin wrote: post #185
mafribe wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a man 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 that more than 99% of feminism/feminists have all to do with being against men. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything, actually, I could reasonably describe as not promoting this view. Maybe some radical stuff from the 70s, like Firestone, makes…

Neither of you have possibly lived long enough to have a reasonable sample size.

Sample size doesn't scale linearly with population size, it converges as population approaches infinity. The harder issue is getting an unbiased sample.

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

#213

Post by nailer »

lsy wrote: post #161
nailer wrote: post #144

Earlier 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…

Odd, I'd already expanded the area around the quote to provide context when pasting it. There seems to me a casual move between using the word 'men' and using 'patriarchy' (used as a synonym for evil), that many people find disturbing.

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

#214

Post by angersock »

justizin wrote: post #150
jimbokun wrote: post #139

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." It does not. It embodies the tacit assumption that some people prefer to spend their time building something tangible rather than devoting their lives tilting at the windmills of eradicating racism, sexism, and all the other bigotries endemic to our society. Tilting…

> Tilting at those windmills is important, and might be a cause worthy of devoting your life to it, but it's not everyone's calling. "Tilting at windmills" means attacking imaginary enemies, you really can't have it both ways of calling work on eradicating racism, sexism, and other bigotries "Tilting at windmills" and then say it's important. Further, eradicating racism, sexism, etc.. IS EVERYONE'S CALLING. If you do…

Further, eradicating racism, sexism, etc.. IS EVERYONE'S CALLING.

I've got a friend who is very white and very male and very straight, and honestly, it's worked out pretty well for him.

What is his incentive for abolishing racism, sexism, etc.? That incentive is certainly not outweighed by what he gives up.

Your argument (such as it is) is as foolish and baseless as his is practical and repugnant.

EDIT:

Downvotes as expected. Look, the only progress to be made is to show those folks that there is really a better outcome if they are more egalitarian.

The current guilt-based argumentation doesn't work, because it alienates the people who are actually trying to do the right thing and utterly fails to register for people like my friend who would agree with the points of privilege and proceed to exercise them to their fullest.

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

#215

Post by eropple »

Nrsolis wrote: post #174
onion2k wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it’s true that only 20 – 23% of tech workers are women. But less than twenty percent of high school students who choose to the AP Computer Science test are women. Perhaps women choose not to study computer science because they feel it'd be overly difficult to get in to an industry made up of 80% men. What if the fact there are relatively few women tech workers is the reason few women study it, and not the revers…

I think you're supposing that young women have any inkling of what the tech industry is like. The overwhelming evidence is that they don't. What is abundantly clear is that young women and men are influenced by cultural norms and act accordingly when choosing a path through life. Most servers/flight attendants/nurses are women. At my sister's nursing school graduation, there was only a single man on stage to receive…

> What gives? There are plenty of women doctors now. Why don't men find nursing to be a rewarding and satisfying career option?

Not sure why this post is being downvoted. The lack of men in nursing is a real problem in that field, and the post builds up to this in a way I don't necessarily agree with (I think the tech industry's cultural appearance outside of it is completely garbage, and I think most folks know it) but I think is worth rolling around in one's head.

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

#216

Post by philh »

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…

> intense economic coupling to slavery, very large regional identity defined by slavery, &c

If we wish this to be relevant to the current discussion: do you think the US has intense economic coupling to few-women-in-tech? Large regional identity defined by few-women-in-tech?

> It did, in fact, require coercion.

In a minority of instances, it was achieved through coercion. That doesn't mean coercion was the only way it was ever going to happen in those instances.

And when someone says "it took guns, not economics" then it seems entirely to the point that guns were only involved in a minority of instances. I'm not sure how you can not think this is relevant to what Rayiner was saying.

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

#217

Post by forgottenpass »

gmarx wrote: post #201

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 norma…

If you look at this author's medium page, she has another post on exactly that.

https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c

My favorite bit:

The mainstream tech industry offers us money, status, and a stable (if weak) position in its idealised social hierarchy. The voices clamouring for change offer us no money, a social role reversal back to “disempowered outsider,” and a status demotion to “likely sexual predator.” (The polite euphemism for this is “creepy,” a pejorative applied indiscriminately both to those who actively transgress other people’s boundaries and to those with the unmitigated gall to be attracted to someone else while being funny-looking.) Given a choice between these two, which would you side with? It’s true that the one is confining, essentialist, and a far cry from the best of all possible worlds, but the other is all these things and a step backward for people who finally got to take a step forward for once when the internet took off.

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

#218

Post by daveloyall »

NB I haven't read all the comments on this page and I apologize if somebody already said this...

NB I don't have the correct language to express this idea. I'm even concerned that I might be flat out misunderstood. Consult my own comment history to know where I stand.

NB I haven't heard of the author before nor read the apparent criticism.

---

The author is a hardcore coder on the autism spectrum and thus fits in well with the "nobody cares about your gender, race, nor creed--show me the code!" meme.

The author asks her critics to cease putting her down to push their own agendas. Okay.

But uh... Back to that meme. Is there any chance that the author is perhaps... A coder first and a person with a gender second? That's what the meme is about, right? In text mode, we're all just text generating entities, idea makers. (It really is beautiful--I grew up on IRC myself.)

But look, the internet isn't just textmode anymore, and it doesn't exist just in cyberspace anymore. Decisions coders make affect the--blah blah you all know this, software is eating.

So, maybe, just maybe, the hardcore-on-the-spectrum-practically-deterministic-themselves folks shouldn't be the only ones with commit-bits, hm?

I'm tired of writing this. To sum up: I'm glad for the author's successful life as a coder and yes folks should stop attacking her, but no, the existence of the author nor a hundred thousand more of her does not solve the "tech needs women" problem. Because--back to the meme--it's not really women we need. It's heart.

Because software is eating the world, "Made with love" needs to more than a marketing slogan. We need more coders that are emotionally brilliant! There is a large technical debt around "how software will alter the course of human history" and frankly it terrifies me that so many emotionally stunted devs are the primary authors.

Annnnnd there go my points. ;P

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

#219

Post by HCIdivision17 »

tzs wrote: post #210
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…

> 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…

Good news! Irish pubs are pretty great (I guess many thematic pubs are?), and while not pop-culture mainstream, are at least common enough that you likely have one not-too-far away. At the very least, it gives your idea something to grab onto :)

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

#220

Post by jazzyk »

astazangasta wrote: post #153
saiya-jin wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as a non-US, these topics are beyond ridiculous to me. some initial disclaimer - i am not very fond of usual loud-screaming-around feminists... nobody is for that matter, not even my fiancee. if I ever witnessed any kind of discrimination in my 11 year long career, in 3 different countries, working for... 7 employers? but many more customers, if was POSITIVE discrimination against women. they were strongly welcomed i…

I don't know where you live, but the US is incredibly backwards in many ways. Odds are you've had a female prime minister, you have paid maternity leave, etc. Yell at us about overcorrection when we can say the same.

1. The US had 3 females as Secretary of State almost in a row (M. Albright, C. Rice, H. Clinton). In the US, Secretary of State has a much higher significance/gravitas than Foreign Affairs.

2. The US is worker-hostile (no law-mandated vacation), not selectively female-hostile (lack of law-mandated maternity leave).

3. Most US companies have maternity leaves (typically 3 months). Not near quite enough, but not "incredibly backwards"

Post reply on HN