Live data from Hacker News

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

medium.com

301–310 of 357 posts

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

#301
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, I don't think radical feminists shouldn't be taken seriously, just the extremely radical shouldn't. There's room for radical feminism, not for hate. "Male tears" isn't a radical feminist thing, many non-radical feminists use it. Actually, it's quite the opposite, it's men who have always said feminist women (radical or not) are anti-men, so they decided to play along and made a joke about it. While…

I don't think sarcasm and irony are a good way to get people to see your point. You're very clear headed and it still takes paragraphs to explain and to be honest isn't very convincing. "Male tears" definitely went beyond a joke as well. It's often used now to celebrate events that anger men. If feminists (radical or otherwise) want people to take them seriously, they must treat people as they want to be treated. "It…

The purpose of this male tears joke is not to create a debate, it is about feminist women knowing there are other feminist women out there. Men don't need that, they already know.

However, I do agree that in the context of a honest debate this really doesn't help, and I wouldn't use it there. But I know many people would, because in both sides so many people think debate is about winning, not conveying ideas.

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

#302

So, 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 th…

Part of her point is that the current activities of feminism in tech are not productive, might actually be negative, and if everyone just shut up and did what they loved the misogyny or perceived misogyny would disappear a lot faster. I don't necessarily agree, but she may not be wrong.

Well, certainly, if everyone who decided they didn't want to put up with the horseshit moved on, they wouldn't be in a position to perceive it, and the horses wouldn't have the opportunity to inflict their excrement on anyone who would mind, publicly.

But that hardly seems optimal.

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

#303

If we want to have a meaningful discussion about sexism in tech, it's time to talk about what we're up against, and it involves all of us: not just women and minorities. If it doesn't involve us now, it will in 20 years when we're two decades older, because ageism is just as much of a problem in the tech industry as the other "isms". There isn't an above-baseline sexism among long-term professional programmers. Sure,…

"by the time he or she was starting a career, women were already in the workforce and it was accepted by many as a good thing" How many women who were working in the 70s and 80s have you talked to about this.

I didn't say that it was universally accepted as a good thing or that women didn't deal with an unacceptable amount of sexism. They did, and they still do.

The generations that were most aggressive about pushing women out of the workforce were past peak by 1980 and have all but vanished today. That doesn't mean that there isn't sexism and that there aren't rotten individuals, as in every generation; but my point is that even the people we consider old for full-time work (65-70) are Baby Boomers who came later and who were either very early in their careers or still in school during the bad old days when "woman" meant "secretary".

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

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, really. It took WWII for the United States to collectively realize that systematically excluding nigh-half of the population from the economy was a bad idea, economically speaking. And much longer for the damage caused by doing so in specific instances to have much lasting effect---indeed, without government intervention I suspect we would still be waiting.

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

#305

If we want to have a meaningful discussion about sexism in tech, it's time to talk about what we're up against, and it involves all of us: not just women and minorities. If it doesn't involve us now, it will in 20 years when we're two decades older, because ageism is just as much of a problem in the tech industry as the other "isms". There isn't an above-baseline sexism among long-term professional programmers. Sure,…

I feel like part of what you're trying to say is that the misogyny in SV is not authentic misogyny but rather an immature response to negative stimuli (e.g. "girls are gross"). Am I completely missing the point here?

A lot of it is authentic misogyny, because there are a lot of bad people out there and misogyny is as old (and as new) as dirt.

My point is that programmers and technologists, as a group, aren't inclined to be worse than the general population. (Most programmers are pretty damn supportive of women getting into the industry and being treated as well as men.) However, the dominant culture is Silicon Valley isn't set by programmers ("nerds") but by the people sent West by the mainstream business culture to boss nerds around. That particular set of people (the colonial overseers) is across-the-board awful, and they've taken the waning casual sexism of the MBA-culture world (meeting a client, or celebrating a good day at the trading desk, at a strip club) and leveled it up into something a lot worse, and that's what we see in the Valley. It's authentic misogyny but it comes from the top. Your typical young engineer is just an average nerd; not a misogynist.

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

#306
post #110

Earlier 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…

I'm probably going to get the shit flamed out of me for being a woman daring to comment in a thread about feminism, but fuck it. Maybe the Internet might surprise me.

I'm one of those 56% of women who left mid-career for a non-technical job; I don't have a family of my own, so that wasn't a contributing factor. Sexism was not the primary reason why I left, but it was a major factor in my decision. I returned to the field after a decade because no other job has been as satisfying as coding is, but it's still a really unbalanced field.

The things that most guys don't get is that it's usually not anything they consciously do. It's unconscious behavior. The one I wrestled with the most - and still wrestle with - was the unspoken assumption that because I'm a woman that I'm not technically competent. If I enter a technical conversation with male colleagues, their default stance is that I'm either less knowledgeable than they are (even if I'm the senior dev), or that I'm wrong. Either I get challenged and attacked on what I say, or I'm talked down to like a child. My male colleagues don't treat other men this way, even if the men they're speaking to is non-technical.

It's also about isolation. I'm on a team of 30, but counting myself, there's only two women. The only thing that's unusual about it is that there's two of us. It's far more common for me to be the only woman in the room. I can count the number of female developers I've worked with on one hand with fingers to spare. Tech is an incredibly isolating field for women; we're in an environment that is frequently uncomfortable (and sometimes outright dangerous) with very few allies and even fewer mentors and leaders. The women mentors and leaders we do see are often publicly lambasted and denigrated for existing, or harassed completely out of the field.

It's not getting easier to be a woman in tech, it's getting harder. Used to be I could connect to other women techies online without much difficulty; now we find our community spaces overrun with trolls and strident voices about phantom spectre of "the SJW". I can't read about women coders on places like Slashdot or HN without the legions of comments about how feminism is evil and women are inferior. I'm a developer in a highly specialized field, and I have seriously considered ceasing any contribution to the Internet outside of my code deployments, because there's only so much harassment one person can take before they just give the fuck up.

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

#307
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it does exist. Sure it doesn't, but the context was diagnosing it. As in recognizing it as a disease.

Can you diagnose an atypical characteristic without considering it a disease?

Definition of diagnosis is literally:

    the identification of the nature of an    
    illness or other problem by examination
    of the symptoms.
Unless you are suggesting that any atypical characteristics is a problem, and that for example someone can diagnose you for having green colored eyes.

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

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> 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. "Teach men not to rape." "Teach your sons to respect women." >> Men are violent. > The patriarchal "masculinity" foisted upon men is one that is competitive and aggressive. Framing masculinity as a negative is anti-male. "Patriarchy"…

This is perhaps a little late, since this fell off the front page, but I figured I'd respond to you because you seem to have your heart in the right place, but have a kind of twisted view of what most feminists actually believe. It also feels like you're mixing up the views of one political/social movement with the current state of the world as a whole, which is a poor argument against feminism. I would point out that most feminists are primarily interested in fixing women's issues at the moment, but that there are not, as far as I am aware, any men's groups that seem actually interested in addressing the (definitely less immediate or serious, to be honest...) issues that the patriarchy (as a social/hegemonic system) causes for men: which you seem to be particularly interested in.

> "Teach men not to rape."

Many (most?) rapists are men. Many men are not rapists. These quotes aren't claiming that all men are rapists, and you've pulled them out of their social/political context in order to claim that they are. You're taking those quotes a bit out of context: they are responding to the cultural expectations/norms/memes of teaching women to avoid rape (and blaming them if they do not) instead of teaching men to not rape (and not really blaming them if they do). The studies (not feeling up for going and fetching them ATM, but let me know if you want me to) have generally shown that rape prevention teaching aimed at women reduces the chance that any particular woman will get raped, but does not reduce the overall incidence of male on female rape--while rape prevention teaching aimed at men does reduce the overall incidence of rape. (Note: female on male rape/sexual assault is generally thought to be much less common, but that may be due to serious stigmatization of reporting by men and poor metrics for measuring it--which is a separate issue than what is trying to be addressed by these sorts of slogans/philosophies. TBH, I think the best option may be universal "don't rape each other" training given to everyone, rather than classes aimed at preventing yourself from getting raped or preventing only men from raping.)

> Framing masculinity as a negative is anti-male. "Patriarchy" as a concept, regarding men as responsible for all the ills of the world, is also anti-male.

Patriarchy, as a sociological concept, is not about blaming men for the ills of the world. It refers to a hegemonic system which shoehorns both men and women into specific roles, values the male roles more, and punishes both men and women for stepping outside of them. It can (and is) bad for men as well as women--look up the research on what emotions are acceptable for men to show, how many preventable deaths occur because men didn't go to a doctor when they should have, etc. It is also tied to the devaluation of certain activities men might want to take part in (homosexuality, acting 'feminine' in any way, wearing dresses, whatever) and the potential for assault if people who were identified as male at birth don't go along with it (look up murder rates for MTF women, for instance). Framing some parts of masculinity as 'toxic'--inability to express emotions other than anger without being socially sanctioned, masculinity being tied up in punishing those who deviate (attacking homosexuals, crossdressers, etc.) is perfectly reasonable, too, and not an attack on men or masculinity as a whole--just the parts of it that involve hurting people. I will agree, however, that some folks don't seem to understand the nuance of what was is a formal academic term and misuse it. ('patriarchy'; this observation also applies to many other terms with formal academic contexts which were adopted by people without the background.)

> You've basically repeated what I said, except you seem to think sexism a good thing as long as it targets someone you perceive as "advantaged".

This is a subtle point, but: acknowledging that you are, in some ways, given huge advantages by society as a whole doesn't require you to feel terrible because of it. This is something I think a lot of people miss: privilege isn't something you can do something about in the present, aside from acknowledging that it benefits you and that you may not experience the same struggles and hardships, or may not experience struggles/hardship in the same way as someone without those benefits. The difference is subtle, but pretty important. The things you can do to address that, though, are listening to the experiences of those who don't have the systematic benefits you do, call out when you may be getting what seems to be an unfair advantage, and when possible, using your advantages to benefit those who do not have them. (A super simplistic example of the last would have been, as a man, voting for women's suffrage when they did not have the right to vote. A more subtle and modern example might be speaking up if you notice that a female colleague's ideas are often restated by and then credited to men, as you're likely to be perceived as a neutral party in a case like that.)

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

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> 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. "Teach men not to rape." "Teach your sons to respect women." >> Men are violent. > The patriarchal "masculinity" foisted upon men is one that is competitive and aggressive. Framing masculinity as a negative is anti-male. "Patriarchy"…

> Physical attraction alone does not disregard a person's humanity or personal agency.

This is true! The thing is, most feminists I've met also believe this. When people complain about 'objectification', they are not complaining that someone might find them physically attractive at all--it's the patterns of behavior and speech which some/many men exhibit which clearly show that they are not valued beyond their physical appearance or are primarily valued for their physical appearance.

> I never said anything about forcing or denying abortions, only that a woman has the right to cede responsibility for reproduction whereas a man has none. If a woman chooses to abort or put a child up for adoption, she is well within her rights to do so. If a man suggests the same thing, he is a "deadbeat".

There are some fundamental challenges to 'perfect equality' w.r.t. reproduction. I don't think any feminist platform I'm aware of suggests that men should not be able to put forward their feelings on adoption/abortion when they are the father and in a relationship with the mother: simply that the father in those situations doesn't have the final say and should not have the final say, particularly w.r.t. abortion. Things get significantly more complex after a child is born, and I don't know many feminists who think the current situation is ideal either. (That the mother is primarily responsible for the child, or that the mother almost always gets custody in a custody battle. That isn't equality either.)

> So as long as an exaggerated body image is accompanied by power and dominance, it shouldn't place unfair expectations on impressionable viewers?

Male incidence of eating disorders is, as I recall, actually heavily underreported (partially b/c of how it manifests, partially for other reasons), but I don't know many nonradical feminists who claim that male self image issues are not a problem--simply that given our current societal norms and values, women's appearance is more heavily focused on then men's... and that is an issue perpetuated by things like Barbie. I'd strongly disagree with the original sentiment, but I also haven't met any recent feminist claiming that and don't believe it's part of any particular non-radical platform.

> The idea of sexuality as being negative is also unhealthy, for both genders.

This is the entire point of sex positive feminism. I don't think any sex positive feminists have argued that female characters shouldn't be allowed to have any sexuality--just that they are often portrayed in unrealistic ways that are designed to appeal to male fantasies. I'm not familiar with Bayonetta, but from looking at google images, at least from her exaggerated appearance, impractical clothing, etc. I'd say that she may very well qualify. (It's also just as possible for women to design unrealistic characters which appeal to male fantasies as it is for men--nobody I know has claimed that every woman is by necessity a perfect feminist.)

> Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.

No feminist I know has said "Men should not be allowed safe spaces", particularly not "Men who are survivors of abuse should not be allowed safe spaces." Every feminist woman I know would be 100% behind these getting set up by men who felt they needed them: perhaps it would be better to ask why they are not getting set up by men who need them? This is actually of personal interest to me, because I would have greatly benefited from one (as a male survivor of abuse who has been diagnosed with PTSD) had one existed in the past.

> You must have missed the part where I mentioned men also get serious threats to their person, and that there are documented cases where those threats have been acted upon.

Cases of men getting serious threats to their person is, as you said, 'unfortunate'. (I'd take a stronger stance and say it's pretty bad.) That is, however, different from the recent trend of women who have been harassed, doxxed, received rape threats, etc. for publicly expressing feminist viewpoints. If it did seem like a plausible trend existed in the harassment of men, I'd be interested.

> http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender...

The statistics there don't actually prove that point... it's definitely possible that women simply commit fewer crimes, less serious crimes, or are caught less often. That being said, let us presume that men do get, on average, longer sentences for the same crime (I think this is plausible): do you know of any feminists who are claiming that this should be the case? (Most I know are generally against the current prison system and rate of incarceration in the first place, for both men and women, so I'm not sure where your argument is here anyways.)

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

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm probably going to get the shit flamed out of me for being a woman daring to comment in a thread about feminism, but fuck it. Maybe the Internet might surprise me. I'm one of those 56% of women who left mid-career for a non-technical job; I don't have a family of my own, so that wasn't a contributing factor. Sexism was not the primary reason why I left, but it was a major factor in my decision. I returned to the f…

The one I wrestled with the most - and still wrestle with - was the unspoken assumption that because I'm a woman that I'm not technically competent. If I enter a technical conversation with male colleagues, their default stance is that I'm either less knowledgeable than they are (even if I'm the senior dev), or that I'm wrong. Either I get challenged and attacked on what I say, or I'm talked down to like a child. My male colleagues don't treat other men this way, even if the men they're speaking to is non-technical.

I really appreciated this comment. As a black software engineer I feel I've experienced a lot of the same condescension and isolation in my career. Most days it isn't so bad that it makes me want to quit, but sometimes it is that bad. I can definitely understand how someone could get to the point where she would want to leave the field altogether.

I liked the parent article, but what I think the author misses is that the dismissiveness we sometimes encounter from collaborators isn't just about hurt feelings or disrespect, but can actually pose a serious obstacle to solving the problem at hand.

Post reply on HN