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 said, this post struck a chord with me. As a pretty vanilla straight male, I can't identify with much of the gender issues she posed, but her blog post reminds me heavily of trying to discuss race on HN.
I frequently see some incredibly racist things being posted around here in the comments, and I've basically stopped calling them out. You see a lot of the same reactions in this community as what she describes - a lot of "why are you so angry", a lot of trivialization of the issue, a lot of unexamined privilege, and lots of people reacting very defensively as if simply by pointing out inequities I'm painting a giant bullseye on your racial-majority forehead.
These problems exist. They are real. If you are not part of a racial minority you probably won't fully comprehend what it's really like. But that's okay, no one expects you to fully grok it, and no one is calling you out just because you're [insert majority race in whatever locale]. What we do want is some modicum of understanding, some modicum of respect, and less middle-brow dismissals of things that millions upon millions of people are experiencing.
So yeah, I think the general thesis of this post is sound. I just wish she were less vitriolic about it - but honestly, having gone through similar things (in a racial, rather than gender, context) I can see why she is.
Otherwise, I agree with you =D
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.
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 individuals.
Not a single example or well articulated point, just diatribe.
Are we on the same website?
So the reason why it can be referred to as the "white male establishment" isn't because of its membership, but because its existence is mainly for the benefit of white males.
The term "white male establishment" seems pretty unambiguous. Even if it involves proxies of many colors and genders, which is your point, it's still fair to describe it as a "problem with men".
> Well, all it takes to be a part of it is to be an apologist for inequality or to otherwise perpetuate inequality.
Yes, and the most effective way for women to address that inequality is to start their own institutions (schools, financial institutions, businesses) that proactively and positively address injustice and inequality, which women can certainly do. Oh, and stop whining about men, which can only serve to hide the fact that the key obstacle women face in 2013 is ... women.
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. In which case it's worth spending some time on that area of contention. And sometimes what you find most interesting about a subject won't be the same thing other people find most interesting - and that's okay.
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.
Does the person with the agenda explicitly SAY "I have this agenda and want to only talk about X and want you to say Y about it", or is the listener expected to magically intuit the intent?
If the listener "really really doesn't want to hear", doesn't that imply they already know what's going to be said, and hence that it's not worth saying it? And doesn't that in turn suggest that shifting the subject is more likely to be informative and productive than staying on the original topic?
I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why railing would be considered LESS rude than derailing. Does railing exist in some sort of additional explanatory context I'm missing, like as part of a roleplaying game or as a form of therapy?
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.
There are plenty of women running programs designed to help other women in the tech sector, but you propose them as though you're unaware that they even exist, which speaks volumes about how easy it is for them to make an impact.
Can men just stop being dicks to women? That seems way simpler than starting schools and companies for teaching women how to overcome all the men who are being dicks to them. It's so obvious, I'm astonished you haven't thought of it.
Actually, as a matter of fact, it isn't my problem. Women have rights, freedom, and 60% of the money in society. All they need to do is stop whining, stop listening to negative voices from inside and outside their own community, and choose another approach.
> Can men just stop being dicks to women?
Ah, yes, the default feminist agenda -- it's all the fault of men. That's why I suggest setting up a cooperative economic and technological system, or network if you will, and solve the man problem that way.
Imagine that you're an African-American slave in the U.S. about the time of the Civil War. The problem is obviously slave owners, who will rationalize their behavior as they continue to oppress you, while explaining that it's for your own good.
What are your options? You can complain about the master some more, hope he will eventually change his behavior, or you can enter the underground railroad and change your environment and your prospects.
What's your choice? Complain about your mistreatment at the hands of a congenital racist, risk worse treatment as the biggest change in U.S. history unfolds around you, or move on?
> That seems way simpler than starting schools and companies for teaching women how to overcome all the men who are being dicks to them.
Yes -- the problem is men, so women don't have to do anything except complain and pose as victims.
> It's so obvious, I'm astonished you haven't thought of it.
The problem here isn't what I haven't thought of, it's what you haven't thought of.
During my around-the-world solo sail (http://arachnoid.com/sailbook) I had many adventures. One of the most memorable with respect to the present topic was in a small Egyptian village, where as evening came on, people would gather around the community TV set and watch American TV, which is very popular there.
One of the shows included scenes in which a woman would speak up for her rights -- she might shout at a man who was mistreating her, or simply leave. Normal and justified behavior in the West, but not part of the lives of Egyptian women. I remember how those scenes were received by the village women, and how they did what they could to keep from cheering when they saw a woman speak up for herself.
But you know what? In that society, those women are far from being able to exercise what we might regard as basic human rights. But women in this society don't have that excuse -- women possess, and can exercise, political and economic power, and they can vote with their feet. Or they can try to blame all their problems on men.
The problem is not that women don't have power and rights. The problem is that women won't exercise them. It's much easier to say, "if only men would be nicer," and carry on posing as victims.
Sorry -- no sale.
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 know much about this, but"
However, my follow on from the but is; I'd like to get educated. The following are the points I'm taking out of this article (please let me know if I missed any, I am seriously not being sarcastic or a jerk).
- do not try to defend the "white male establishment" which I apparently am part of. (I do not feel part of it, but I guess I get lumped in it until I prove I'm not part of it?)
- do not attempt to tell a woman what she is feeling (luckily, I've learned this lesson a long time ago)
- do not talk about my experiences with women in IT (they are probably outliers like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer)
- be able to read vague complaints about general sexism with out thinking they're targeted at me
They're fairly easy things for me to work on.
I would actually be interested in advice from Shanley on what book I should pick up to educate myself with.
A wall of passionate words with out a good call to action for white males to pick up on is frustrating to me. I want to try and help, but beyond being the decent human I've been relying on, I'm at a loss.
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?
In fact, to quote the author: "They bring nothing to the table except ... self-involved demands for “education”, endless derailing techniques paraded as “logic”, [and ] disingenuous bewilderment."
I'll take you at your word, though.
> 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 know much about this, but"
I think if there were one thing the author never wants to hear again, it's something like "There there, I know you're upset, but let me educate you on just how wrong you are." That conveys the quality of it, at least.
> - do not try to defend the "white male establishment" which I apparently am part of. (I do not feel part of it, but I guess I get lumped in it until I prove I'm not part of it?)
Personally, my main qualm with the phrase "white male establishment" is how cliché it is. Here are some lighthearted reflections on what the author was talking about, as I understand it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4LkrQCyIz8
http://bit.ly/JZJYMv
No, her point was that Sandberg and Mayer are exceptions and shouldn't be used as a counterexample to statements like, "In technology it is more difficult for a woman to become a member of executive management than a man." This has the same flavor as folks arguing that racism in the United States is a thing of the past because we elected a black President.
I'm sure the author would love folks to talk about the everyday experience of women in IT -- which is to say their experience, not your picture of their experience.
> - be able to read vague complaints about general sexism with out thinking they're targeted at me
Yeah, man up. Don't take it personally. Maybe instead of getting defensive, ask, "Have I ever done anything to make you feel like that or disempower you? Please let me know in private if I ever do or anyone else working here does. I don't want to make you feel that way, I don't want to implicitly model that behavior in front of other people, and I don't want other people to feel they have the license to do it."
When feminists talk about "allies" they mean folks who both say and inhabit this sort of thing.
She: "I cannot even tell you how sick I am of men telling me how I feel."
I have to admit ... I'm not a native speaker of English, but asking a question and "telling you how to feel" are two different things.
TIP #1: Don't call someone an asshole if you want his help. Just saying.
EDIT: Getting downvoted because I think that asking a question and telling someone how she feels are two different things?! Interesting...
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 that you have a wife and you still beat her.
Structuring questions this way is a bad idea because it puts the person you're asking on edge. It's also just kind of a shady way to use the English language. (Nothing against people who aren't familiar with this particular nuance, of course)
In my view, if I ask you "why are you so angry?" I perceive you as being angry.
There is another statement between the lines. "Why are you so angry?" implies "This is too unimportant/trivial/false to get angry about." That's the prescriptive part that I think author is referring to.
This can be extra-infuriating, because not only can you not get your listener to engage on the topic at hand, they're outright dismissing this as a problem worth your/their time. To put a cherry on top, they're laying the blame at your feet for getting worked up about "nothing".
It's a lot of implications and insinuations wrapped up in a neat little package. Fundamentally this statement is objectionable because it demonstrates neither understanding of the issue at hand nor a basic amount of respect for the speaker (that he/she is capable of telling major issues apart from trivialities).
If your goal is to belittle and disrespect someone, use this phrase frequently. If your goal is understanding and genuine engagement with someone who thinks and believes differently than you, don't use this phrase at all.
EDIT:
"If your goal is to belittle and disrespect someone, use this phrase frequently. If your goal is understanding and genuine engagement with someone who thinks and believes differently than you, don't use this phrase at all."
I didn't know this. Out of curiosity, how do you ask someone who is obviously angry why he/she/it is being angry?
They are in general, but they aren't in the specific case where the premise on which the question is based is a claim about the feelings of the person to whom the question is addressed, e.g., "Why are you so angry?", which is equivalent to "You are so angry. Why is that?"
Do you want to know why men in general are having problems being feminist allies? Because feminism, at its core, is hatred of men. Why would we want to be part of a group that shows unfiltered contempt for us because we were born male?
Hacker News: "Don't you dare use that tone with us!"
I think it's also worth looking at why the participation of women in computer science in particular, as opposed to other technical fields, decreased on a relative basis after initial increases.[1]
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html?_r=0