5 ms·

Some of the reason these strategies succeed is because we live in a world where women are discriminated against. Liberal garbage. There are a few, mostly men

Some of the reason these strategies succeed is because we live in a world where women are discriminated against. Liberal garbage. There are a few, mostly men on top. Then most women. With most men on the bottom of the pile. I'm getting tired of feminist whiners deciding that since most of the people on top are men, therefore all men are on top.

4chan4ever 17y ago
Well I guess I'll be the only one saying it: this entire article reeks of male geek condescension. I didn't know Clay Shirky was a feminist-apologist but I certainly grow tired of messages like this delivered from male bloggers about how women need to change, to do this or that or the other. This is a thin rewrite of a post that appeared I believe here on HN a few weeks back; only that post was actually written by a woman. These outside-looking-in pieces that male bloggers do are almost always a bad idea.
- billswift 17y ago
  I don't think Shirky is a "feminist-apologist" so much as that this kind of thinking has become a bit of "received wisdom" in liberal, especially academic, circles.
intellectronica 17y ago
No feminist would have ever written an article like this. It is strongly biased and doesn't support women's struggle to reach the same status men have in any serious way. The problem (according to feminist doctrine, not sure I subscribe to it myself) is exactly that most of the people on top are men. Since the population is split 50-50% between men and women you should expect the same balance to exist at the top. In some very modern societies (Sweden, for example) this is, in fact, the case. I'm not sure what it is you're tired of, exactly. Except for those few cases where the rights of men are compromised in the name of feminism, how could you sensibly object to a school of though that wants to gain equality for women?
- telemachos 17y ago
  One slight (odd) detail: the human population isn't split 50-50. Normally, I believe that male births slightly outnumber female births (105 or 106 males for every 100 females according to a source I'll cite in a minute.) However, there are complications. First, for a long time, the actual number of females in the world doesn't match the 105/6 to 100 number above. This has been described by Amartya Sen as the "missing women" problem. (That is, quite a lot more women should be on the planet than are.) Second, I've seen some more recent articles suggesting that the larger number of male births is shrinking. I don't know enough to say much about that. I'm very much in agreement with your overall sentiment and arguments though. (There should be more women in positions of power. Who could argue with equality and why would they do so?) Here's a link to a Sen article about missing women: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/Sen100M.html http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/Sen100M.html
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    """(There should be more women in positions of power. Who could argue with equality and why would they do so?)""" Saying there ought to be more women in positions of power isn't equalitarian, it's sexist against men. There ought to be an equal way for anyone to get to said positions of power, but not to force the answer to come out any particular way all the time. Who would argue against equality? Someone who doesn't think men and women are the same ( but without one being better or worse ) - see the below link for a discussion about how and why men and women are different - if men are better at wide and shallow relationships and business thrives on wide and shallow relationships then it's less surprising if men and business go together, and it's not a conspiracy by men against women necessarily. Equal pay for equal work? Yes. Equal chance to apply for jobs and the best fit gets it without gender prejudice? Yes. Forcing a 50:50 split to give a public image of equality? Maybe not. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/ http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anyt...
    - telemachos 17y ago
      I did not mean equality of outcomes should somehow be regulated. I didn't say nearly enough to clarify my position, so that's my fault. However, nothing I did say suggested or implied any kind of quota or regulation. That is your assumption - perhaps reasonably based on past experience. When I say "There should be more women in positions of power," I mean that even if we assume a great deal of biological, inescapable, gender-based differences in psychology and physiology, the number of women in positions of power seems staggeringly low (and staggeringly low across time and space). Given that, and given what I know about history, I believe that another factor is at work here: sexism. I also seem to be in the minority here insofar as I find most evolutionary arguments that attempt to explain modern-day human psychology to be entirely wrong-headed. I wont try to have that debate here, but for an idea of why I believe this, see this article by Jerry Fodor (nb: the link is to a pdf): http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/Fodor/Fodor_Against_Darwinism.pdf http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/Fodor/Fodor_Against_Darwini... Another link with specific reference to something by Tierney: http://slate.msn.com/id/2124503/ http://slate.msn.com/id/2124503/

4chan4ever 17y ago

Well I guess I'll be the only one saying it: this entire article reeks of male geek condescension. I didn't know Clay Shirky was a feminist-apologist but I certainly grow tired of messages like this delivered from male bloggers about how women need to change, to do this or that or the other. This is a thin rewrite of a post that appeared I believe here on HN a few weeks back; only that post was actually written by a woman. These outside-looking-in pieces that male bloggers do are almost always a bad idea.

billswift 17y ago
I don't think Shirky is a "feminist-apologist" so much as that this kind of thinking has become a bit of "received wisdom" in liberal, especially academic, circles.

intellectronica 17y ago

No feminist would have ever written an article like this. It is strongly biased and doesn't support women's struggle to reach the same status men have in any serious way. The problem (according to feminist doctrine, not sure I subscribe to it myself) is exactly that most of the people on top are men. Since the population is split 50-50% between men and women you should expect the same balance to exist at the top. In some very modern societies (Sweden, for example) this is, in fact, the case. I'm not sure what it is you're tired of, exactly. Except for those few cases where the rights of men are compromised in the name of feminism, how could you sensibly object to a school of though that wants to gain equality for women?

telemachos 17y ago
One slight (odd) detail: the human population isn't split 50-50. Normally, I believe that male births slightly outnumber female births (105 or 106 males for every 100 females according to a source I'll cite in a minute.) However, there are complications. First, for a long time, the actual number of females in the world doesn't match the 105/6 to 100 number above. This has been described by Amartya Sen as the "missing women" problem. (That is, quite a lot more women should be on the planet than are.) Second, I've seen some more recent articles suggesting that the larger number of male births is shrinking. I don't know enough to say much about that. I'm very much in agreement with your overall sentiment and arguments though. (There should be more women in positions of power. Who could argue with equality and why would they do so?) Here's a link to a Sen article about missing women: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/Sen100M.html http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/Sen100M.html
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  """(There should be more women in positions of power. Who could argue with equality and why would they do so?)""" Saying there ought to be more women in positions of power isn't equalitarian, it's sexist against men. There ought to be an equal way for anyone to get to said positions of power, but not to force the answer to come out any particular way all the time. Who would argue against equality? Someone who doesn't think men and women are the same ( but without one being better or worse ) - see the below link for a discussion about how and why men and women are different - if men are better at wide and shallow relationships and business thrives on wide and shallow relationships then it's less surprising if men and business go together, and it's not a conspiracy by men against women necessarily. Equal pay for equal work? Yes. Equal chance to apply for jobs and the best fit gets it without gender prejudice? Yes. Forcing a 50:50 split to give a public image of equality? Maybe not. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/ http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anyt...
  - telemachos 17y ago
    I did not mean equality of outcomes should somehow be regulated. I didn't say nearly enough to clarify my position, so that's my fault. However, nothing I did say suggested or implied any kind of quota or regulation. That is your assumption - perhaps reasonably based on past experience. When I say "There should be more women in positions of power," I mean that even if we assume a great deal of biological, inescapable, gender-based differences in psychology and physiology, the number of women in positions of power seems staggeringly low (and staggeringly low across time and space). Given that, and given what I know about history, I believe that another factor is at work here: sexism. I also seem to be in the minority here insofar as I find most evolutionary arguments that attempt to explain modern-day human psychology to be entirely wrong-headed. I wont try to have that debate here, but for an idea of why I believe this, see this article by Jerry Fodor (nb: the link is to a pdf): http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/Fodor/Fodor_Against_Darwinism.pdf http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/Fodor/Fodor_Against_Darwini... Another link with specific reference to something by Tierney: http://slate.msn.com/id/2124503/ http://slate.msn.com/id/2124503/