6 ms·

you seem to completely have missed this footnote: >[3] The existence of people like Jessica is not just something the mainstream media needs to learn to acknow

you seem to completely have missed this footnote: >[3] The existence of people like Jessica is not just something the mainstream media needs to learn to acknowledge, but something feminists need to learn to acknowledge as well. There are successful women who don't like to fight. Which means if the public conversation about women consists of fighting, their voices will be silenced.

wpietri 11y ago
I did not in fact miss that footnote. Given that, is there some point you were trying to make?
- mosquito242 11y ago
  That he did in fact mention this issue, and noted it's relationship to Jessica in his article. He didn't expound on it at length, but why would he when the point of this article is Jessica's involvement in YC?
  - wpietri 11y ago
    That footnote does not even admit that gender discrimination exists, let alone address it. It admonishes feminists for doing feminism wrong. Which I always find a little rich from people who are not themselves doing the thing. It feels to me like when non-developers tell me how to develop. My reaction is, "Oh, you know how to do this better? Why don't you show me?" The point of this article also wasn't Jessica's involvement in YC. It was correcting the general public's lack of understanding of her involvement. That lack of understanding fits the broad pattern of women being undervalued, and the work of women being written off as subsidiary to prominent men. It's a topic that has been much discussed, and was, as I linked, in the New York Times less than a week ago. Given that he literally asks why more people don't recognize a woman's contributions, it seems weird to me that he lays it entirely at her character (and his), without reference to known systemic biases. That footnote only makes it weirder, in that he seems to be claiming sufficient acquaintance with the discussion of this problem that he should be aware of the biases.
    - FD3SA 11y ago
      There's a massive, elephant sized problem with your narrative: biology is not a social construct. Women (on average) have different brains, different bodies, and as a result, different preferences than men (on average). All of the issues which radical feminists are foaming at the mouth to "fix" with heavy handed state tactics are a result of empirical reality. Most people understand this, but people who have an ideological axe to grind do not. Because if these people were to admit they had failed to apply Occam's Razor before going on their hateful quest, they'd lose all their social status as perceived freedom fighters and social just warriors. It's biology, all the way down.
      - zzzeek 11y ago
        Even in this country, women were not allowed to vote in political elections until the 20th century, and the case was similar in countries around the world. How does your argument that "all issues which feminists (make no mistake, feminists of the 1920's were "radical") seek to fix are a result of empirical reality" fit with that? Women couldn't vote, and that was just the natural outcome of "empirical reality", now they can, and that is, what exactly? Did "empirical reality" change? Or is the fact that women now vote in virtually all countries a terrible crime against biology?
        wpietri 11y ago
        Definitely. Those (mostly dudes) who believe feminism is no longer necessary seem never to be able to say when they think true fairness was achieved. But they're awfully sure we have it now.
        FD3SA 11y ago
        Women in the United States gained the right to vote in 1920. The majority of men (non-landowners) received the right to vote only 50 years prior in 1870 [1]. This doesn't seem to be the work of a nefarious patriarchy behind the veil, but a continuing democratic movement that began with the Magna Carta. Although of course, once again, this information does not fit the feminist narrative, and is blasphemy to a movement whose only goal is political power. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage
e12e 11y ago
I thought that footnote was odd. It's acknowledging widespread sexism (implying that (almost) all public conversation about women is confrontational - or leads to a confrontation, presumably in contrast to most other public conversations (about men)) -- and calls for feminists to acknowledge that not all women wants to be/are confrontational? The whole idea of fighting for equal opportunity is so that everyone can be more of who they are, and not have to fight more than anyone else to be heard, because of race, gender, sexual preference, social standing or any of the myriad of things we are so great at holding against people for no good reason. Anyway, just as with the last time few times PG found himself in a minefield of mostly misguided political correctness -- I think this simply shows his general style of pragmatically voicing his thoughts, without much concern for overall social analysis. I for one welcome that, even though if read in in a certain light, he can sound anything from quaint to prejudicial (not so much in this article). But he's not alone in that -- any neutral voice in a in-equal society can be seen as being oppressive -- of supporting the status quo. I also see how people can get tired of being expected to fight, when all they want is get on with their work. It's a perfectly natural reaction. It's quite horrifying to see one of the more powerful women of Silicon Valley (?) not dare to be interviewed for fear of how her message will be twisted though. If anyone needed confirmation that there's a long way to go to equal opportunity in management, that surely is it.
- rtpg 11y ago
  >even though if read in in a certain light, he can sound anything from quaint to prejudicial (not so much in this article). Perhaps because he's actually being prejudicial? It's odd how we somehow think that someone being honest about their prejudices somehow minimises the prejudice.

wpietri 11y ago

I did not in fact miss that footnote. Given that, is there some point you were trying to make?

mosquito242 11y ago
That he did in fact mention this issue, and noted it's relationship to Jessica in his article. He didn't expound on it at length, but why would he when the point of this article is Jessica's involvement in YC?
- wpietri 11y ago
  That footnote does not even admit that gender discrimination exists, let alone address it. It admonishes feminists for doing feminism wrong. Which I always find a little rich from people who are not themselves doing the thing. It feels to me like when non-developers tell me how to develop. My reaction is, "Oh, you know how to do this better? Why don't you show me?" The point of this article also wasn't Jessica's involvement in YC. It was correcting the general public's lack of understanding of her involvement. That lack of understanding fits the broad pattern of women being undervalued, and the work of women being written off as subsidiary to prominent men. It's a topic that has been much discussed, and was, as I linked, in the New York Times less than a week ago. Given that he literally asks why more people don't recognize a woman's contributions, it seems weird to me that he lays it entirely at her character (and his), without reference to known systemic biases. That footnote only makes it weirder, in that he seems to be claiming sufficient acquaintance with the discussion of this problem that he should be aware of the biases.
  - FD3SA 11y ago
    There's a massive, elephant sized problem with your narrative: biology is not a social construct. Women (on average) have different brains, different bodies, and as a result, different preferences than men (on average). All of the issues which radical feminists are foaming at the mouth to "fix" with heavy handed state tactics are a result of empirical reality. Most people understand this, but people who have an ideological axe to grind do not. Because if these people were to admit they had failed to apply Occam's Razor before going on their hateful quest, they'd lose all their social status as perceived freedom fighters and social just warriors. It's biology, all the way down.
    - zzzeek 11y ago
      Even in this country, women were not allowed to vote in political elections until the 20th century, and the case was similar in countries around the world. How does your argument that "all issues which feminists (make no mistake, feminists of the 1920's were "radical") seek to fix are a result of empirical reality" fit with that? Women couldn't vote, and that was just the natural outcome of "empirical reality", now they can, and that is, what exactly? Did "empirical reality" change? Or is the fact that women now vote in virtually all countries a terrible crime against biology?
      - wpietri 11y ago
        Definitely. Those (mostly dudes) who believe feminism is no longer necessary seem never to be able to say when they think true fairness was achieved. But they're awfully sure we have it now.
      - FD3SA 11y ago
        Women in the United States gained the right to vote in 1920. The majority of men (non-landowners) received the right to vote only 50 years prior in 1870 [1]. This doesn't seem to be the work of a nefarious patriarchy behind the veil, but a continuing democratic movement that began with the Magna Carta. Although of course, once again, this information does not fit the feminist narrative, and is blasphemy to a movement whose only goal is political power. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

e12e 11y ago

I thought that footnote was odd. It's acknowledging widespread sexism (implying that (almost) all public conversation about women is confrontational - or leads to a confrontation, presumably in contrast to most other public conversations (about men)) -- and calls for feminists to acknowledge that not all women wants to be/are confrontational? The whole idea of fighting for equal opportunity is so that everyone can be more of who they are, and not have to fight more than anyone else to be heard, because of race, gender, sexual preference, social standing or any of the myriad of things we are so great at holding against people for no good reason. Anyway, just as with the last time few times PG found himself in a minefield of mostly misguided political correctness -- I think this simply shows his general style of pragmatically voicing his thoughts, without much concern for overall social analysis. I for one welcome that, even though if read in in a certain light, he can sound anything from quaint to prejudicial (not so much in this article). But he's not alone in that -- any neutral voice in a in-equal society can be seen as being oppressive -- of supporting the status quo. I also see how people can get tired of being expected to fight, when all they want is get on with their work. It's a perfectly natural reaction. It's quite horrifying to see one of the more powerful women of Silicon Valley (?) not dare to be interviewed for fear of how her message will be twisted though. If anyone needed confirmation that there's a long way to go to equal opportunity in management, that surely is it.

rtpg 11y ago
>even though if read in in a certain light, he can sound anything from quaint to prejudicial (not so much in this article). Perhaps because he's actually being prejudicial? It's odd how we somehow think that someone being honest about their prejudices somehow minimises the prejudice.