4 ms·

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 poin

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
      - wpietri 11y ago
        So you're saying that women getting the vote two entire generations after men is not a sign of some sort of gender discrimination? (Let me guess, you're a guy.) That would be a pretty rich claim on its own. Perhaps if were the single historical or present example of discrimination against women, maybe it would be worth considering. It isn't, of course. Two easy examples were women not being allowed to own property: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture And women being treated as the sexual property of men: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Do we have to turn everything into a gender issue? This is exactly what feminists (or maybe people acting in the name of feminists) do wrong - they try to inject their fight for social justice every. fucking. where., whether it's startup economy or landing on a goddamn comet. And pg is actually very right - reasonable people from all sides of the issue avoid mainstream social justice discussions because they're just ridiculous and a huge waste of time. Participants of those have their stance on discussed issues tied too close to their personal identity[0]. [0] - http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
  - wpietri 11y ago
    > Do we have to turn everything into a gender issue? Feminists are arguing for things not to be gender issues. People make it a gender issue when they ignore female accomplishments for which men would be honored. Paul Graham explictly made this a gender issue when he praised her for being the "mom". If you don't think talking about these things is valuable, nobody's forcing you to talk about them. The participants, me included, don't see it as a waste of time, because society has been making steady progress on this for the last hundred years or so. Maybe in another hundred things finally won't be intrusively gendered all the time and we can all get back to what we're doing. If you'd like to help, great. If not, maybe let the people who care get on with it?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > Feminists are arguing for things not to be gender issues. Interesting way of doing that by making everything a gender issue all the time. > Paul Graham explictly made this a gender issue when he praised her for being the "mom". No, he just praised Jessica for performing the role of mother in the YC family. > If you don't think talking about these things is valuable, nobody's forcing you to talk about them. (...) I usually don't. But someone has to speak up when there's bullying starting to happen, because if nobody does, then it will just continue. I want to live in the world where all people are respected and happy. I don't want to live in the world where everyone is afraid of saying a thing in fear of getting bullied by political-correctness defenders.

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
    - wpietri 11y ago
      So you're saying that women getting the vote two entire generations after men is not a sign of some sort of gender discrimination? (Let me guess, you're a guy.) That would be a pretty rich claim on its own. Perhaps if were the single historical or present example of discrimination against women, maybe it would be worth considering. It isn't, of course. Two easy examples were women not being allowed to own property: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture And women being treated as the sexual property of men: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Do we have to turn everything into a gender issue? This is exactly what feminists (or maybe people acting in the name of feminists) do wrong - they try to inject their fight for social justice every. fucking. where., whether it's startup economy or landing on a goddamn comet. And pg is actually very right - reasonable people from all sides of the issue avoid mainstream social justice discussions because they're just ridiculous and a huge waste of time. Participants of those have their stance on discussed issues tied too close to their personal identity[0]. [0] - http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
- wpietri 11y ago
  > Do we have to turn everything into a gender issue? Feminists are arguing for things not to be gender issues. People make it a gender issue when they ignore female accomplishments for which men would be honored. Paul Graham explictly made this a gender issue when he praised her for being the "mom". If you don't think talking about these things is valuable, nobody's forcing you to talk about them. The participants, me included, don't see it as a waste of time, because society has been making steady progress on this for the last hundred years or so. Maybe in another hundred things finally won't be intrusively gendered all the time and we can all get back to what we're doing. If you'd like to help, great. If not, maybe let the people who care get on with it?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > Feminists are arguing for things not to be gender issues. Interesting way of doing that by making everything a gender issue all the time. > Paul Graham explictly made this a gender issue when he praised her for being the "mom". No, he just praised Jessica for performing the role of mother in the YC family. > If you don't think talking about these things is valuable, nobody's forcing you to talk about them. (...) I usually don't. But someone has to speak up when there's bullying starting to happen, because if nobody does, then it will just continue. I want to live in the world where all people are respected and happy. I don't want to live in the world where everyone is afraid of saying a thing in fear of getting bullied by political-correctness defenders.