8 ms·

Footnote #3 is worth pointing out, I think: > The existence of people like Jessica is not just something the mainstream media needs to learn to acknowledge, bu

Footnote #3 is worth pointing out, I think: > 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. > There's a sort of Gresham's Law of conversations. If a conversation reaches a certain level of incivility, the more thoughtful people start to leave. I imagine that this idea applies to many situations. Replace "feminists" and "[successful] women" with something else.

jforman 11y ago
I'm scared for the future of Congress. What thoughtful person would want to enter that environment?
tedks 11y ago
Feminists will never "acknowledge" this as some grand triumph of feminism because the message it ultimately sends to girls is, if you want to co-found an incubator, start fucking a man who can help you. Is that a feminist message?
- mattmaroon 11y ago
  It would take a horribly misogynistic person to think that's the message of PG's post or what happened. The message I'd take out of it: a woman is one of the most influential and successful people in tech. And she does it all behind the scenes while being kind and compassionate.
  - tedks 11y ago
    That's the narrative. This is the real misogyny: >And she does it all behind the scenes while being kind and compassionate. So: 1. Women should fuck men. 2. Women should stay behind the scenes. 3. Women should be "kind and compassionate" (are you one of those people that tells women they should "smile more" as well?). If this blog post was a book or a movie I wouldn't read it or watch it because even if the female co-star is an actually impressive character it would be so annoying that she was shoehorned into a love interest role and doubly annoying that she was constantly shoved into the background. Humans remember narratives, not facts, and so this isn't really a feminist story.
    - mattmaroon 11y ago
      1. If they want to. 2. If they want to. 3. Everyone should be kind and compassionate. Many are sadly not. This industry glorifies the Steve Jobs type far too much. It's misogynist to assume that her relationship with PG somehow makes her achievement lesser. One does not assume that of PG, hence it's a double standard. You're assuming (despite having just read an essay by PG to the contrary) that he's the one with the talent and she's just along for the ride. It's the same sort of backwards gender feminist bullshit that criticizes women for choosing to stay home with their kids. If a guy chose to stay out of the spotlight you wouldn't consider that misandrist, but when a woman does it's misogynist? Sexism is a double standard, and you're applying one here in some sort of odd, backward attempt to be an SJW. If you knew Jessica you'd understand, she's as impressive as PG in her own right. It might not make a good movie but it made for a damn good seed funding organization.
      - tedks 11y ago
        >It's misogynist to assume that her relationship with PG somehow makes her achievement lesser. One does not assume that of PG, hence it's a double standard. You're assuming (despite having just read an essay by PG to the contrary) that he's the one with the talent and she's just along for the ride. I tried to be explicit in saying the facts of this particular situation don't really matter. It pattern-matches against a narrative structure that isn't feminist, so it isn't feminist. Personally, I think it's always inappropriate to mix one's professional and personal lives, and my opinion is that in a situation like this, one of the partners should have dropped out of the company to ensure that there was no appearance of impropriety and to ensure that the remaining person was taken seriously. If Jessica was more valuable to YC than Paul, it should have been Paul that left. >It might not make a good movie s/good/feminist and this is my entire point. Further, >1. If they want to It's laughable to handwave away literal millennia of compulsory heterosexuality into "if they want to." Most women don't have a choice in this matter and globally, women that attempt to choose otherwise are usually killed for it. I know lesbian women that avoid traveling entirely outside of the US, and limit where they go in the US heavily, because of this. Not seeing this is an expression of both male and heterosexual privilege. This isn't a thing you should take negatively, but it is a thing you should meditate on and maybe recompute some cached thoughts. >2. If they want to Similarly, most women don't have a choice about whether to be in the background or not. Especially in technology, where the assumption is that only men are technical, so men talk to other men and systematically exclude women. >3. Everyone should be kind and compassionate Telling a woman to "be kind and compassionate" is a macro/microaggression because women are only seen as either compliant/motherly/etc., or bitches. Men and women acting exactly the same ways tend to be viewed as assertive and confident on the one hand, but bitches on the other hand. It's for these reasons that this doesn't make a compelling feminist narrative. The facts of the situation don't change the narrative structure. And since human memories decay to the prototype of the neural network over time, it doesn't really matter what the details of this situation are, because they decay to an anti-feminist prototype. >If a guy chose to stay out of the spotlight you wouldn't consider that misandrist, but when a woman does it's misogynist? Well, misandry isn't real, so no, but if a man decides consciously to take up less space and possibly use his male privilege to ensure that women in (say) his company have more space, that is a feminist act. This is a good practice for men and I encourage any men reading to try this at the next meeting. Keep track of who talks when, and ensure that you A.) talk less than every woman present, B.) redirect the conversation to women when they're interrupted by men, and C.) point out when women's ideas are restated by men as their own. When a woman chooses not to take up space, it could be for a variety of reasons, and this in itself is not anti-feminist, but a mere lack of anti-feminism doesn't make an action (or here, a narrative) feminist. Most often, the reason a woman will chose not to take up space is because she is being oppressed when she attempts to do so (and this is true whether she recognizes the pushback from men around her, or if she merely reacts non-consciously to social cues to take up less space and "be less of a bitch"). Your example is ill-conceived also in that it attempts to derive valid feminist statements by switching genders. The only reason feminism exists is because there are tangible power and status differentials between the gender roles delineated by patriarchy, and specifically, that women are oppressed by men. The point of feminism is to do away with this difference, but until this happens it's meaningless to say "but X is true when gender=A, so it must be true when gender=(B!=A)." Obviously the social expectations, supports, and barriers for men and women are different. I suggest you read more about feminism from feminist women, starting in the 60's and moving forward in time.
gozo 11y ago
It's like everything else though. If you don't normally interact with a field you're only going to get the dramatic content. If you're a web developer you won't see the 99% of times Linus Torvalds is normal, because that won't be relevant to you as you don't do kernel development. If you go look up pretty much any feminist icon (e.g. at TED) they are usually very thoughtful. It would be interesting to see him elaborate on that, because he normally has a quite "hard" debating style himself. He has repeatedly spoken out for not having to limit what you say and against things like political correctness, and also approved things like hellbanning and 'downvote to disagree' on Hacker News.
mcnamaratw 11y ago
"There's a sort of Gresham's Law of conversations. If a conversation reaches a certain level of incivility, the more thoughtful people start to leave." If there are equations that describe the net, since the mid-1980s, this is one of them. A lot of the commentary here is about "shyness" or "introversion," which, I don't know J.L. But I think the point of PG's Gresham comment is it's not only personality. Analogy: What professor of physics is going to wade into the hyper-bullshit environment of a typical online physics "discussion?" As soon as they see the word "photon" or "rest mass" I'm sure they run for the hills. Introvert or extrovert, it's a waste of time. Just get out in one piece before it gets any worse. It's a trap!

jforman 11y ago

I'm scared for the future of Congress. What thoughtful person would want to enter that environment?

tedks 11y ago

Feminists will never "acknowledge" this as some grand triumph of feminism because the message it ultimately sends to girls is, if you want to co-found an incubator, start fucking a man who can help you. Is that a feminist message?

mattmaroon 11y ago
It would take a horribly misogynistic person to think that's the message of PG's post or what happened. The message I'd take out of it: a woman is one of the most influential and successful people in tech. And she does it all behind the scenes while being kind and compassionate.
- tedks 11y ago
  That's the narrative. This is the real misogyny: >And she does it all behind the scenes while being kind and compassionate. So: 1. Women should fuck men. 2. Women should stay behind the scenes. 3. Women should be "kind and compassionate" (are you one of those people that tells women they should "smile more" as well?). If this blog post was a book or a movie I wouldn't read it or watch it because even if the female co-star is an actually impressive character it would be so annoying that she was shoehorned into a love interest role and doubly annoying that she was constantly shoved into the background. Humans remember narratives, not facts, and so this isn't really a feminist story.
  - mattmaroon 11y ago
    1. If they want to. 2. If they want to. 3. Everyone should be kind and compassionate. Many are sadly not. This industry glorifies the Steve Jobs type far too much. It's misogynist to assume that her relationship with PG somehow makes her achievement lesser. One does not assume that of PG, hence it's a double standard. You're assuming (despite having just read an essay by PG to the contrary) that he's the one with the talent and she's just along for the ride. It's the same sort of backwards gender feminist bullshit that criticizes women for choosing to stay home with their kids. If a guy chose to stay out of the spotlight you wouldn't consider that misandrist, but when a woman does it's misogynist? Sexism is a double standard, and you're applying one here in some sort of odd, backward attempt to be an SJW. If you knew Jessica you'd understand, she's as impressive as PG in her own right. It might not make a good movie but it made for a damn good seed funding organization.
    - tedks 11y ago
      >It's misogynist to assume that her relationship with PG somehow makes her achievement lesser. One does not assume that of PG, hence it's a double standard. You're assuming (despite having just read an essay by PG to the contrary) that he's the one with the talent and she's just along for the ride. I tried to be explicit in saying the facts of this particular situation don't really matter. It pattern-matches against a narrative structure that isn't feminist, so it isn't feminist. Personally, I think it's always inappropriate to mix one's professional and personal lives, and my opinion is that in a situation like this, one of the partners should have dropped out of the company to ensure that there was no appearance of impropriety and to ensure that the remaining person was taken seriously. If Jessica was more valuable to YC than Paul, it should have been Paul that left. >It might not make a good movie s/good/feminist and this is my entire point. Further, >1. If they want to It's laughable to handwave away literal millennia of compulsory heterosexuality into "if they want to." Most women don't have a choice in this matter and globally, women that attempt to choose otherwise are usually killed for it. I know lesbian women that avoid traveling entirely outside of the US, and limit where they go in the US heavily, because of this. Not seeing this is an expression of both male and heterosexual privilege. This isn't a thing you should take negatively, but it is a thing you should meditate on and maybe recompute some cached thoughts. >2. If they want to Similarly, most women don't have a choice about whether to be in the background or not. Especially in technology, where the assumption is that only men are technical, so men talk to other men and systematically exclude women. >3. Everyone should be kind and compassionate Telling a woman to "be kind and compassionate" is a macro/microaggression because women are only seen as either compliant/motherly/etc., or bitches. Men and women acting exactly the same ways tend to be viewed as assertive and confident on the one hand, but bitches on the other hand. It's for these reasons that this doesn't make a compelling feminist narrative. The facts of the situation don't change the narrative structure. And since human memories decay to the prototype of the neural network over time, it doesn't really matter what the details of this situation are, because they decay to an anti-feminist prototype. >If a guy chose to stay out of the spotlight you wouldn't consider that misandrist, but when a woman does it's misogynist? Well, misandry isn't real, so no, but if a man decides consciously to take up less space and possibly use his male privilege to ensure that women in (say) his company have more space, that is a feminist act. This is a good practice for men and I encourage any men reading to try this at the next meeting. Keep track of who talks when, and ensure that you A.) talk less than every woman present, B.) redirect the conversation to women when they're interrupted by men, and C.) point out when women's ideas are restated by men as their own. When a woman chooses not to take up space, it could be for a variety of reasons, and this in itself is not anti-feminist, but a mere lack of anti-feminism doesn't make an action (or here, a narrative) feminist. Most often, the reason a woman will chose not to take up space is because she is being oppressed when she attempts to do so (and this is true whether she recognizes the pushback from men around her, or if she merely reacts non-consciously to social cues to take up less space and "be less of a bitch"). Your example is ill-conceived also in that it attempts to derive valid feminist statements by switching genders. The only reason feminism exists is because there are tangible power and status differentials between the gender roles delineated by patriarchy, and specifically, that women are oppressed by men. The point of feminism is to do away with this difference, but until this happens it's meaningless to say "but X is true when gender=A, so it must be true when gender=(B!=A)." Obviously the social expectations, supports, and barriers for men and women are different. I suggest you read more about feminism from feminist women, starting in the 60's and moving forward in time.

gozo 11y ago

It's like everything else though. If you don't normally interact with a field you're only going to get the dramatic content. If you're a web developer you won't see the 99% of times Linus Torvalds is normal, because that won't be relevant to you as you don't do kernel development. If you go look up pretty much any feminist icon (e.g. at TED) they are usually very thoughtful. It would be interesting to see him elaborate on that, because he normally has a quite "hard" debating style himself. He has repeatedly spoken out for not having to limit what you say and against things like political correctness, and also approved things like hellbanning and 'downvote to disagree' on Hacker News.

mcnamaratw 11y ago

"There's a sort of Gresham's Law of conversations. If a conversation reaches a certain level of incivility, the more thoughtful people start to leave." If there are equations that describe the net, since the mid-1980s, this is one of them. A lot of the commentary here is about "shyness" or "introversion," which, I don't know J.L. But I think the point of PG's Gresham comment is it's not only personality. Analogy: What professor of physics is going to wade into the hyper-bullshit environment of a typical online physics "discussion?" As soon as they see the word "photon" or "rest mass" I'm sure they run for the hills. Introvert or extrovert, it's a waste of time. Just get out in one piece before it gets any worse. It's a trap!