3 ms·

> Few people took a stand against her when she made those bets Plenty did, but it was not politically correct to attack her publicly, so these people's concer

> Few people took a stand against her when she made those bets Plenty did, but it was not politically correct to attack her publicly, so these people's concerns were quickly dismissed as you know what (it begins with a s... ). Yahoo has zillions of product. How about integration between these products ? there is none. That's how you start building a valuable ecosystem, that's what Google, Apple and Microsoft do ! You can't buy your way into success if there is no real global strategy to interconnect all the apps you bought.

wpietri 10y ago
There's a big difference between critiquing a business strategy and "attacking her". When people do the latter to a prominent woman, I think it's reasonable to ask whether sexism is involved. We know from a variety of studies that people are more critical of women, and more personally critical. [1] It's often unintentional; many people who are consciously not sexist demonstrate significant bias. So I don't think anybody needs to feel accused or defensive. But it's certainly something we as a society need to work on. [1] E.g.: http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/ http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias... and http://www.wsj.com/articles/gender-bias-at-work-turns-up-in-feedback-1443600759 http://www.wsj.com/articles/gender-bias-at-work-turns-up-in-...
- 1123581321 10y ago
  I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. In part of your comment, you say that attacking someone in a sexist way is quite easy to do because it's unintentional, it's done by people who are not sexist, and broadly applicable statistical heuristics should be used to determine the likelihood that a remark is sexist. Elsewhere, you say there is a big difference between non-sexist and sexist criticism. A big difference should be observable and definable, thus easy to avoid committing. My opinion is that there actually is a big difference and your heuristics are wrong. I would not accuse someone of a serious faux pas, which a reasonable thing to feel accused and defensive about, unless I could clearly explain the difference between it and a reasonable remark in a way that others could repeatedly point to when constructing their own remarks. In a statute or regulation, this kind of definition is referred to as a safe harbor.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    I said there's a big difference between commenting on a strategy and attacking a person. This is all in reference to spriggan3 changing the ground from her bets, which is what heimatau was talking about, to "attack[ing] her publicly". It is possible to address both in sexist ways. But when somebody is attacking a prominent woman in ways that prominent men in similar situations get a lot less of, I'm much more inclined to read the personal attacks as sexist in motivation. I definitely didn't say "there is a big difference between non-sexist and sexist criticism", and I don't believe that to be generally true. That's why hidden biases like sexism and racism are so pernicious. Is any individual Mayer comment sexist? Who knows. But when we look at statistical patterns in how women are treated, it's obvious that bias is in play, be that conscious but hidden or entirely unnoticed by the commenter. Your focus on assuring safe harbor for dudes is telling. You don't talk at all about safety for the people actually being harmed by the sexism; they appear irrelevant to you as long as guys don't have to endure examination and possible criticism.
    - 1123581321 10y ago
      Your last paragraph is way off. I don't have to list my anti-sexism accomplishments to justify making a point about something else.
      - wpietri 10y ago
        Trying to create a safe harbor for apparently sexist men is not "something else". Sure, you don't have to list anti-sexist accomplishments. But if you want to be read as somebody who has a balanced approach to the topic, you have to demonstrate that balance.

wpietri 10y ago

There's a big difference between critiquing a business strategy and "attacking her". When people do the latter to a prominent woman, I think it's reasonable to ask whether sexism is involved. We know from a variety of studies that people are more critical of women, and more personally critical. [1] It's often unintentional; many people who are consciously not sexist demonstrate significant bias. So I don't think anybody needs to feel accused or defensive. But it's certainly something we as a society need to work on. [1] E.g.: http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/ http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias... and http://www.wsj.com/articles/gender-bias-at-work-turns-up-in-feedback-1443600759 http://www.wsj.com/articles/gender-bias-at-work-turns-up-in-...

1123581321 10y ago
I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. In part of your comment, you say that attacking someone in a sexist way is quite easy to do because it's unintentional, it's done by people who are not sexist, and broadly applicable statistical heuristics should be used to determine the likelihood that a remark is sexist. Elsewhere, you say there is a big difference between non-sexist and sexist criticism. A big difference should be observable and definable, thus easy to avoid committing. My opinion is that there actually is a big difference and your heuristics are wrong. I would not accuse someone of a serious faux pas, which a reasonable thing to feel accused and defensive about, unless I could clearly explain the difference between it and a reasonable remark in a way that others could repeatedly point to when constructing their own remarks. In a statute or regulation, this kind of definition is referred to as a safe harbor.
- wpietri 10y ago
  I said there's a big difference between commenting on a strategy and attacking a person. This is all in reference to spriggan3 changing the ground from her bets, which is what heimatau was talking about, to "attack[ing] her publicly". It is possible to address both in sexist ways. But when somebody is attacking a prominent woman in ways that prominent men in similar situations get a lot less of, I'm much more inclined to read the personal attacks as sexist in motivation. I definitely didn't say "there is a big difference between non-sexist and sexist criticism", and I don't believe that to be generally true. That's why hidden biases like sexism and racism are so pernicious. Is any individual Mayer comment sexist? Who knows. But when we look at statistical patterns in how women are treated, it's obvious that bias is in play, be that conscious but hidden or entirely unnoticed by the commenter. Your focus on assuring safe harbor for dudes is telling. You don't talk at all about safety for the people actually being harmed by the sexism; they appear irrelevant to you as long as guys don't have to endure examination and possible criticism.
  - 1123581321 10y ago
    Your last paragraph is way off. I don't have to list my anti-sexism accomplishments to justify making a point about something else.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      Trying to create a safe harbor for apparently sexist men is not "something else". Sure, you don't have to list anti-sexist accomplishments. But if you want to be read as somebody who has a balanced approach to the topic, you have to demonstrate that balance.