3 ms·

And this is partially why people got so upset at that Googler. You understood what I said, but you're somehow displeased I didn't phrase it in the way you would

And this is partially why people got so upset at that Googler. You understood what I said, but you're somehow displeased I didn't phrase it in the way you would have and are reading a direction of duty/responsibility that isn't in my comment nor in my thoughts.

camgunz 9y ago
I totally get that. I think it's probably natural to think stuff like this is completely trivial and the tactic of people who are "looking for excuses to be offended" or "looking to play the victim". But I take issue with a number of things in that first sentence of yours I quoted, and your comment here to which I'm replying. I'll try and be as explicit as possible because I think one of the major duties of allies is to try and explain our positions in our own communities instead of just shouting down opposing positions (which, I should say, I think is valid if you're on the oppressed end of those positions -- it's not also your job to teach people how they're oppressing you). > women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men This is your quote. "Women" are the subject of your sentence, meaning your sentence is about women. You then use the passive construction "is perceived", which avoids saying that, in this context, men are (largely) the ones who have trouble with assertiveness in women when it comes to leadership. A different way of saying the same thing is what I responded with: "men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive". "Men" are the subject of my sentence, and I use active verbs to clearly say their behavior is the issue. Our sentences both address the same issue and, more or less, confront the same causes. But the difference is that my sentence emphasizes the fact that men are the problem, whereas your sentences emphasizes the fact that women are the victim of the problem. If we were to apply your emphasis to every social issue, we'd have a long list of problems with victims. But if we apply my emphasis, we'd have a long list of problems with perpetrators and, more importantly, behavior to correct. We can't afford to not call out where the problems lie, we can't afford to dance around what the problem actually is, and we can't hem and haw when it comes time to say who should change their behavior. That's why I took issue with your sentence. And again, you may feel like these are insufferably insignificant, but there's a long history of minimizing the experiences and feelings of women that also transcends every culture, and stuff like this is just more of it bubbling up. We minimize the transgressions of men by overlooking their behavior (not naming them as the subject) or not directly attaching them to their behavior (using the passive), but in the process we tie women to the issue (using them as the subject) and frame it like it's their inadequacy (tying them to the outcome). Things like this are hard, complicated, and embedded in every part of our culture. It's uncomfortable but we need to look at things with this level of detail because sexism exists even here. It's kind of a harsh phrase, but this is where "intent is irrelevant" comes in. I'm sure you didn't mean to do all the stuff I've pinned on you here, and maybe you still disagree that you have done it. But many people will feel that you have done these things when they read your sentence, and you should at least treat their feelings as valid, try to understand why they feel that way, and consider some changes to how you phrase things.
- morgtheborg 9y ago
  If you take one sentence and dissect it then it's easy to conclude it would have been better to phrase it in a different way assuming your goal is my goal. But I was making a movement from a point made in the Google document that inspired visceral reactions and then leading FROM that point TO a more nuanced point which becomes apparent when the rest of my post is included: > And I think that's really what was missing from his piece; why do these differences exist and isn't it possible they are constructed rather than innate? He lists a few reasons he is convinced they are not, including their consistency across cultures, but I remain unconvinced all of his list of differences can be explained in this way. > Particularly leading. There are way too many studies that show the biases women have to deal with in that regard and assuming they have no impact on behavior is silly. The context is relevant to understanding any sentence. > natural to think stuff like this is completely trivial and the tactic of people who are "looking for excuses to be offended" or "looking to play the victim" Yes, particularly when the rest of a three paragraph response clarifies any confusion that might have occurred. > in this context, men are (largely) the ones who have trouble with assertiveness in women when it comes to leadership Inaccurate if you're trying to say men respond more poorly to assertive women than other women. Accurate if you're saying in this context the demographics mean more men are present to respond. Seems relevant since you want to say > men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive Which is definitely NOT what I am trying to communicate and is honestly offensive and not backed by data. Feel free to reference studies if you disagree and think men are particularly prone to respond to assertive women in the office more poorly than other women. > But the difference is that my sentence emphasizes the fact that men are the problem, whereas your sentences emphasizes the fact that women are the victim of the problem. I don't think men are the problem. I think society is the problem, and, possibly, biology to a degree. What degree? I haven't the foggiest. > sexism exists Sexism exist in everyone in every culture. Every woman is sexist. Every man is sexist. Agreed. The question is degrees and how aware people are of their biases so they can compensate for them. > "intent is irrelevant" We'll just have to agree to disagree. Intent is never irrelevant. > I'm sure you didn't mean to do all the stuff I've pinned on you here, and maybe you still disagree that you have done it. I did it. I'm happy to have done it. If I had agreed with your premise that men were the problem, I would still have disagreed with your changes to my paragraph since it lacks the movement of meeting people where they are and then moving to add nuance/clarification. Regardless, I don't agree with your premise. > But many people will feel that you have done these things when they read your sentence, and you should at least treat their feelings as valid, try to understand why they feel that way, and consider some changes to how you phrase things. Thanks for sharing. Your feelings are definitely valid in the sense you are feeling them. I've engaged pretty thoroughly with your comment. I simply disagree and, after considering changing how I phrase things in the future, have concluded that would be contrary to my goals. Though I do appreciate you sharing your perspective. It's good to stand up for you believe in and promote your perspective on how people should act and behave. I'll continue to do the same.

camgunz 9y ago

I totally get that. I think it's probably natural to think stuff like this is completely trivial and the tactic of people who are "looking for excuses to be offended" or "looking to play the victim". But I take issue with a number of things in that first sentence of yours I quoted, and your comment here to which I'm replying. I'll try and be as explicit as possible because I think one of the major duties of allies is to try and explain our positions in our own communities instead of just shouting down opposing positions (which, I should say, I think is valid if you're on the oppressed end of those positions -- it's not also your job to teach people how they're oppressing you). > women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men This is your quote. "Women" are the subject of your sentence, meaning your sentence is about women. You then use the passive construction "is perceived", which avoids saying that, in this context, men are (largely) the ones who have trouble with assertiveness in women when it comes to leadership. A different way of saying the same thing is what I responded with: "men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive". "Men" are the subject of my sentence, and I use active verbs to clearly say their behavior is the issue. Our sentences both address the same issue and, more or less, confront the same causes. But the difference is that my sentence emphasizes the fact that men are the problem, whereas your sentences emphasizes the fact that women are the victim of the problem. If we were to apply your emphasis to every social issue, we'd have a long list of problems with victims. But if we apply my emphasis, we'd have a long list of problems with perpetrators and, more importantly, behavior to correct. We can't afford to not call out where the problems lie, we can't afford to dance around what the problem actually is, and we can't hem and haw when it comes time to say who should change their behavior. That's why I took issue with your sentence. And again, you may feel like these are insufferably insignificant, but there's a long history of minimizing the experiences and feelings of women that also transcends every culture, and stuff like this is just more of it bubbling up. We minimize the transgressions of men by overlooking their behavior (not naming them as the subject) or not directly attaching them to their behavior (using the passive), but in the process we tie women to the issue (using them as the subject) and frame it like it's their inadequacy (tying them to the outcome). Things like this are hard, complicated, and embedded in every part of our culture. It's uncomfortable but we need to look at things with this level of detail because sexism exists even here. It's kind of a harsh phrase, but this is where "intent is irrelevant" comes in. I'm sure you didn't mean to do all the stuff I've pinned on you here, and maybe you still disagree that you have done it. But many people will feel that you have done these things when they read your sentence, and you should at least treat their feelings as valid, try to understand why they feel that way, and consider some changes to how you phrase things.

morgtheborg 9y ago
If you take one sentence and dissect it then it's easy to conclude it would have been better to phrase it in a different way assuming your goal is my goal. But I was making a movement from a point made in the Google document that inspired visceral reactions and then leading FROM that point TO a more nuanced point which becomes apparent when the rest of my post is included: > And I think that's really what was missing from his piece; why do these differences exist and isn't it possible they are constructed rather than innate? He lists a few reasons he is convinced they are not, including their consistency across cultures, but I remain unconvinced all of his list of differences can be explained in this way. > Particularly leading. There are way too many studies that show the biases women have to deal with in that regard and assuming they have no impact on behavior is silly. The context is relevant to understanding any sentence. > natural to think stuff like this is completely trivial and the tactic of people who are "looking for excuses to be offended" or "looking to play the victim" Yes, particularly when the rest of a three paragraph response clarifies any confusion that might have occurred. > in this context, men are (largely) the ones who have trouble with assertiveness in women when it comes to leadership Inaccurate if you're trying to say men respond more poorly to assertive women than other women. Accurate if you're saying in this context the demographics mean more men are present to respond. Seems relevant since you want to say > men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive Which is definitely NOT what I am trying to communicate and is honestly offensive and not backed by data. Feel free to reference studies if you disagree and think men are particularly prone to respond to assertive women in the office more poorly than other women. > But the difference is that my sentence emphasizes the fact that men are the problem, whereas your sentences emphasizes the fact that women are the victim of the problem. I don't think men are the problem. I think society is the problem, and, possibly, biology to a degree. What degree? I haven't the foggiest. > sexism exists Sexism exist in everyone in every culture. Every woman is sexist. Every man is sexist. Agreed. The question is degrees and how aware people are of their biases so they can compensate for them. > "intent is irrelevant" We'll just have to agree to disagree. Intent is never irrelevant. > I'm sure you didn't mean to do all the stuff I've pinned on you here, and maybe you still disagree that you have done it. I did it. I'm happy to have done it. If I had agreed with your premise that men were the problem, I would still have disagreed with your changes to my paragraph since it lacks the movement of meeting people where they are and then moving to add nuance/clarification. Regardless, I don't agree with your premise. > But many people will feel that you have done these things when they read your sentence, and you should at least treat their feelings as valid, try to understand why they feel that way, and consider some changes to how you phrase things. Thanks for sharing. Your feelings are definitely valid in the sense you are feeling them. I've engaged pretty thoroughly with your comment. I simply disagree and, after considering changing how I phrase things in the future, have concluded that would be contrary to my goals. Though I do appreciate you sharing your perspective. It's good to stand up for you believe in and promote your perspective on how people should act and behave. I'll continue to do the same.