4 ms·

It is both frustrating and enlighening to see that almost all replies to your comments and comment chains therein are grappling with your note that poor women m

It is both frustrating and enlighening to see that almost all replies to your comments and comment chains therein are grappling with your note that poor women may possibly have it harder than men. HN is not a good place to discuss issues relating to marginalized people; as a whole this is the least marginalized forum I could think of.

zo1 9y ago
That's most likely due to the fact that this article/topic was non-gendered, or gender-neutral. And that the poster decided to inject it into the conversation. It may be a pertinent matter to discuss, or not, but it acted as a focal point in that comment. To be fair, I stopped reading that post at that point and moved on to the discussion chains. Only afterwards did I come back to it.
DoreenMichele 9y ago
I actually think the discussion is going really well overall.
- wickawic 9y ago
  I agree with you because it is civil and good points are being made. As a general point though notice that assertions about women are met with requests for sources, but assertions about men are assumed true.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    I hadn't really noticed, so I will just assume you are correct. But: It is an overwhelmingly male forum. So not surprising that men generally are more aware of male reality than of female reality. There have also been rebuttals of the worst and most inaccurate pro male comments. Most people here seem to genuinely be interested in understanding and not merely looking to shoot me down. It used to be a great deal more onesided and challenging, to the point where you couldn't say anything about the reality of women's lives without it being a flamewar or beatdown.
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      Thanks for the time your are putting in here.
joyeuse6701 9y ago
It was an unnecessary wedge in the discussion and should have been ignored. This happens too often "In group C, people are suffering... well group A has it worse than group B of the Cs so..." So what? The whole point of the article was about how we could use machines to enact a dispassionate efficient system to ease suffering. Instead, the response (OP) was emotional and divisive, effectively calling for a pissing contest of which gender has it worse, and a defensive reaction to the possibility that one's failures are their own, not just their successes. The three points in the article: education, joblessness, and welfare were written without assigning blame. The reader may assign it, but the author seems careful not to. [typo edit]

zo1 9y ago

That's most likely due to the fact that this article/topic was non-gendered, or gender-neutral. And that the poster decided to inject it into the conversation. It may be a pertinent matter to discuss, or not, but it acted as a focal point in that comment. To be fair, I stopped reading that post at that point and moved on to the discussion chains. Only afterwards did I come back to it.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

I actually think the discussion is going really well overall.

wickawic 9y ago
I agree with you because it is civil and good points are being made. As a general point though notice that assertions about women are met with requests for sources, but assertions about men are assumed true.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I hadn't really noticed, so I will just assume you are correct. But: It is an overwhelmingly male forum. So not surprising that men generally are more aware of male reality than of female reality. There have also been rebuttals of the worst and most inaccurate pro male comments. Most people here seem to genuinely be interested in understanding and not merely looking to shoot me down. It used to be a great deal more onesided and challenging, to the point where you couldn't say anything about the reality of women's lives without it being a flamewar or beatdown.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    Thanks for the time your are putting in here.

joyeuse6701 9y ago

It was an unnecessary wedge in the discussion and should have been ignored. This happens too often "In group C, people are suffering... well group A has it worse than group B of the Cs so..." So what? The whole point of the article was about how we could use machines to enact a dispassionate efficient system to ease suffering. Instead, the response (OP) was emotional and divisive, effectively calling for a pissing contest of which gender has it worse, and a defensive reaction to the possibility that one's failures are their own, not just their successes. The three points in the article: education, joblessness, and welfare were written without assigning blame. The reader may assign it, but the author seems careful not to. [typo edit]