11 ms·

This article is going to rub lots of people the wrong way, I suspect, but it's level headed, well reasoned and well written. Although I ultimately disagree with

by Niksko 9y ago

This article is going to rub lots of people the wrong way, I suspect, but it's level headed, well reasoned and well written. Although I ultimately disagree with some of the conclusions drawn at the end, (particularly: > Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class. I think labeling or delineating women as 'vulnerable or marginalised' and ignoring their unique qualities and idiosyncrasies is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't remove their individuality, you can easily have both, but that's beside my point here) I legitimately didn't realise what the tone or conclusion of the article were going to be when I first started reasoning, because it does a good job of presenting scientific research without any inherent judgements. The other thing this article achieves that the cited manifesto failed to achieve was not to necessarily provide judgement, criticism or suggestions around 'what should be done about problem xyz'. It presents some facts, presents some opinions, and then (thankfully) doesn't decide to rip the hard work of well intentioned people to shreds. And for that, I think this should be commended.

rndgermandude 9y ago
Not particular to the Google stuff, but more of a general observation: I am very much in favor of ripping the hard work of well-intentioned people to sheds, if it deserved to be ripped to shreds, like e.g. the fine "make proper God-fearing Christians of all those dark-skinned heathens" (the missionaries were/still are quite often well-intentioned and hard-working). Now, some of the stuff that is done, well-intentioned, in the tech industry to promote diversity and/or make the workplace a friendlier space for women and other groups may end up achieving opposite results, driving co-workers apart and making the work environment more toxic for everybody. Therefore, we must be able to discuss and criticize any and all such programs, and therefore the hard work somebody put into them, and stop such programs if we determine a detrimental outcome. Like in science: you prod and poke and even try to shred-rip a theory (somebody put a lot of effort into), and if that theory withstands it probably is solid and sound.
- Niksko 9y ago
  I agree with you broadly, but I think there are a few nuances here that make all of the difference. The first is that I feel that text is an AWFUL medium for communication for these sorts of discussions and criticisms, unless expertly crafted (as this article was, I feel). Numerous times I've had arguments with friends via text that get out of hand because of subtle misinterpretations of intent and phrasing, where as in person they're much more civilised. You can draw a few conclusions here: either we suck at communicating via text and need to get a lot better, or discussions of this nature are better had face to face, where intent and nuance of expression are easier (for many) to judge. What feels like normal discourse and 'clinical' (for lack of a better word) discussion to you may not feel the same way to others, simply because short-form text is an imperfect medium. The other point of contention I have is that it's fine to treat diversity programs with scientific rigour, but you also need to allow for the proper timescales in which to study the effects. If you subscribe to an intersectional feminist viewpoint, then it stands to reason that you need to observe the success or failure of such diversity programs over a generational timescale in order to assess their efficacy. Change on that scale simply isn't going to be visible over a one or two year period before you decide the diversity program doesn't work and you axe it.
  - roenxi 9y ago
    So, I took a few goes to write this. It isn't my money and I certainly support companies being able to run or not run their own speculative diversity programs as they want. That being said, corporations and/or the business world aren't really the appropriate place for social experiments that take a generation to take effect. They are an excellent tool for taking scarce resources and divvying them up short term with value added. There seems something very questionable about the idea a corporation embarking on a generational experiment to bring about social change if they have no evidence on it's efficacy. I'd probably call that small-scale political action funded by other people's money if I saw it in a public corporation, and would much prefer to see less of it. I'm a fan of evidence-based management. I mean, the gender ratio's in tech are pretty lopsided; and we have enough stories to know there is outrageous behavior afoot. Surely there are some low hanging wins that can be hit a bit more quickly than 20 years out.
superflyguy 9y ago
You wrote: -- Although I ultimately disagree with some of the conclusions drawn at the end, (particularly: "Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class." Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't remove their individuality, you can easily have both -- How can you disagree with it? The author isn't saying this should happen, just that it does, even if this doesn't apply to you.
- ioult 9y ago
  > How can you disagree with it? Assuming this isn't a rethorical question, it seems straight forward to disagree with the "because" part. Just because the author suggests something doesn't make it so. Presumably, since most people use themselves as reference, if something doesn't apply to yourself you might disagree with the explanation given and conclude that there are other factor involved i.e. that the problem is something else.
- noobermin 9y ago
  What evidence do we have that such a perspective is removing their individuality? The argument those of us on the left make is that people's individuality, their talent etc are disregarded because of their class/attributes etc., and society as it is set-up punishes some classes while rewarding others, rather than rewarding individuals as individuals.
  - dcow 9y ago
    Plenty of level-headed people on the right see things exactly that way too. What kills us, or at least me (I'll identify for the purpose of this argument), is trying to figure out why people "on the left" are so focused on fixing the symptoms by way of "reverse discrimination" (i.e. affirmative action) instead of focusing on ensuring that we continue to see people as unique individuals instead of–what we feel is the socially destructive and in fact anti-diverse approach of–reducing people to their least common denominator group membership and treating them accordingly (identity politics).
stupidcar 9y ago
> Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't remove their individuality, you can easily have both, but that's beside my point here) I don't think you can easily have both, and this problem underlies much contemporary political conflict. At its core is a pervasive hypocrisy: people readily engage in broad, often negative, stereotyping about groups they oppose, or are not a member of, while aggressively resisting and resenting any attempt to stereotype about their own group, or groups they favour. So, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, some people will make broad statements about Muslims, and the need for collective action within Islam to address religiously motivated violence. Others will reject this, and say Muslims in general cannot be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority of extremists. Then, in the aftermath of a sexual harassment scandal, some people will make broad statements about men, and the need for collective action by men as a gender to address sexual harassment and sexual violence. Others will reject this, and say men in general cannot be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority of harassers. Oftentimes, the same people will be on the complete opposite sides of each debate. And they will unthinkingly employ language and rhetorical tactics in one that they would utterly reject in the other. This behavior can be seen in almost all discussions across or about political affiliation, race, religion, gender, sexuality, and just about any other cleavage you can think of. This is the real empathy gap. People reflexively respond to any criticism of their own groups with hostility, while attacking others without restraint, and dismissing hostility from members of that group as an overreaction. They recognise a degree of individuality and diversity within their own favored groups that they simply can't or won't recognise in others. They use tactics against their enemies that infuriate them when used against themselves. In some cases, they may recognise that those tactics are wrong in specific cases, and even in the abstract, but defend their use by themselves or their allies with excuses based on cambatting political correctness or appeals to historical victimhood. Making all of this worse is that statistical thinking about groups is a necessary of component of any mature political debate. Certain traits or behaviors often are more prevalent within some groups, for a variety of reasons, and being able to recognise and talk about this is basic prerequisite for any attempt to address social and political problems. In theory, people should have no problem recognising statistical differences in a group, while also recognising and respecting the inherent right and diversity of individuals within that group. In theory, people should be able to hear comment, even criticism, about their own groups, and judge it purely on its statistical reality, without feeling that it is a personal slight upon them. But in practice, this doesn't happen. Besides the reflexivite hostility discussed, statistical thinking often does give way to blind stereotyping amongst outside observers, and this stereotyping gives rise to discrimination. Causal factors are ignored, or distorted, and adaptive traits are portrayed and inherent, and vice versa. Instead of helping to inform rational debate, this discrimination entrenches and exacerbates division. Soon, any statistical thinking about a group that carries an implied or perceived criticism becomes tantamount to discrimination, and groups become hypersensitive to it. All of this is probably just an inherent flaw in human cognition, and likely unfixable, without some kind of attempt at species-wide genetic engineering that completely reconfigures our co-operative behavior.
ioult 9y ago
> This article is going to rub lots of people the wrong way, I suspect, but it's level headed, well reasoned and well written. I get that this is natural reaction, but don't assume that people who disagree with something do so because it offends them. I didn't like the article because I don't find it very insightful. I think it generalizes too much and takes things at face value.
asabjorn 9y ago
The New York times had an interesting take on this in [1]. It argues that what we are seeing now is a resurgence of a victorian view of women as fragile beings that need to be sheltered from any possible harmful situation. This is bullshit; women are as capable as a man of saying no and tactfully pointing out when something emotionally difficult is happening. I think the problem is that we have gone from rightly taking down the Weinsteins, a predator which is why its shocking (normal no's don't work on people like him as he seem to get off on ignoring them), to trying to regulate away the awkward encounters and misinterpretations that is the natural occasional byproduct of the situations that makes life interesting. In my experience it's the 1:1s with mentors and colleagues that is the most interesting, and a victorian worldview is telling us that we can't do those anymore if the mentor is a man while the mentee is a woman and that will rob women of equal learning opportunities. Because why take the risk if any accusation can't be defended against and results in blacklisting from your industry, even if the mentee says the accusation is bullshit? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-harassment-believe-women.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-hara...
- digi_owl 9y ago
  Meaning that #meetoo has become yet another arrow in the SJW quiver...
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    My personal anecdotal experience is that people that say they are social justice warriors, including my cousin, tend to not engage well in the conversations that facilitates equality by building mutual empathy. It is very hard to meet the person in front of you for whom they express themselves to be when you already made up your mind on who they are before they opened their mouth. Don't get me wrong, I donate the the ACLU to protect the speech of the social justice warriors of the world and any other exclusive world-view. However, it is important that we protect ourselves from being limited to these exclusive world-views and refuse that they limit us from exploring possible different solutions. Protecting our democracy is messy and hard.
theptip 9y ago
> I think labeling or delineating women as 'vulnerable or marginalised' and ignoring their unique qualities and idiosyncrasies is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't remove their individuality, you can easily have both I'm not at all sure about the "easily" part there. Humans cognition seems to be very prone to substituting stereotypes in place of individuals with unique attributes. While I personally agree with your point, the popular media seems to be incapable of making arguments that require holding two separate opposing concepts in tension with each other. The mainstream media monologues on these issues are usually simplified to a childish level.
jochung 9y ago
"The hard work of well intentioned people" has caused plenty of grief throughout the ages. Considering criticism off limits because it's not nice is exactly the kind of feels-first thinking that spergs abhor and which has no place in an environment where results must be delivered. It also opens the door to creating drama because of the tone of the criticism, thus missing the original point (or deliberately deflecting from it). If you've worked under people for whom this is second nature, you know how destructive and poisonous this can be. "Please give me feedback" is code for "Flatter me", and not doing so results in "How dare you" indignation. I don't think it's a coincidence that tech is one of the fields where this posturing found loud and well argued push back early, and no coincidence that high school mean girl tactics were the response. If a memo is sufficient to cause one to feel unsafe, then being fired and slandered in media ought to be much worse. That's the empathy gap in action. People assume the problems that are talked about the most are the most important, not realizing those that are passed over can never be addressed in the first place.
- mcguire 9y ago
  "spergs"?
dominotw 9y ago
> Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised Back in the day when social/legal barriers were removed for women, general expectation was that women would rise to the top in wide variety of fields. But that hasn't really materialized(eg: only a handful of noble prizes), despite decades of preferential treatment, despite women being educated in number much higher than men. So obvious conclusions to draw would be either 1. Admit the mistake in the feminist theory ( One is not born but becomes a woman). 2. There must be something else. Only obvious answer is option 2 and the failure obviously should still be borne by the other party. I remember reading a shocking line in nytimes article, something to the effect of "I still believe in humanity of men, despite evidence to the contrary" Basically distills the current attitude, womens' failure is mens' failure to be human. There is calls for all men to come forward and publicly admit this shame[1], maybe convince society that men are human too. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/opinion/metoo-sexual-harassment-men.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/opinion/metoo-sexual-hara...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 9y ago
  Would you please not take HN threads on generic ideological tangents? Nothing new can ever come of them, and they reliably degrade discussion into name-calling, complaints, and ever more generic statements. As demonstrated below.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    ok noted, I understand what you mean. Will keep in that in mind in future. I can't delete my posts now, pls delete/detach if possible.
- alphonsegaston 9y ago
  > 1. Admit the mistake in the feminist theory ( One is not born but becomes a woman). Feminists never made this mistake. It's literally the premise of one of the canonical Feminist texts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex#Volume_Two https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex#Volume_Two
ataturk 9y ago
It has the appearance of being level-headed and well-reasoned, but I am not so sure that it is. The evidence the author provides is weak--vague assertions about being picked on in school and a self-administered test? That's not a reliable diagnosis, that is self-congratulatory hokum. I understand that people want to diagnose themselves and that many aspire to some kind of victimhood because it is fashionable, but there's no possible way that our society has that many people with Asperger's or Autism, and certainly not in functioning roles! This whole "on the spectrum" thing is nonsense. Either you are mentally debilitated to the point where you can't get by in regular social interactions, or you are a functioning human being that has the intelligence to improve your social skills if you choose to work on that. There's a lot of different issues at play. We react negatively to negative stimuli. If you are bullied and have generally negative experiences socially at a young age, you are more likely to be withdrawn. That doesn't mean you have Asperger's--rather, it means that people are assholes! I have personally had to deal with horrible shit and horrible people in my life. I was withdrawn as a youth. It took me a long time to realize the goodness in life and work around the dipshits who caused me untold problems. To this day, I don't like people, I don't like crowds, I could give a crap about what your problems are. Not Asperger's, though. Married 15 years, raising two kids, been successful in my career. Not Asperger's, and likely neither are you, so stop searching for excuses and just accept the fact that people are mostly crappy to each other as that is the Human Condition. The guy at Google was right, btw. PC has gone too far. Feminism has brought us to the point of self-destruction. If women want to compete in the workplace, then compete and let's stop all the affirmative action because all it ends up ever being is reverse-discrimination. Given the opportunity, anyone will take a leg up any way they can get it via gaming the system. Feminism and cultural Marxism are just more gamification.

by Niksko 9y ago

rndgermandude 9y ago

Not particular to the Google stuff, but more of a general observation: I am very much in favor of ripping the hard work of well-intentioned people to sheds, if it deserved to be ripped to shreds, like e.g. the fine "make proper God-fearing Christians of all those dark-skinned heathens" (the missionaries were/still are quite often well-intentioned and hard-working). Now, some of the stuff that is done, well-intentioned, in the tech industry to promote diversity and/or make the workplace a friendlier space for women and other groups may end up achieving opposite results, driving co-workers apart and making the work environment more toxic for everybody. Therefore, we must be able to discuss and criticize any and all such programs, and therefore the hard work somebody put into them, and stop such programs if we determine a detrimental outcome. Like in science: you prod and poke and even try to shred-rip a theory (somebody put a lot of effort into), and if that theory withstands it probably is solid and sound.

Niksko 9y ago
I agree with you broadly, but I think there are a few nuances here that make all of the difference. The first is that I feel that text is an AWFUL medium for communication for these sorts of discussions and criticisms, unless expertly crafted (as this article was, I feel). Numerous times I've had arguments with friends via text that get out of hand because of subtle misinterpretations of intent and phrasing, where as in person they're much more civilised. You can draw a few conclusions here: either we suck at communicating via text and need to get a lot better, or discussions of this nature are better had face to face, where intent and nuance of expression are easier (for many) to judge. What feels like normal discourse and 'clinical' (for lack of a better word) discussion to you may not feel the same way to others, simply because short-form text is an imperfect medium. The other point of contention I have is that it's fine to treat diversity programs with scientific rigour, but you also need to allow for the proper timescales in which to study the effects. If you subscribe to an intersectional feminist viewpoint, then it stands to reason that you need to observe the success or failure of such diversity programs over a generational timescale in order to assess their efficacy. Change on that scale simply isn't going to be visible over a one or two year period before you decide the diversity program doesn't work and you axe it.
- roenxi 9y ago
  So, I took a few goes to write this. It isn't my money and I certainly support companies being able to run or not run their own speculative diversity programs as they want. That being said, corporations and/or the business world aren't really the appropriate place for social experiments that take a generation to take effect. They are an excellent tool for taking scarce resources and divvying them up short term with value added. There seems something very questionable about the idea a corporation embarking on a generational experiment to bring about social change if they have no evidence on it's efficacy. I'd probably call that small-scale political action funded by other people's money if I saw it in a public corporation, and would much prefer to see less of it. I'm a fan of evidence-based management. I mean, the gender ratio's in tech are pretty lopsided; and we have enough stories to know there is outrageous behavior afoot. Surely there are some low hanging wins that can be hit a bit more quickly than 20 years out.

superflyguy 9y ago

You wrote: -- Although I ultimately disagree with some of the conclusions drawn at the end, (particularly: "Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class." Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't remove their individuality, you can easily have both -- How can you disagree with it? The author isn't saying this should happen, just that it does, even if this doesn't apply to you.

ioult 9y ago
> How can you disagree with it? Assuming this isn't a rethorical question, it seems straight forward to disagree with the "because" part. Just because the author suggests something doesn't make it so. Presumably, since most people use themselves as reference, if something doesn't apply to yourself you might disagree with the explanation given and conclude that there are other factor involved i.e. that the problem is something else.
noobermin 9y ago
What evidence do we have that such a perspective is removing their individuality? The argument those of us on the left make is that people's individuality, their talent etc are disregarded because of their class/attributes etc., and society as it is set-up punishes some classes while rewarding others, rather than rewarding individuals as individuals.
- dcow 9y ago
  Plenty of level-headed people on the right see things exactly that way too. What kills us, or at least me (I'll identify for the purpose of this argument), is trying to figure out why people "on the left" are so focused on fixing the symptoms by way of "reverse discrimination" (i.e. affirmative action) instead of focusing on ensuring that we continue to see people as unique individuals instead of–what we feel is the socially destructive and in fact anti-diverse approach of–reducing people to their least common denominator group membership and treating them accordingly (identity politics).

stupidcar 9y ago

> Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't remove their individuality, you can easily have both, but that's beside my point here) I don't think you can easily have both, and this problem underlies much contemporary political conflict. At its core is a pervasive hypocrisy: people readily engage in broad, often negative, stereotyping about groups they oppose, or are not a member of, while aggressively resisting and resenting any attempt to stereotype about their own group, or groups they favour. So, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, some people will make broad statements about Muslims, and the need for collective action within Islam to address religiously motivated violence. Others will reject this, and say Muslims in general cannot be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority of extremists. Then, in the aftermath of a sexual harassment scandal, some people will make broad statements about men, and the need for collective action by men as a gender to address sexual harassment and sexual violence. Others will reject this, and say men in general cannot be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority of harassers. Oftentimes, the same people will be on the complete opposite sides of each debate. And they will unthinkingly employ language and rhetorical tactics in one that they would utterly reject in the other. This behavior can be seen in almost all discussions across or about political affiliation, race, religion, gender, sexuality, and just about any other cleavage you can think of. This is the real empathy gap. People reflexively respond to any criticism of their own groups with hostility, while attacking others without restraint, and dismissing hostility from members of that group as an overreaction. They recognise a degree of individuality and diversity within their own favored groups that they simply can't or won't recognise in others. They use tactics against their enemies that infuriate them when used against themselves. In some cases, they may recognise that those tactics are wrong in specific cases, and even in the abstract, but defend their use by themselves or their allies with excuses based on cambatting political correctness or appeals to historical victimhood. Making all of this worse is that statistical thinking about groups is a necessary of component of any mature political debate. Certain traits or behaviors often are more prevalent within some groups, for a variety of reasons, and being able to recognise and talk about this is basic prerequisite for any attempt to address social and political problems. In theory, people should have no problem recognising statistical differences in a group, while also recognising and respecting the inherent right and diversity of individuals within that group. In theory, people should be able to hear comment, even criticism, about their own groups, and judge it purely on its statistical reality, without feeling that it is a personal slight upon them. But in practice, this doesn't happen. Besides the reflexivite hostility discussed, statistical thinking often does give way to blind stereotyping amongst outside observers, and this stereotyping gives rise to discrimination. Causal factors are ignored, or distorted, and adaptive traits are portrayed and inherent, and vice versa. Instead of helping to inform rational debate, this discrimination entrenches and exacerbates division. Soon, any statistical thinking about a group that carries an implied or perceived criticism becomes tantamount to discrimination, and groups become hypersensitive to it. All of this is probably just an inherent flaw in human cognition, and likely unfixable, without some kind of attempt at species-wide genetic engineering that completely reconfigures our co-operative behavior.

ioult 9y ago

> This article is going to rub lots of people the wrong way, I suspect, but it's level headed, well reasoned and well written. I get that this is natural reaction, but don't assume that people who disagree with something do so because it offends them. I didn't like the article because I don't find it very insightful. I think it generalizes too much and takes things at face value.

asabjorn 9y ago

The New York times had an interesting take on this in [1]. It argues that what we are seeing now is a resurgence of a victorian view of women as fragile beings that need to be sheltered from any possible harmful situation. This is bullshit; women are as capable as a man of saying no and tactfully pointing out when something emotionally difficult is happening. I think the problem is that we have gone from rightly taking down the Weinsteins, a predator which is why its shocking (normal no's don't work on people like him as he seem to get off on ignoring them), to trying to regulate away the awkward encounters and misinterpretations that is the natural occasional byproduct of the situations that makes life interesting. In my experience it's the 1:1s with mentors and colleagues that is the most interesting, and a victorian worldview is telling us that we can't do those anymore if the mentor is a man while the mentee is a woman and that will rob women of equal learning opportunities. Because why take the risk if any accusation can't be defended against and results in blacklisting from your industry, even if the mentee says the accusation is bullshit? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-harassment-believe-women.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-hara...

digi_owl 9y ago
Meaning that #meetoo has become yet another arrow in the SJW quiver...
- asabjorn 9y ago
  My personal anecdotal experience is that people that say they are social justice warriors, including my cousin, tend to not engage well in the conversations that facilitates equality by building mutual empathy. It is very hard to meet the person in front of you for whom they express themselves to be when you already made up your mind on who they are before they opened their mouth. Don't get me wrong, I donate the the ACLU to protect the speech of the social justice warriors of the world and any other exclusive world-view. However, it is important that we protect ourselves from being limited to these exclusive world-views and refuse that they limit us from exploring possible different solutions. Protecting our democracy is messy and hard.

theptip 9y ago

> I think labeling or delineating women as 'vulnerable or marginalised' and ignoring their unique qualities and idiosyncrasies is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't remove their individuality, you can easily have both I'm not at all sure about the "easily" part there. Humans cognition seems to be very prone to substituting stereotypes in place of individuals with unique attributes. While I personally agree with your point, the popular media seems to be incapable of making arguments that require holding two separate opposing concepts in tension with each other. The mainstream media monologues on these issues are usually simplified to a childish level.

jochung 9y ago

"The hard work of well intentioned people" has caused plenty of grief throughout the ages. Considering criticism off limits because it's not nice is exactly the kind of feels-first thinking that spergs abhor and which has no place in an environment where results must be delivered. It also opens the door to creating drama because of the tone of the criticism, thus missing the original point (or deliberately deflecting from it). If you've worked under people for whom this is second nature, you know how destructive and poisonous this can be. "Please give me feedback" is code for "Flatter me", and not doing so results in "How dare you" indignation. I don't think it's a coincidence that tech is one of the fields where this posturing found loud and well argued push back early, and no coincidence that high school mean girl tactics were the response. If a memo is sufficient to cause one to feel unsafe, then being fired and slandered in media ought to be much worse. That's the empathy gap in action. People assume the problems that are talked about the most are the most important, not realizing those that are passed over can never be addressed in the first place.

mcguire 9y ago
"spergs"?

dominotw 9y ago

> Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised Back in the day when social/legal barriers were removed for women, general expectation was that women would rise to the top in wide variety of fields. But that hasn't really materialized(eg: only a handful of noble prizes), despite decades of preferential treatment, despite women being educated in number much higher than men. So obvious conclusions to draw would be either 1. Admit the mistake in the feminist theory ( One is not born but becomes a woman). 2. There must be something else. Only obvious answer is option 2 and the failure obviously should still be borne by the other party. I remember reading a shocking line in nytimes article, something to the effect of "I still believe in humanity of men, despite evidence to the contrary" Basically distills the current attitude, womens' failure is mens' failure to be human. There is calls for all men to come forward and publicly admit this shame[1], maybe convince society that men are human too. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/opinion/metoo-sexual-harassment-men.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/opinion/metoo-sexual-hara...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dang 9y ago
Would you please not take HN threads on generic ideological tangents? Nothing new can ever come of them, and they reliably degrade discussion into name-calling, complaints, and ever more generic statements. As demonstrated below.
- dominotw 9y ago
  ok noted, I understand what you mean. Will keep in that in mind in future. I can't delete my posts now, pls delete/detach if possible.
alphonsegaston 9y ago
> 1. Admit the mistake in the feminist theory ( One is not born but becomes a woman). Feminists never made this mistake. It's literally the premise of one of the canonical Feminist texts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex#Volume_Two https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex#Volume_Two

ataturk 9y ago

It has the appearance of being level-headed and well-reasoned, but I am not so sure that it is. The evidence the author provides is weak--vague assertions about being picked on in school and a self-administered test? That's not a reliable diagnosis, that is self-congratulatory hokum. I understand that people want to diagnose themselves and that many aspire to some kind of victimhood because it is fashionable, but there's no possible way that our society has that many people with Asperger's or Autism, and certainly not in functioning roles! This whole "on the spectrum" thing is nonsense. Either you are mentally debilitated to the point where you can't get by in regular social interactions, or you are a functioning human being that has the intelligence to improve your social skills if you choose to work on that. There's a lot of different issues at play. We react negatively to negative stimuli. If you are bullied and have generally negative experiences socially at a young age, you are more likely to be withdrawn. That doesn't mean you have Asperger's--rather, it means that people are assholes! I have personally had to deal with horrible shit and horrible people in my life. I was withdrawn as a youth. It took me a long time to realize the goodness in life and work around the dipshits who caused me untold problems. To this day, I don't like people, I don't like crowds, I could give a crap about what your problems are. Not Asperger's, though. Married 15 years, raising two kids, been successful in my career. Not Asperger's, and likely neither are you, so stop searching for excuses and just accept the fact that people are mostly crappy to each other as that is the Human Condition. The guy at Google was right, btw. PC has gone too far. Feminism has brought us to the point of self-destruction. If women want to compete in the workplace, then compete and let's stop all the affirmative action because all it ends up ever being is reverse-discrimination. Given the opportunity, anyone will take a leg up any way they can get it via gaming the system. Feminism and cultural Marxism are just more gamification.