8 ms·

I see this argument a lot but your exposition is less inflammatory than most. Please note this: when you tell a mixed-gender group of people that all women are

I see this argument a lot but your exposition is less inflammatory than most. Please note this: when you tell a mixed-gender group of people that all women are "wired" to not like programming, you are telling the women who do like programming (which, let's be real, is most of them on Hacker News) that they're in effect not real women (or defective women, in an engineering sense). Or that they don't count. Since you're presumably not a woman, and they are, they object to your seeming to be taking it upon yourself to tell them what a woman is. It's not unlikely that most women don't want to be in software. Most men don't want to be in software! But hundreds of thousands of women are, in fact, working as programmers. Whenever tech news talks about hiring women, presumably, they're talking about hiring these women. Why pretend they don't exist?

zimablue 8y ago
"Since you're presumably not a woman, and they are, they object to your seeming to be taking it upon yourself to tell them what a woman is." That idea is complete poison. In a debate where you're both completely uninformed, the anecdotal evidence of experience is relevant. In any discussion where reason, numbers, research are involved, the gender/race of the person making the argument is irrelevant to the argument. This current idea that only women can talk about female issues, only X about X is pre-enlightenment tribalism. It presupposes conflict between the tribes too. If in my philosophy I believe that through reason and evidence I can understand your point of view and experiences,there's the possibility of agreement. If you really believe that I can never talk about issues affecting your tribe, or arrive at reason to an underlying truth, there's no point in talking. We might as well just fight to see whose tribe can impose power on whose.
- arandr0x 8y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't follow how your argument (which is valid) is a response to mine. I said people tend to object to being imposed an identity by people who do not share it ("all women hate programming", "all Yankees eat too much"). (And to a lesser extent they also object to the same thing by ingroup members, but are less comfortable expressing it. If my parent was in fact a woman, her viewpoint would most likely still be pretty unpopular.) Arguments being inflammatory does not make them invalid. It is fine to have conversations that include inflammatory arguments, if they are made politely, which parent did. But ignoring that the argument is inflammatory, and/or that the group the argument refers to are in fact intelligent people involved in the discussion that may have themselves an opinion, is lacking in empathy. Rhetoric is founded in empathy; that is why it is an art, and not merely a technique.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
courir 8y ago
>you are telling the women who do like programming (which, let's be real, is most of them on Hacker News) that they're in effect not real women woah what? no that is not at all what he's saying. If someone tells me "most american men like the NFL" and I don't like the NFL, I would be insane to take that as someone telling me "you're not a real man" and think they're trying to "tell me what a real man is." I can see how someone who is perpetually trying to be a victim might take such a hardline stance, though.
- arandr0x 8y ago
  I hope you're actually an American who doesn't like the NFL so you can tell me how well the analogy follows. The conversational equivalent using the NFL example would go something like this: "Why are there no Americans at my favorite chess forum?" "Americans like the NFL. They're just more into brute force and camaraderie, especially American men. Chess can't really appeal to them. I mean, back in the Neolithic, a modern day chess grandmaster, if he managed to not burn in the sun and see an angry cougar 15 meters away, would probably have died. American men are just closer to their nature. I have this cousin who's American, I have attempted for years to get him to play chess and no dice. Not during the season, anyway." "I mean sure but there are American chess clubs? Some Americans like chess? Surely the cougar thing is not relevant to my original scope?" Now, you're a chess loving American. You're not at the first poster's forum because you can't be on all the forums in the world, and it's true love of chess is not exactly common in the US. However, how would you feel reading the description of how apparently literally everyone else in America loves the NFL? Would you feel proud to be American? Would you feel like the poster who made the NFL comment is likely to be an American man? Would you be more, or less likely to read his further arguments on different or related topics, for example, his opinion on American politics? While I'm sure that there are plenty of women who don't mind those arguments being made, and I think to an extent this forum would select for those women anyway, it remains an argument that is, in essence, 1) prone to being misinterpreted and 2) a little blind to your audience. (the subject is chess - you are talking to a chess fan - for all you know the chess fan also loves the NFL) And those arguments are less effective than other arguments, for example, the kinds that 1) don't make assumptions of their audience and 2) are closely related to the topic. (I realise this digression itself is totally off-topic and I'm sorry. I'm not interested in monologuing or haranguing the poster or anything. I hope it, and the little NFL parable, showed you and the people who usually make that argument without thinking about who reads it, a slightly different side, and that you may consider it if in the future you should have longer debates on relevant subjects with people whose opinion and background you don't know a priori. And thank you to anyone who read it.)
commandlinefan 8y ago
> that all women are "wired" to not like programming But nobody has ever said that. They say that women are more likely to be.

zimablue 8y ago

"Since you're presumably not a woman, and they are, they object to your seeming to be taking it upon yourself to tell them what a woman is." That idea is complete poison. In a debate where you're both completely uninformed, the anecdotal evidence of experience is relevant. In any discussion where reason, numbers, research are involved, the gender/race of the person making the argument is irrelevant to the argument. This current idea that only women can talk about female issues, only X about X is pre-enlightenment tribalism. It presupposes conflict between the tribes too. If in my philosophy I believe that through reason and evidence I can understand your point of view and experiences,there's the possibility of agreement. If you really believe that I can never talk about issues affecting your tribe, or arrive at reason to an underlying truth, there's no point in talking. We might as well just fight to see whose tribe can impose power on whose.

arandr0x 8y ago
I'm sorry, I don't follow how your argument (which is valid) is a response to mine. I said people tend to object to being imposed an identity by people who do not share it ("all women hate programming", "all Yankees eat too much"). (And to a lesser extent they also object to the same thing by ingroup members, but are less comfortable expressing it. If my parent was in fact a woman, her viewpoint would most likely still be pretty unpopular.) Arguments being inflammatory does not make them invalid. It is fine to have conversations that include inflammatory arguments, if they are made politely, which parent did. But ignoring that the argument is inflammatory, and/or that the group the argument refers to are in fact intelligent people involved in the discussion that may have themselves an opinion, is lacking in empathy. Rhetoric is founded in empathy; that is why it is an art, and not merely a technique.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

courir 8y ago

>you are telling the women who do like programming (which, let's be real, is most of them on Hacker News) that they're in effect not real women woah what? no that is not at all what he's saying. If someone tells me "most american men like the NFL" and I don't like the NFL, I would be insane to take that as someone telling me "you're not a real man" and think they're trying to "tell me what a real man is." I can see how someone who is perpetually trying to be a victim might take such a hardline stance, though.

arandr0x 8y ago
I hope you're actually an American who doesn't like the NFL so you can tell me how well the analogy follows. The conversational equivalent using the NFL example would go something like this: "Why are there no Americans at my favorite chess forum?" "Americans like the NFL. They're just more into brute force and camaraderie, especially American men. Chess can't really appeal to them. I mean, back in the Neolithic, a modern day chess grandmaster, if he managed to not burn in the sun and see an angry cougar 15 meters away, would probably have died. American men are just closer to their nature. I have this cousin who's American, I have attempted for years to get him to play chess and no dice. Not during the season, anyway." "I mean sure but there are American chess clubs? Some Americans like chess? Surely the cougar thing is not relevant to my original scope?" Now, you're a chess loving American. You're not at the first poster's forum because you can't be on all the forums in the world, and it's true love of chess is not exactly common in the US. However, how would you feel reading the description of how apparently literally everyone else in America loves the NFL? Would you feel proud to be American? Would you feel like the poster who made the NFL comment is likely to be an American man? Would you be more, or less likely to read his further arguments on different or related topics, for example, his opinion on American politics? While I'm sure that there are plenty of women who don't mind those arguments being made, and I think to an extent this forum would select for those women anyway, it remains an argument that is, in essence, 1) prone to being misinterpreted and 2) a little blind to your audience. (the subject is chess - you are talking to a chess fan - for all you know the chess fan also loves the NFL) And those arguments are less effective than other arguments, for example, the kinds that 1) don't make assumptions of their audience and 2) are closely related to the topic. (I realise this digression itself is totally off-topic and I'm sorry. I'm not interested in monologuing or haranguing the poster or anything. I hope it, and the little NFL parable, showed you and the people who usually make that argument without thinking about who reads it, a slightly different side, and that you may consider it if in the future you should have longer debates on relevant subjects with people whose opinion and background you don't know a priori. And thank you to anyone who read it.)

commandlinefan 8y ago

> that all women are "wired" to not like programming But nobody has ever said that. They say that women are more likely to be.