2 ms·

Parent brought up a politically charged topic to the extent nessasary to qualify an otherwise false statement. In doing so, they took care to avoid the heart of

Parent brought up a politically charged topic to the extent nessasary to qualify an otherwise false statement. In doing so, they took care to avoid the heart of the polical issue. What more do you want? To allow charged topics to infect more and more otherwise non charged topics, and bring every conversation down to their level?

pm90 7y ago
What more do I want? How about not acting like there’s some kind of anti male conspiracy when literally the entire industry is over represented by males and males have reaped the biggest rewards from the system, and where any success by women is immediately tainted by hints of reverse discrimination? That’s what I want.
- gizmo686 7y ago
  Good news then; parent specifically did not bring any of that up. Their observation can be just as easily explained by an anti female discrimination earlier in the pipeline, or even (much more controversial) explanations that involve no discrimination. I think I can guess which camp you fall into. I don't think I have given any indication on this thread as to which camp I fall into. I have absolutely no idea which camp parent falls into, and I don't see how anyone could infer from their short post on this thread (I haven't looked through their history, nor do I intend to). Parent made an anecdotal observations. You are free to argue that the observation is wrong (as other responders have).. I suppose you could even engage with the underlying issue that parent specifically avoided. Although I suspect that you would, unfortunately, run into precisely the issue that parent was afraid of. At this point, I think it is clear that this subject is toxic. That is very unfortunate, but probably one of the only things all sides can agree on. Given that, we should do our best to quarantine the toxicity and not let it infect adjacent topics. In the case of parent, what other options did they have? If they must omit the observation entirely, we are ignoring an entirely on-point observation for fear that it has polically incorrect implications for an unrelated or tangentially related subject. If they omit the problamatic condition, they are outright lieing, and introducing a false anecdote into the discourse.
  - pm90 7y ago
    In all that Wall of Text, you fail to make a single cogent point, except to tiptoe around the very obvious misogyny. Coded language and technicalities aren’t really helping your case. It is not unfortunate that the parent cannot talk openly about his misogynistic interpretation of the success of the few women in tech he’s observed; that is precisely the point of calling that out. If the parents interpretation of the success of women in tech is reverse discrimination, the parents opinion is wrong and he must shut the fuck up about his “observation”. The very real numbers that we see today are that women are severely underrepresented in tech, and this is certainly caused by a variety of factors. But people like the parent are the rivulets that feed into the raging river of misogyny that so many women run into just by being successful in a male dominated industry. So please stop justifying the parents intentions. I do not care about them, or his freedom to express his non-explicit but actually really misogynistic interpretation.
    - gizmo686 7y ago
      I did not intend to use any coded language. In case I was not clear, let me state this explicitly: my comment takes no position on the treatment, position, abilities, or any other property of women or men in the workplace or any other context. If my comment conveyed to you any such meaning it is either your own biases coloring your interpretation, or a shortcoming of my own writing ability. > It is not unfortunate that the parent cannot talk openly about his misogynistic interpretation of the success of the few women in tech he’s observed How do you know that his interpretation is misogynistic? Also, what I intended to call out as unfortunate was not that he could not talk about misogynistic interpretation; but rather that he could not talk about any interpretation, be it misogynistic or not. > If the parents interpretation of the success of women in tech is reverse discrimination... Is this his interpretation? > The very real numbers that we see today are that women are severely underrepresented in tech I do not see how this point is relevant to anything I said; and I have made it explicitly clear that I have no intention of discussing this topic on this thread. > his freedom to express his non-explicit but actually really misogynistic interpretation. If this was his intention, he failed miserably at it. As I said above, I have no idea what his interpretation is.
- concordDance 7y ago
  That comment was not acting like there was a conspiracy,just avoiding a controversial topic. Anecdote: In my company the reasons that lots of women got promoted were: A. They wanted to (or at least didn't mind) manage people (unlike most of the male engineers) and B. They didn't have particulalry strong technical skills so the company could afford to lose them doing as much of the actual work.

pm90 7y ago

What more do I want? How about not acting like there’s some kind of anti male conspiracy when literally the entire industry is over represented by males and males have reaped the biggest rewards from the system, and where any success by women is immediately tainted by hints of reverse discrimination? That’s what I want.

gizmo686 7y ago
Good news then; parent specifically did not bring any of that up. Their observation can be just as easily explained by an anti female discrimination earlier in the pipeline, or even (much more controversial) explanations that involve no discrimination. I think I can guess which camp you fall into. I don't think I have given any indication on this thread as to which camp I fall into. I have absolutely no idea which camp parent falls into, and I don't see how anyone could infer from their short post on this thread (I haven't looked through their history, nor do I intend to). Parent made an anecdotal observations. You are free to argue that the observation is wrong (as other responders have).. I suppose you could even engage with the underlying issue that parent specifically avoided. Although I suspect that you would, unfortunately, run into precisely the issue that parent was afraid of. At this point, I think it is clear that this subject is toxic. That is very unfortunate, but probably one of the only things all sides can agree on. Given that, we should do our best to quarantine the toxicity and not let it infect adjacent topics. In the case of parent, what other options did they have? If they must omit the observation entirely, we are ignoring an entirely on-point observation for fear that it has polically incorrect implications for an unrelated or tangentially related subject. If they omit the problamatic condition, they are outright lieing, and introducing a false anecdote into the discourse.
- pm90 7y ago
  In all that Wall of Text, you fail to make a single cogent point, except to tiptoe around the very obvious misogyny. Coded language and technicalities aren’t really helping your case. It is not unfortunate that the parent cannot talk openly about his misogynistic interpretation of the success of the few women in tech he’s observed; that is precisely the point of calling that out. If the parents interpretation of the success of women in tech is reverse discrimination, the parents opinion is wrong and he must shut the fuck up about his “observation”. The very real numbers that we see today are that women are severely underrepresented in tech, and this is certainly caused by a variety of factors. But people like the parent are the rivulets that feed into the raging river of misogyny that so many women run into just by being successful in a male dominated industry. So please stop justifying the parents intentions. I do not care about them, or his freedom to express his non-explicit but actually really misogynistic interpretation.
  - gizmo686 7y ago
    I did not intend to use any coded language. In case I was not clear, let me state this explicitly: my comment takes no position on the treatment, position, abilities, or any other property of women or men in the workplace or any other context. If my comment conveyed to you any such meaning it is either your own biases coloring your interpretation, or a shortcoming of my own writing ability. > It is not unfortunate that the parent cannot talk openly about his misogynistic interpretation of the success of the few women in tech he’s observed How do you know that his interpretation is misogynistic? Also, what I intended to call out as unfortunate was not that he could not talk about misogynistic interpretation; but rather that he could not talk about any interpretation, be it misogynistic or not. > If the parents interpretation of the success of women in tech is reverse discrimination... Is this his interpretation? > The very real numbers that we see today are that women are severely underrepresented in tech I do not see how this point is relevant to anything I said; and I have made it explicitly clear that I have no intention of discussing this topic on this thread. > his freedom to express his non-explicit but actually really misogynistic interpretation. If this was his intention, he failed miserably at it. As I said above, I have no idea what his interpretation is.
concordDance 7y ago
That comment was not acting like there was a conspiracy,just avoiding a controversial topic. Anecdote: In my company the reasons that lots of women got promoted were: A. They wanted to (or at least didn't mind) manage people (unlike most of the male engineers) and B. They didn't have particulalry strong technical skills so the company could afford to lose them doing as much of the actual work.