6 ms·

> We tend to do a sucky job of teaching math to kids. A lot of elementary school teachers are women who were encouraged to go into early education because they

> We tend to do a sucky job of teaching math to kids. A lot of elementary school teachers are women who were encouraged to go into early education because they weren't doing so well in math and this is very much gender bias. While this may be true and in general is in line with my experience, it might be better for you to reframe it in a more indirect way because sooner or later you'll find someone offended.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
I appear to be the highest ranked openly female member on HN. I can suck up a few downvotes from people who don't like me or don't like what I am saying and that, in fact, seems to be par for the course here. Thank you for otherwise validating my position, but I'm not going to soften it. If the truth about our world bothers people, they are free to make something else true instead of asking me to cater to their feelings at the expense of stating the truth. Edit: I will add I am unwilling to back down on this point because we are actively giving young women a math phobia and crushing their dreams with it instead of telling them to get a tutor and work for what they want and we are doing so in a manner that causes them to pass their math phobia onto future generations. This isn't just a case of "sexism sucks." We are poisoning our entire society with this garbage and it negatively impacts huge numbers of people.
bawolff 5y ago
Or we could not pre-emptively self-censor on the basis of imagined offense that doesn't even exist yet. Besides, if something really is offensive, saying the same thing just indirectly is rather cowardly. Being offensive in an indirect manner is still being offensive, just less people might notice. Any opinion worth having is worth having openly.
echelon 5y ago
I'm not commenting on the original quote because I'm not sure I agree with it, but worrying about offending people is destroying the fabric of our society. By not talking openly and freely, we're keeping our thoughts and feelings inside, which brings emotions to boil. There's no release valve. We can't vent, and because we have less honest discourse with others whose opinions differ, we become internally polarized against different opinions. By preemptively taking offense on the behalf of others, we're imagining potential victims and dulling our discourse. Over time it erodes critical thinking skills, because everything is encoded in layers of indirection. The meaning is dropped in favor of a soft tone. We begin speaking in hardcoded memes. Taking offense to words flies in the face of our free speech liberties, individualism, and freedom. We're putting up barriers that don't exist. If we keep it up, we'll soon find ourselves living under the oppression of self-imposed thoughtcrime. There's something to be said about having a thick skin and being open to those you disagree with. (I'm liberal, btw.)
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
  I completely agree with you (and with other replies to my comment). It's just saw people's lives ruined for much less than that. Heck, storms happened over not what they actually said, but what people thought they said. Even being female and holding progressive views doesn't offer much protection - I saw feminists attacking other feminists using strange invented terms like TERF or SWERF. For example, you may well have an opinion as to whether people identifying as females but but being biologically male should compete in sports with other females, use women's restrooms and changing rooms etc., but you better be careful when you decide to express this opinion outside a circle of close friends - especially if you have a family to feed.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    I was homeless for nearly six years, along with my two adult sons for whom I was financially responsible. I am absolutely not a stranger to the fact that the world is perfectly happy to watch me starve while going "La la la not listening" to my observations that my gender is a factor in my intractable poverty. This is precisely why I am unwilling to back down on some things. If it is any comfort, I took your initial comment as well-meaning and intended to be helpful. It's just not a position I can embrace. There comes a point past which politely going along to get along is part of the problem, not part of some kind of solution. I have a strong track record of leaving nuanced comments on HN asserting that "No, it is not as simple as sexism and intentional exclusion of women in X case. Here is the data and women make choices." etc. But in this case, I am quite confident that women not only get actively encouraged to go into early childhood education, they get actively advised that this is what they should do if their initial desired major has a strong math component and they are having trouble with the math and this is not done to men. My oldest son ended up math phobic because his teachers couldn't teach it and brought a lot of baggage to the table. So I have seen firsthand what it can do to a child and that child doesn't have to be a girl to be negatively impacted by the emotional baggage that so many elementary school teachers have over the subject of math. It can be a boy whose relationship to math is being egregiously harmed long term because of so many elementary school teachers having had their own dreams crushed on the excuse that "math is too hard for you" rather than being told "You can audit the class. You can get a tutor. You have to pass it, but it's fine if you only get a C as long your overall GPA is high enough. etc." It doesn't just break women to have this done to women. It is breaking our society. So if men value math and STEM, this is a practice they should be concerned about as well. It isn't just a women's issue by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not angry at you. I'm not offended at your attempt to look out for my welfare in a cold, cruel world. It's just the wrong answer in this case and I've basically crawled naked across broken glass for nearly twelve years on HN to claim my right to speak my mind to some degree here and I am going to exercise that right on details of this sort.
highmastdon 5y ago
Anything can offend someone. It's the nature of seeking truth. Conclusions have to be challenged in order to be verified and assumed true. If I'd be in a conversation of 3 people, and one might be offended, that's 50% of people I have to be cautious with. If it would be an audience of 1000 people, 1 in 1000 could be offended... Should we stop speaking altogether?
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
  I think the current (quite absurd) situation is a function of three factors: 1) how easily people get offended these days, 2) how easily accusations can spread thanks to network effects, e.g. on Twitter, 3) how much damage can be done by people fixed on causing you maximum damage legally, e.g. calling your employer etc.

DoreenMichele 5y ago

I appear to be the highest ranked openly female member on HN. I can suck up a few downvotes from people who don't like me or don't like what I am saying and that, in fact, seems to be par for the course here. Thank you for otherwise validating my position, but I'm not going to soften it. If the truth about our world bothers people, they are free to make something else true instead of asking me to cater to their feelings at the expense of stating the truth. Edit: I will add I am unwilling to back down on this point because we are actively giving young women a math phobia and crushing their dreams with it instead of telling them to get a tutor and work for what they want and we are doing so in a manner that causes them to pass their math phobia onto future generations. This isn't just a case of "sexism sucks." We are poisoning our entire society with this garbage and it negatively impacts huge numbers of people.

bawolff 5y ago

Or we could not pre-emptively self-censor on the basis of imagined offense that doesn't even exist yet. Besides, if something really is offensive, saying the same thing just indirectly is rather cowardly. Being offensive in an indirect manner is still being offensive, just less people might notice. Any opinion worth having is worth having openly.

echelon 5y ago

I'm not commenting on the original quote because I'm not sure I agree with it, but worrying about offending people is destroying the fabric of our society. By not talking openly and freely, we're keeping our thoughts and feelings inside, which brings emotions to boil. There's no release valve. We can't vent, and because we have less honest discourse with others whose opinions differ, we become internally polarized against different opinions. By preemptively taking offense on the behalf of others, we're imagining potential victims and dulling our discourse. Over time it erodes critical thinking skills, because everything is encoded in layers of indirection. The meaning is dropped in favor of a soft tone. We begin speaking in hardcoded memes. Taking offense to words flies in the face of our free speech liberties, individualism, and freedom. We're putting up barriers that don't exist. If we keep it up, we'll soon find ourselves living under the oppression of self-imposed thoughtcrime. There's something to be said about having a thick skin and being open to those you disagree with. (I'm liberal, btw.)

dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
I completely agree with you (and with other replies to my comment). It's just saw people's lives ruined for much less than that. Heck, storms happened over not what they actually said, but what people thought they said. Even being female and holding progressive views doesn't offer much protection - I saw feminists attacking other feminists using strange invented terms like TERF or SWERF. For example, you may well have an opinion as to whether people identifying as females but but being biologically male should compete in sports with other females, use women's restrooms and changing rooms etc., but you better be careful when you decide to express this opinion outside a circle of close friends - especially if you have a family to feed.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  I was homeless for nearly six years, along with my two adult sons for whom I was financially responsible. I am absolutely not a stranger to the fact that the world is perfectly happy to watch me starve while going "La la la not listening" to my observations that my gender is a factor in my intractable poverty. This is precisely why I am unwilling to back down on some things. If it is any comfort, I took your initial comment as well-meaning and intended to be helpful. It's just not a position I can embrace. There comes a point past which politely going along to get along is part of the problem, not part of some kind of solution. I have a strong track record of leaving nuanced comments on HN asserting that "No, it is not as simple as sexism and intentional exclusion of women in X case. Here is the data and women make choices." etc. But in this case, I am quite confident that women not only get actively encouraged to go into early childhood education, they get actively advised that this is what they should do if their initial desired major has a strong math component and they are having trouble with the math and this is not done to men. My oldest son ended up math phobic because his teachers couldn't teach it and brought a lot of baggage to the table. So I have seen firsthand what it can do to a child and that child doesn't have to be a girl to be negatively impacted by the emotional baggage that so many elementary school teachers have over the subject of math. It can be a boy whose relationship to math is being egregiously harmed long term because of so many elementary school teachers having had their own dreams crushed on the excuse that "math is too hard for you" rather than being told "You can audit the class. You can get a tutor. You have to pass it, but it's fine if you only get a C as long your overall GPA is high enough. etc." It doesn't just break women to have this done to women. It is breaking our society. So if men value math and STEM, this is a practice they should be concerned about as well. It isn't just a women's issue by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not angry at you. I'm not offended at your attempt to look out for my welfare in a cold, cruel world. It's just the wrong answer in this case and I've basically crawled naked across broken glass for nearly twelve years on HN to claim my right to speak my mind to some degree here and I am going to exercise that right on details of this sort.

highmastdon 5y ago

Anything can offend someone. It's the nature of seeking truth. Conclusions have to be challenged in order to be verified and assumed true. If I'd be in a conversation of 3 people, and one might be offended, that's 50% of people I have to be cautious with. If it would be an audience of 1000 people, 1 in 1000 could be offended... Should we stop speaking altogether?

dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
I think the current (quite absurd) situation is a function of three factors: 1) how easily people get offended these days, 2) how easily accusations can spread thanks to network effects, e.g. on Twitter, 3) how much damage can be done by people fixed on causing you maximum damage legally, e.g. calling your employer etc.