4 ms·

I think you misunderstand, maybe I was unclear. I know that the term sexism in a technical sense describes the scenario. But it is a term that has taken on con

I think you misunderstand, maybe I was unclear. I know that the term sexism in a technical sense describes the scenario. But it is a term that has taken on connotations of misogyny, active harassment and the belief that women aren't as good as men in non-technical situations (where I mean outside of topic specific literature, the colloquial). So to call someone sexist is to say all those things are true of them. It is a loaded term and it carries implications of it. For someone who is actively trying not to do that and mostly succeeding, it is an insult to tell them that. It is equivalent in your analogy to saying "hey you're a shitty coder and are trying to destroy our business", not the relatively benign and straight-forward statement you provide. I'm merely suggesting that rather than say "hey you're a sexist", saying "hey look, that is uncool, it undermines the women here, and comes off a bit piggish". Perhaps I'm being misguided here, but isn't there a real difference between someone who tries to be fair and sometimes fails and someone who doesn't try and someone who actively opposes it?

saraid216 14y ago
> It is equivalent in your analogy to saying "hey you're a shitty coder and are trying to destroy our business", not the relatively benign and straight-forward statement you provide. I'm merely suggesting that rather than say "hey you're a sexist", saying "hey look, that is uncool, it undermines the women here, and comes off a bit piggish". It's odd. Your suggested statement sounds a lot more equivalent to the statement I gave than the way you framed my statement.
- sophacles 14y ago
  I still think we're misunderstanding each other. I think: "Hey you are a shitty coder trying to destroy our business" is analogous to saying "hey you're being sexist". "Did you know that, when you make the site crash because you're testing code in production, we lose users because they're frustrated about our uptime?" is analogous to "hey look, that is uncool, it undermines the women here, and comes off a bit piggish". All I'm saying is that I don't think the author is intentionally being sexist. I really think he wants there to be equality. An I think that throwing around loaded phrases doesn't help anyone, but puts them on the defensive, and underlying a lot of the author's position is him reacting to the connotations of the term sexism, and that is interfering with his ability to understand privilege. As much as it seems silly, people's fears and emotional state matter in this sort of discussion, on all sides. We have to be willing to work within that to accomplish anything. It is why terms for various racial and ethnic groups change a lot - the old terms get loaded with connotations and misconceptions, and we have to move to a neutral term to have rational discussions. There's an apocryphal tale of some pollster asking "do think we should increase welfare" and getting an overwhelming response of "no", but later in the poll asking "do you think we should help more people" and getting an overwhelming "yes". It's absurd, but just a human nature thing.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    > An I think that throwing around loaded phrases doesn't help anyone Are you saying that your contention is that we shouldn't use the word "sexism" in a post with "sexism" in the title?
    - sophacles 14y ago
      Now I'm pretty sure you're being disingenuous. I'm saying try to understand the author: He is reacting to accusations of sexism, that he can't see, because he understands it in the emotionally loaded way I described ad nauseum in my previous posts. I'm saying: he says he's not sexist, and in the overloaded way he isn't. Yes his statements ignore systemic sexism. Yes his proposed actions don't do anything about the status quo. BUT he seems to actually think equality is a good idea, and that sexism of any kind is a bad idea. I'm saying: there are a lot of people in that same position. I'm saying: there is a problem caused by the emotional connotations of the word sexism, and they cause a backlash which prevents further improvement of the situation. I'm saying: perhaps part of the problem is that we are using a term that is actually causing more problems than it is fixing. I'm saying: perhaps if a better term or description of the problem could be used, one that doesn't carry accusatory and "bad person" loading. I'm saying: the people above will react favorably and actually help change the status quo if we can find a way to adress the problem when they aren't feeling attacked. You appear to be hearing something completely different. I suspect that when I say "we should work with the people who want there to be equality to do it better", you are hearing "sophacles defends the status quo". Please try to understand, when people feel attacked, they don't hear the message, they hear "you suck, you need to stop being you", not "there is a problem we need to fix, here it is." - I am suggesting ways we can approach people that allows them to hear "here is something to be fixed" that doesn't invoke defense mechanisms. I am suggesting that the term sexism invokes that defense response in a lot of people, whether or not they would agree with the issues existing. So here is a question for you: if it isn't called sexism, but instead called something else, but results in systemic sexism being reduced and/or eliminated, does it matter what name it has?

saraid216 14y ago

> It is equivalent in your analogy to saying "hey you're a shitty coder and are trying to destroy our business", not the relatively benign and straight-forward statement you provide. I'm merely suggesting that rather than say "hey you're a sexist", saying "hey look, that is uncool, it undermines the women here, and comes off a bit piggish". It's odd. Your suggested statement sounds a lot more equivalent to the statement I gave than the way you framed my statement.

sophacles 14y ago
I still think we're misunderstanding each other. I think: "Hey you are a shitty coder trying to destroy our business" is analogous to saying "hey you're being sexist". "Did you know that, when you make the site crash because you're testing code in production, we lose users because they're frustrated about our uptime?" is analogous to "hey look, that is uncool, it undermines the women here, and comes off a bit piggish". All I'm saying is that I don't think the author is intentionally being sexist. I really think he wants there to be equality. An I think that throwing around loaded phrases doesn't help anyone, but puts them on the defensive, and underlying a lot of the author's position is him reacting to the connotations of the term sexism, and that is interfering with his ability to understand privilege. As much as it seems silly, people's fears and emotional state matter in this sort of discussion, on all sides. We have to be willing to work within that to accomplish anything. It is why terms for various racial and ethnic groups change a lot - the old terms get loaded with connotations and misconceptions, and we have to move to a neutral term to have rational discussions. There's an apocryphal tale of some pollster asking "do think we should increase welfare" and getting an overwhelming response of "no", but later in the poll asking "do you think we should help more people" and getting an overwhelming "yes". It's absurd, but just a human nature thing.
- saraid216 14y ago
  > An I think that throwing around loaded phrases doesn't help anyone Are you saying that your contention is that we shouldn't use the word "sexism" in a post with "sexism" in the title?
  - sophacles 14y ago
    Now I'm pretty sure you're being disingenuous. I'm saying try to understand the author: He is reacting to accusations of sexism, that he can't see, because he understands it in the emotionally loaded way I described ad nauseum in my previous posts. I'm saying: he says he's not sexist, and in the overloaded way he isn't. Yes his statements ignore systemic sexism. Yes his proposed actions don't do anything about the status quo. BUT he seems to actually think equality is a good idea, and that sexism of any kind is a bad idea. I'm saying: there are a lot of people in that same position. I'm saying: there is a problem caused by the emotional connotations of the word sexism, and they cause a backlash which prevents further improvement of the situation. I'm saying: perhaps part of the problem is that we are using a term that is actually causing more problems than it is fixing. I'm saying: perhaps if a better term or description of the problem could be used, one that doesn't carry accusatory and "bad person" loading. I'm saying: the people above will react favorably and actually help change the status quo if we can find a way to adress the problem when they aren't feeling attacked. You appear to be hearing something completely different. I suspect that when I say "we should work with the people who want there to be equality to do it better", you are hearing "sophacles defends the status quo". Please try to understand, when people feel attacked, they don't hear the message, they hear "you suck, you need to stop being you", not "there is a problem we need to fix, here it is." - I am suggesting ways we can approach people that allows them to hear "here is something to be fixed" that doesn't invoke defense mechanisms. I am suggesting that the term sexism invokes that defense response in a lot of people, whether or not they would agree with the issues existing. So here is a question for you: if it isn't called sexism, but instead called something else, but results in systemic sexism being reduced and/or eliminated, does it matter what name it has?