4 ms·

> Transcribing a conversation with your wife, wherein the wife in this case is the non-technical part is not discriminating - it is a fact. Except it was not a

by brazzy 14y ago

> Transcribing a conversation with your wife, wherein the wife in this case is the non-technical part is not discriminating - it is a fact. Except it was not a transcription, it was some sort of Socratic dialog with the "wife" part being written just so in order to create the optimum amount of tech ignorance for the author to fill. > No-one would have said anything if a woman posted "How I explained REST to My Husband". Really? I'm pretty sure there would have been a lot of remarks about the reversal of the "normal" roles. Really, I dislike overzealous feminism but I can understand this case. The point of the title was really to convey "this is an explanation of REST for non-programmers". Since approximately none of us know the author's wife and whether she lacks technical understanding, the real title actually doesn't convey this information unless you add the stereotype that women don't understand tech.

sbandyopadhyay 14y ago
I don't think you're right that he made up his wife's words to achieve a Socratic dialogue, and then pinned it on his wife. I think she actually did it. The evidence is this comment by Ryan Tomayko, taken from the Wayback link (which appears elsewhere in this thread): > There’s a bit of context missing from the beginning of the post: I had been busy at work and hadn’t seen her much in the past week or so. When that happens she starts getting jealous of the laptop and wants to hover over my shoulder — that’s a sign, it means: put it down and pay attention to me. If I don’t heel to that hint, she’ll start asking me about whatever’s on the screen. If I’m lucky it’s vim and a terminal running screen, which freaks her out and she leaves. Otherwise, I’m usually in the browser or my newsreader. It just so happened that at this time, I was reading Roy’s Bio so she saw his picture and says, “Who is Roy Fielding??!?,” using the exact the same tone and inflection you might when saying “WTF?” > When this happens, I usually just say, “Oh, it’s nothing,” or something like, “it’s just some stuff about a thing.” > Anyway, the funny thing is that I wasn’t really trying to explain anything at first. It started out as a bit of joke — a be careful what you ask for type thing. But then she says, “Oh, I get it.” and I so I kept on going and the next thing I know we’re talking about polymorphism and URL canonicalization and all kinds of crazy shit.
neya 14y ago
>it was some sort of Socratic dialog with the "wife" part being written just so in order to create the optimum amount of tech ignorance for the author to fill. Wait, you: 1) Are not the author. You have no idea what the author had in mind when he wrote those. 2) BUT, you are accusing the author of sexism by presuming a sexist version of the event by YOURSELF and accusing the author for it, despite the author CLEARLY letting you know he didn't intend it to become so. 3) Are manipulating statements purposely to induce fiery discussions amongst an otherwise peaceful community. >Since approximately none of us know the author's wife and whether she lacks technical understanding, the real title actually doesn't convey this information unless you add the stereotype that women don't understand tech. This is enough proof that you are here to add nothing but controversy and promote nonconstructive discussion. If you read the original article, which I recommend you please do if you haven't (looks like you didn't anyway), the Wife clearly asks Wife: How does it work? which is more than enough reason for someone like her husband to explain the technical stuff to her. It's clearly not because of her gender. People like you who jump straight into conclusions like 'yes it's sexism! bury him alive!' are the reason why I feel uncomfortable sitting next to a woman from the tech sector with the fear of losing my job or being accused of being a sexist for no reason apparently. I honestly hope that someday I can just sit next to a 'person' without being conscious of their gender..and that day is when this world will be a much happier place to live in, with trolls like you left aloof.
- brazzy 14y ago
  > 1) Are not the author. You have no idea what the author had in mind when he wrote those. No more or less than you. > 2) BUT, you are accusing the author of sexism by presuming a sexist version of the event by YOURSELF and accusing the author for it, despite the author CLEARLY letting you know he didn't intend it to become so. I am not presuming a version of the event, I am describing what expression the text makes when paying attention to gender. Texts can make an impression not intended by the author. And no, that doesn't mean the person who gets that impression is "manipulating" the text. There is absolutely no need to presume malice for anyone here, as you seem intent to do. > 3) Are manipulating statements purposely No, I am not. The comment that comes closest to that is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5498284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5498284 , and you're calling me a troll for criticizing it. > People like you who jump straight into conclusions like 'yes it's sexism! bury him alive!' You're building a pretty big strawman there. > I honestly hope that someday I can just sit next to a 'person' without being conscious of their gender..and that day is when this world will be a much happier place to live in, I agree completely, but that is not the world we live in, and acting like it were is not necessarily productive. > with trolls like you left aloof. This could be a rational discussion if you could kindly refrain from resorting to insults.

by brazzy 14y ago

sbandyopadhyay 14y ago

I don't think you're right that he made up his wife's words to achieve a Socratic dialogue, and then pinned it on his wife. I think she actually did it. The evidence is this comment by Ryan Tomayko, taken from the Wayback link (which appears elsewhere in this thread): > There’s a bit of context missing from the beginning of the post: I had been busy at work and hadn’t seen her much in the past week or so. When that happens she starts getting jealous of the laptop and wants to hover over my shoulder — that’s a sign, it means: put it down and pay attention to me. If I don’t heel to that hint, she’ll start asking me about whatever’s on the screen. If I’m lucky it’s vim and a terminal running screen, which freaks her out and she leaves. Otherwise, I’m usually in the browser or my newsreader. It just so happened that at this time, I was reading Roy’s Bio so she saw his picture and says, “Who is Roy Fielding??!?,” using the exact the same tone and inflection you might when saying “WTF?” > When this happens, I usually just say, “Oh, it’s nothing,” or something like, “it’s just some stuff about a thing.” > Anyway, the funny thing is that I wasn’t really trying to explain anything at first. It started out as a bit of joke — a be careful what you ask for type thing. But then she says, “Oh, I get it.” and I so I kept on going and the next thing I know we’re talking about polymorphism and URL canonicalization and all kinds of crazy shit.

neya 14y ago

>it was some sort of Socratic dialog with the "wife" part being written just so in order to create the optimum amount of tech ignorance for the author to fill. Wait, you: 1) Are not the author. You have no idea what the author had in mind when he wrote those. 2) BUT, you are accusing the author of sexism by presuming a sexist version of the event by YOURSELF and accusing the author for it, despite the author CLEARLY letting you know he didn't intend it to become so. 3) Are manipulating statements purposely to induce fiery discussions amongst an otherwise peaceful community. >Since approximately none of us know the author's wife and whether she lacks technical understanding, the real title actually doesn't convey this information unless you add the stereotype that women don't understand tech. This is enough proof that you are here to add nothing but controversy and promote nonconstructive discussion. If you read the original article, which I recommend you please do if you haven't (looks like you didn't anyway), the Wife clearly asks Wife: How does it work? which is more than enough reason for someone like her husband to explain the technical stuff to her. It's clearly not because of her gender. People like you who jump straight into conclusions like 'yes it's sexism! bury him alive!' are the reason why I feel uncomfortable sitting next to a woman from the tech sector with the fear of losing my job or being accused of being a sexist for no reason apparently. I honestly hope that someday I can just sit next to a 'person' without being conscious of their gender..and that day is when this world will be a much happier place to live in, with trolls like you left aloof.

brazzy 14y ago
> 1) Are not the author. You have no idea what the author had in mind when he wrote those. No more or less than you. > 2) BUT, you are accusing the author of sexism by presuming a sexist version of the event by YOURSELF and accusing the author for it, despite the author CLEARLY letting you know he didn't intend it to become so. I am not presuming a version of the event, I am describing what expression the text makes when paying attention to gender. Texts can make an impression not intended by the author. And no, that doesn't mean the person who gets that impression is "manipulating" the text. There is absolutely no need to presume malice for anyone here, as you seem intent to do. > 3) Are manipulating statements purposely No, I am not. The comment that comes closest to that is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5498284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5498284 , and you're calling me a troll for criticizing it. > People like you who jump straight into conclusions like 'yes it's sexism! bury him alive!' You're building a pretty big strawman there. > I honestly hope that someday I can just sit next to a 'person' without being conscious of their gender..and that day is when this world will be a much happier place to live in, I agree completely, but that is not the world we live in, and acting like it were is not necessarily productive. > with trolls like you left aloof. This could be a rational discussion if you could kindly refrain from resorting to insults.