8 ms·

> As to being excluded in a more social sense, the best way to defeat that is not to care about it. It's basic human psychology that not caring about acceptance

by mnicole 14y ago

> As to being excluded in a more social sense, the best way to defeat that is not to care about it. It's basic human psychology that not caring about acceptance will make the other group members wonder why you don't care, which naturally enough and quickly makes you an insider. You can't seriously believe this. This same argument is made in gaming about issues people have with how women are treated and depicted within that industry: "If you don't bring it up and act like it's a problem, people won't think it's a problem and therefore it won't happen." It's a total crock, not "basic human psychology". Hateful people don't care that they're the minority; they'll type in all-caps, call you a crybaby, show up with their guns out for all to see, call you sheeple and claim their truth is the real truth regardless of their numbers.

lutusp 14y ago
>> As to being excluded in a more social sense, the best way to defeat that is not to care about it. It's basic human psychology that not caring about acceptance will make the other group members wonder why you don't care, which naturally enough and quickly makes you an insider. > You can't seriously believe this. Yes, it's true, and it's the most basic kind of psychology. One doesn't need to spend much time as an adult before seeing scores of examples. > This same argument is made in gaming about issues people have with how women are treated and depicted within that industry: "If you don't bring it up and act like it's a problem, people won't think it's a problem and therefore it won't happen." You just changed the subject, and it's not remotely the "same argument". I'm talking about perceptions of exclusivity and being or not being an insider on purely psychological grounds. You're talking about proactive behavior toward women. > Hateful people don't care that they're the minority; they'll type in all-caps, call you a crybaby, show up with their guns out for all to see, call you sheeple and claim their truth is the real truth regardless of their numbers. Faced with that, you have three choices -- the first two are ignore them or have them arrested. If what they do isn't an arrestable offense, if it's "free speech", then ignore them. If you cannot ignore them and can't arrest them, then we have a case of PyCon syndrome -- an impasse in which everyone gets hurt and no one benefits. The third choice should be obvious -- for those women who can't stand the behavior of men, they should start their own tech companies -- an occupation for which women are fully qualified -- and turn the tables on the overgrown adolescents. There is venture capital ready to support women's companies, there is plenty of political support, and there are plenty of talented women. Let men collide with a glass ceiling for a change. But you know what? The day when women could blame men for their professional and economic problems has passed. It's unseemly, out of date and it contradicts everyday reality.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > So you're claiming that there is never any good that comes from speaking up against discrimination unless the law is involved? Why, in discussions like this, do people struggle so hard to invent position the other person has never taken? > How do you think laws get made? No, the operative question is how do you think it happens? A group's wishes are compared to the wishes of other groups and to the Constitution. If the Constitution isn't violated and there's a public mandate (meaning there is something other than two equal groups, one for, one against), then there might be a new law. > She quit because of the abuse. Already answered -- let her start her own company. That's what a man would do in the same circumstances, and women are just as qualified as men to start a company. Or do you disagree? > That's a professional and economic problem. Yes, and it is one that women need to solve without trying to blame men for their problems. The sell-by date on that idea has passed. Women need to wake up to the fact that there's no longer a man standing in the road, obstructing the path to the future -- only a straw man, one invented by women. My favorite feminist anecdote took place during the MacArthur administration in Japan after the end of World War II. As part of MacArthur's constitutional reforms, women were immediately given the right to vote. After the first election, the number of elected women became a matter of public comment -- they were elected in greater numbers than the pollsters had predicted. The newly enfranchised women were asked about it, and many said, "Oh, we thought we were only allowed to vote for women. Sumimasen (small bow)."
    - wonderzombie 14y ago
      Sorry, but not being a woman, how would you know whether or not men are standing in the way? And in what respect are you qualified to pronounce women's complaints invalid? Yeah, whoever accused you of mansplaining upthread has your number. Your premise rests on the idea that in order to get along with men, women must behave like men, in a system originally designed by and for men. And if they don't succeed, well, it's their fault because it's past the sell-by date. Good call. You neatly absolve men from any responsibility, and completely disappear the uneven playing field. (Starting your own business is a non-answer— you're again playing the "have you tried acting like a man" card.)

by mnicole 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

>> As to being excluded in a more social sense, the best way to defeat that is not to care about it. It's basic human psychology that not caring about acceptance will make the other group members wonder why you don't care, which naturally enough and quickly makes you an insider. > You can't seriously believe this. Yes, it's true, and it's the most basic kind of psychology. One doesn't need to spend much time as an adult before seeing scores of examples. > This same argument is made in gaming about issues people have with how women are treated and depicted within that industry: "If you don't bring it up and act like it's a problem, people won't think it's a problem and therefore it won't happen." You just changed the subject, and it's not remotely the "same argument". I'm talking about perceptions of exclusivity and being or not being an insider on purely psychological grounds. You're talking about proactive behavior toward women. > Hateful people don't care that they're the minority; they'll type in all-caps, call you a crybaby, show up with their guns out for all to see, call you sheeple and claim their truth is the real truth regardless of their numbers. Faced with that, you have three choices -- the first two are ignore them or have them arrested. If what they do isn't an arrestable offense, if it's "free speech", then ignore them. If you cannot ignore them and can't arrest them, then we have a case of PyCon syndrome -- an impasse in which everyone gets hurt and no one benefits. The third choice should be obvious -- for those women who can't stand the behavior of men, they should start their own tech companies -- an occupation for which women are fully qualified -- and turn the tables on the overgrown adolescents. There is venture capital ready to support women's companies, there is plenty of political support, and there are plenty of talented women. Let men collide with a glass ceiling for a change. But you know what? The day when women could blame men for their professional and economic problems has passed. It's unseemly, out of date and it contradicts everyday reality.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- lutusp 14y ago
  > So you're claiming that there is never any good that comes from speaking up against discrimination unless the law is involved? Why, in discussions like this, do people struggle so hard to invent position the other person has never taken? > How do you think laws get made? No, the operative question is how do you think it happens? A group's wishes are compared to the wishes of other groups and to the Constitution. If the Constitution isn't violated and there's a public mandate (meaning there is something other than two equal groups, one for, one against), then there might be a new law. > She quit because of the abuse. Already answered -- let her start her own company. That's what a man would do in the same circumstances, and women are just as qualified as men to start a company. Or do you disagree? > That's a professional and economic problem. Yes, and it is one that women need to solve without trying to blame men for their problems. The sell-by date on that idea has passed. Women need to wake up to the fact that there's no longer a man standing in the road, obstructing the path to the future -- only a straw man, one invented by women. My favorite feminist anecdote took place during the MacArthur administration in Japan after the end of World War II. As part of MacArthur's constitutional reforms, women were immediately given the right to vote. After the first election, the number of elected women became a matter of public comment -- they were elected in greater numbers than the pollsters had predicted. The newly enfranchised women were asked about it, and many said, "Oh, we thought we were only allowed to vote for women. Sumimasen (small bow)."
  - wonderzombie 14y ago
    Sorry, but not being a woman, how would you know whether or not men are standing in the way? And in what respect are you qualified to pronounce women's complaints invalid? Yeah, whoever accused you of mansplaining upthread has your number. Your premise rests on the idea that in order to get along with men, women must behave like men, in a system originally designed by and for men. And if they don't succeed, well, it's their fault because it's past the sell-by date. Good call. You neatly absolve men from any responsibility, and completely disappear the uneven playing field. (Starting your own business is a non-answer— you're again playing the "have you tried acting like a man" card.)