5 ms·

From the Facebook post: "However, I really don't appreciate the co-opting of male spaces (i.e. software engineering) in to some politically correct thought pol

From the Facebook post: "However, I really don't appreciate the co-opting of male spaces (i.e. software engineering) in to some politically correct thought police "safe space"." I'm amazed that someone would say this. I don't know about you guys, but I don't want software engineering to be a "male space." I didn't start programming because I wanted to spend the rest of my life being surrounded by mostly dudes. This just really struck me because a lot of people say things like "I don't think software engineering is hostile to women." This guy, on the other hand, says "software engineering is unfriendly to women and I like it that way."

roarroar 13y ago
You are misrepresenting what he said. Programming is primarily a male activity. That is fact. He is pointing to the attempts to co-opt the programming landscape "out-of-band" by activism - as opposed to simply taking control of and starting new projects. Your post is a perfect illustration of this sort of activism; you have put words right into the guy's mouth because you don't want to be surrounded by men.
- jacalata 13y ago
  Really? How do you know that? You appear to be attributing intentions to him that are not actually demonstrated by his words. [edit for clarity: him = the facebook admin]
  - roarroar 13y ago
    My interpretation is far closer to his words than the GP, and I am giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt. So please be consistent and reply to the GP pointing out his mistake. Oops, you just revealed your bias.
    - jacalata 13y ago
      Yes. My bias is that when people say something horrifically bigoted, I believe that they mean it. If they didn't, then it's on them to prove that if they need to, I see no need to give the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that our different approaches here reflect a different base level of belief in the existence of real bigotry, and hence the likelihood of such statements reflecting real bigotry rather than being the ironic/trolling type.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - roarroar 13y ago
        Again, your whole deal is "what is he like"? This is the sort of dull thinking that leads people to become obsessed with rumors and celebrity gossip. The fact that he might hate women is relevant, just not in the way you desperately want it to be - the way in which you can ignore what he said. I grew up around racists and sexists, so you're utterly wrong in your speculations about my world view. And that's all your responses are - speculations about some psychological defect or another that you can use to ignore what's being said. That is called a 'defense mechanism'.
        jacalata 13y ago
        What? I'm not ignoring what he said. I am responding specifically to it. You are telling people to ignore the objectionable sections of his comment to talk about the bit you want to. Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was. Stop calling it a 'defense mechanism' for people to criticise someone for objectionable behaviour. If my manager stands up on the conference table peeing while presenting the annual sales figures, it is not a 'defense mechanism' for me to respond by objecting to his pee instead of talking about the sales figures. I am curious, if my theory was wrong, why you tend to believe that people are joking about being bigoted when it is so likely that they are not.
        roarroar 13y ago
        >I'm not ignoring what he said. I am responding specifically to it. You are telling people to ignore the objectionable sections of his comment to talk about the bit you want to. Obviously, you are not ignoring "what he said". That's a given, since you're talking about his post. But you're not addressing the point (that was the sense used, and I'm shocked you lack the common sense to understand this). Rather, you're engaging in gossip about whether he hates women. You even went as far as digging up another comment he made at another time to gossip about his attitude. You are the "Thought Police" this guy is talking about. >Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was. And so the backpedaling begins. Now you're concerned about how "inappropriate" it was. Note the misdirection, where suddenly you dial down the heavyweight accusations of "misogyny" and Internet detective work to look more reasonable at a tactically opportune moment. It's all about how "appropriate" the comment was. Unfortunately for you he is the administrator of the group in question and he (and Facebook and any other administrators) get to decide what is "appropriate" there. What you are really doing (ignoring your little tactical retreat) is trying to tie the essential point of the post to a hatred of women. Which note is not the same thing as whether the poster himself hates women. >If my manager stands up on the conference table peeing while presenting the annual sales figures, it is not a 'defense mechanism' for me to respond by objecting to his pee instead of talking about the sales figures. Bad analogy. The forum on which the post was made isn't yours to police, and his actions aren't equivalent to pissing on the table, which is a health hazard and a far more egregious social violation than saying some mean things on the Internet. Further, you have employed the same tactics against me by bringing my tendencies and background into question. >I am curious, if my theory was wrong, why you tend to believe that people are joking about being bigoted when it is so likely that they are not. A more interesting question is how you know how I "tend" from a sample of one. Just think how this power could be used for the good of mankind!
- lucisferre 13y ago
  No I'm pretty sure the guy just hates women. https://www.facebook.com/aaron.a78/posts/635104079844426 https://www.facebook.com/aaron.a78/posts/635104079844426
  - roarroar 13y ago
    It turns out he might be a bit of a jerk after all. Nonetheless that is not the post the GGP was responding to. And your tactic of discrediting the guy rather than looking at what he actually said in the current thread is reactive behavior.
    - lucisferre 13y ago
      Pointing out his misogyny is not "ad hominem" as you seem to think and provides further context for understanding the other comment. Not that it's needed, he is pretty clear, I don't think anyone here is misunderstanding it.
      - roarroar 13y ago
        I didn't bring up the term "ad hominem". Please stop putting words into my mouth. You are very determined to do anything but address anything anyone's actually saying. Your defense mechanisms are showing.
      - jacalata 13y ago
        For reference, ad hominem means "attempts to undermine an argument based on an irrelevant fact about the person making the argument" (Wikipedia). It doesn't seem unfair to use it to paraphrase the description "your tactic of discrediting the guy rather than looking at what he actually said".
        roarroar 13y ago
        Exactly. The guy hating women or not is not _irrelevant_, but it's not relevant in the way GP is trying to use it. That's why he tries to play the "ad hominem" card so he can throw up some moronic straw man about relevancy.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  You're misrepresenting what he said. He's clearly trying to troll as hard as possible. So congratulations on agreeing with an intentionally inflammatory and sexist post I guess?
- haberman 13y ago
  It is not my intention to misread. I'm not sure I understand how your interpretation differs from mine. Your interpretation seems to be saying "if you want a culture with a more inclusive atmosphere, start one yourself." How does this contradict my interpretation? Does this interpretation deny the female-unfriendly atmosphere of the existing culture? Does it show any more initiative/interest on his part to change this?
  - roarroar 13y ago
    Well, since you are now no longer talking about "hostility" or even absolute inclusion (but rather the much less definite "more inclusive"), then I assume you retract your assertion that the post condones "hostility" toward women. Yes/no? The poster may well be hostile toward women. But his post here contains a valid point about activism in the computing field.
    - haberman 13y ago
      The distinction between "female unfriendly" and "hostile to women" seems subtle to me, but sure, I'm fine changing that. Maybe "hostile" was a bit too strong. I'm not sure I see the valid point though.
- roin 13y ago
  I'm not sure what a "male space" is, but it isn't software engineering. It is not a gender specific role, both men and women can do it, men and women excel at it, and men and women should be encouraged to do it. When we think of programming as a "male space" or a "male activity" we are not moving the profession forward. Now what is a "male space"? The military? No, women are on the front lines. Finance? No, a woman is about to become the first Chairman of the Fed. Politics? No, we have 20 female US Senators and a viable Presidential candidate. Professional sports? No, women have their own leagues, and several men's teams have female execs. Software Engineering???
throwaway86 13y ago
I read him as brilliantly trolling Elad with everything that would trigger him to be pissed off. Simply a flawless troll against the social justice types, meant to be completely politically incorrect to infuriate the kind of person who would post with Elad did, and it seems like everybody here is biting too. Given that Elad's reaction was to run here and post it, I'd say it worked. Most successful and subtle troll I've seen in a long time.
- bradleyland 13y ago
  At some point, trolls have to crawl out from underneath their pre-pubecant rock and realize that "trolling" and "being an asshole" are the same thing. If trolling is the sort of thing you enjoy doing, fine, but don't expect to get along much with anyone but other assholes.
  - throwaway86 13y ago
    I never claimed that he wasn't being an asshole. I just don't think he actually believes what people are debating in this (thankfully now deleted) thread. If I'm right, and I'm 98% sure I am, this thread where people are arguing every word of what he said is a demonstration of a pretty damned good troll at work. The definition of trolling is pretty nebulous, by the way; one could make that case that you attempted to troll me by calling me pre-pubescent, and hoped for me to lower myself to your level.
    - llamataboot 13y ago
      Go read his other public timeline posts then where he reveals the depths of his misogyny. And then remind yourself that this person is representing the Ruby community on facebook.
      - throwaway86 13y ago
        Three things. 1. I don't maintain a Facebook account because it's either family bickering and arguing, spam I don't give a shit about, arguments I don't give a shit about, or trolling. What some guy says on Facebook concerns me absolutely zero and it is completely not worth my time. So no, I won't be reading his timeline. Because I can't log in. I'm good friends with someone who is an absolutely face-blistering troll on Stormfront; everything he says online has to be part of his "act," if you will, so it would surprise me very little if this guy's entire Facebook schtick is keeping up his act. Welcome to the Internet. 2. I hope you read my other comment and stop treating women like they need to be protected from everything, because you perpetuate exactly what you hope to destroy with a blog post like this. 3. You got the pants trolled off you and want to argue about it with someone, and no, it's not going to be me. And now that your thread's been deleted from HN, it's not going to be anybody else here, either. Seriously, your reaction to the guy's post is absolutely comical given that you were being trolled, and is exactly what he wants you to do. Plus, now you've given him an excuse to ban you. I'm going to add a fourth thing: 4. You've spent more of your life talking to that guy, me, HN, and your blog's readers about this topic than you should have, by a mile. Focus on things that can actually make a difference, like listening to what women want to see change in the industry instead of projecting your penis onto the industry from a position of male authority.
tfinley 13y ago
"I didn't start programming because I wanted to spend the rest of my life being surrounded by mostly dudes." Strongly Agree.
Karunamon 13y ago
This kind of made me think about something I've wanted to ask for a long time but could never really crystallize until now. I'm probably kicking a hornet's nest here, probably because I'm going to word this in a way that gives an impression I do not actually have, so, fair warning. I ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt here that I'm not, in fact, a bigoted sociopath. <post type="devils-advocate" flame-retardant=105%/> This guy, on the other hand, says "software engineering is hostile to women and I like it that way." That's not what I gathered from that post. I read it as an understandable (note: understandable means comprehend-able, not acceptable or appropriate) overreaction to a certain faction of extremists who want the focus to become about feelings and PC rather than doing cool things and getting shit done. To an extent, I sympathize with those who are scandalized when they hear the whinging about a Torvalds rant on the kernel lists, or the extended brouhaha from the "donglegate" thing from earlier in the year. Such things come off very much as an attempt to hijack or attack the culture. Two questions. At what point is it socially acceptable to express exasperation with a group of people who ostensibly have noble goals, but then cause damage while they're at it? (Note: same answer has to apply to pretty much any '$minority rights' group behaving badly) At what point is "this is not a 'safe' space, (not in that people are going to go out of their way to offend you, but in that people have better things to spend their time on than measuring their every word for the slightest hint of '$ism'), so you may hear things that offend you, and how you choose to interpret and deal with that is entirely on you" ...an acceptable response? </post> I don't know, am I the only person that enjoys the somewhat acerbic nature of software engineering on the internet and doesn't want it to change all that much?
- jacalata 13y ago
  You can argue that you don't want software engineering to be a 'safe space' without arguing that it should remain a 'male space'. (People might respond that this isn't possible, and that your desire for the acerbic community is outweighed by the desire for women to get into engineering, but that's a different conversation to what you'll get by saying 'I don't think women should be in engineering').
- haberman 13y ago
  I can totally see what you are saying. I think the part of this post that really jumped out at me was "male space." Maybe I misinterpreted, but when I read that it came off to me as a club where there are insiders and outsiders. If he had left out the "male space" part, I would have probably assumed he meant something more like what you were saying.
pekk 13y ago
I trust you that he said this, but that doesn't mean he represents the whole industry or even a significant part; that's a ridiculous conclusion for you to draw. I've never heard anything like this.

roarroar 13y ago

You are misrepresenting what he said. Programming is primarily a male activity. That is fact. He is pointing to the attempts to co-opt the programming landscape "out-of-band" by activism - as opposed to simply taking control of and starting new projects. Your post is a perfect illustration of this sort of activism; you have put words right into the guy's mouth because you don't want to be surrounded by men.

jacalata 13y ago
Really? How do you know that? You appear to be attributing intentions to him that are not actually demonstrated by his words. [edit for clarity: him = the facebook admin]
- roarroar 13y ago
  My interpretation is far closer to his words than the GP, and I am giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt. So please be consistent and reply to the GP pointing out his mistake. Oops, you just revealed your bias.
  - jacalata 13y ago
    Yes. My bias is that when people say something horrifically bigoted, I believe that they mean it. If they didn't, then it's on them to prove that if they need to, I see no need to give the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that our different approaches here reflect a different base level of belief in the existence of real bigotry, and hence the likelihood of such statements reflecting real bigotry rather than being the ironic/trolling type.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - roarroar 13y ago
      Again, your whole deal is "what is he like"? This is the sort of dull thinking that leads people to become obsessed with rumors and celebrity gossip. The fact that he might hate women is relevant, just not in the way you desperately want it to be - the way in which you can ignore what he said. I grew up around racists and sexists, so you're utterly wrong in your speculations about my world view. And that's all your responses are - speculations about some psychological defect or another that you can use to ignore what's being said. That is called a 'defense mechanism'.
      - jacalata 13y ago
        What? I'm not ignoring what he said. I am responding specifically to it. You are telling people to ignore the objectionable sections of his comment to talk about the bit you want to. Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was. Stop calling it a 'defense mechanism' for people to criticise someone for objectionable behaviour. If my manager stands up on the conference table peeing while presenting the annual sales figures, it is not a 'defense mechanism' for me to respond by objecting to his pee instead of talking about the sales figures. I am curious, if my theory was wrong, why you tend to believe that people are joking about being bigoted when it is so likely that they are not.
        roarroar 13y ago
        >I'm not ignoring what he said. I am responding specifically to it. You are telling people to ignore the objectionable sections of his comment to talk about the bit you want to. Obviously, you are not ignoring "what he said". That's a given, since you're talking about his post. But you're not addressing the point (that was the sense used, and I'm shocked you lack the common sense to understand this). Rather, you're engaging in gossip about whether he hates women. You even went as far as digging up another comment he made at another time to gossip about his attitude. You are the "Thought Police" this guy is talking about. >Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was. And so the backpedaling begins. Now you're concerned about how "inappropriate" it was. Note the misdirection, where suddenly you dial down the heavyweight accusations of "misogyny" and Internet detective work to look more reasonable at a tactically opportune moment. It's all about how "appropriate" the comment was. Unfortunately for you he is the administrator of the group in question and he (and Facebook and any other administrators) get to decide what is "appropriate" there. What you are really doing (ignoring your little tactical retreat) is trying to tie the essential point of the post to a hatred of women. Which note is not the same thing as whether the poster himself hates women. >If my manager stands up on the conference table peeing while presenting the annual sales figures, it is not a 'defense mechanism' for me to respond by objecting to his pee instead of talking about the sales figures. Bad analogy. The forum on which the post was made isn't yours to police, and his actions aren't equivalent to pissing on the table, which is a health hazard and a far more egregious social violation than saying some mean things on the Internet. Further, you have employed the same tactics against me by bringing my tendencies and background into question. >I am curious, if my theory was wrong, why you tend to believe that people are joking about being bigoted when it is so likely that they are not. A more interesting question is how you know how I "tend" from a sample of one. Just think how this power could be used for the good of mankind!
lucisferre 13y ago
No I'm pretty sure the guy just hates women. https://www.facebook.com/aaron.a78/posts/635104079844426 https://www.facebook.com/aaron.a78/posts/635104079844426
- roarroar 13y ago
  It turns out he might be a bit of a jerk after all. Nonetheless that is not the post the GGP was responding to. And your tactic of discrediting the guy rather than looking at what he actually said in the current thread is reactive behavior.
  - lucisferre 13y ago
    Pointing out his misogyny is not "ad hominem" as you seem to think and provides further context for understanding the other comment. Not that it's needed, he is pretty clear, I don't think anyone here is misunderstanding it.
    - roarroar 13y ago
      I didn't bring up the term "ad hominem". Please stop putting words into my mouth. You are very determined to do anything but address anything anyone's actually saying. Your defense mechanisms are showing.
    - jacalata 13y ago
      For reference, ad hominem means "attempts to undermine an argument based on an irrelevant fact about the person making the argument" (Wikipedia). It doesn't seem unfair to use it to paraphrase the description "your tactic of discrediting the guy rather than looking at what he actually said".
      - roarroar 13y ago
        Exactly. The guy hating women or not is not _irrelevant_, but it's not relevant in the way GP is trying to use it. That's why he tries to play the "ad hominem" card so he can throw up some moronic straw man about relevancy.
quinnchr 13y ago
You're misrepresenting what he said. He's clearly trying to troll as hard as possible. So congratulations on agreeing with an intentionally inflammatory and sexist post I guess?
haberman 13y ago
It is not my intention to misread. I'm not sure I understand how your interpretation differs from mine. Your interpretation seems to be saying "if you want a culture with a more inclusive atmosphere, start one yourself." How does this contradict my interpretation? Does this interpretation deny the female-unfriendly atmosphere of the existing culture? Does it show any more initiative/interest on his part to change this?
- roarroar 13y ago
  Well, since you are now no longer talking about "hostility" or even absolute inclusion (but rather the much less definite "more inclusive"), then I assume you retract your assertion that the post condones "hostility" toward women. Yes/no? The poster may well be hostile toward women. But his post here contains a valid point about activism in the computing field.
  - haberman 13y ago
    The distinction between "female unfriendly" and "hostile to women" seems subtle to me, but sure, I'm fine changing that. Maybe "hostile" was a bit too strong. I'm not sure I see the valid point though.
roin 13y ago
I'm not sure what a "male space" is, but it isn't software engineering. It is not a gender specific role, both men and women can do it, men and women excel at it, and men and women should be encouraged to do it. When we think of programming as a "male space" or a "male activity" we are not moving the profession forward. Now what is a "male space"? The military? No, women are on the front lines. Finance? No, a woman is about to become the first Chairman of the Fed. Politics? No, we have 20 female US Senators and a viable Presidential candidate. Professional sports? No, women have their own leagues, and several men's teams have female execs. Software Engineering???

throwaway86 13y ago

I read him as brilliantly trolling Elad with everything that would trigger him to be pissed off. Simply a flawless troll against the social justice types, meant to be completely politically incorrect to infuriate the kind of person who would post with Elad did, and it seems like everybody here is biting too. Given that Elad's reaction was to run here and post it, I'd say it worked. Most successful and subtle troll I've seen in a long time.

bradleyland 13y ago
At some point, trolls have to crawl out from underneath their pre-pubecant rock and realize that "trolling" and "being an asshole" are the same thing. If trolling is the sort of thing you enjoy doing, fine, but don't expect to get along much with anyone but other assholes.
- throwaway86 13y ago
  I never claimed that he wasn't being an asshole. I just don't think he actually believes what people are debating in this (thankfully now deleted) thread. If I'm right, and I'm 98% sure I am, this thread where people are arguing every word of what he said is a demonstration of a pretty damned good troll at work. The definition of trolling is pretty nebulous, by the way; one could make that case that you attempted to troll me by calling me pre-pubescent, and hoped for me to lower myself to your level.
  - llamataboot 13y ago
    Go read his other public timeline posts then where he reveals the depths of his misogyny. And then remind yourself that this person is representing the Ruby community on facebook.
    - throwaway86 13y ago
      Three things. 1. I don't maintain a Facebook account because it's either family bickering and arguing, spam I don't give a shit about, arguments I don't give a shit about, or trolling. What some guy says on Facebook concerns me absolutely zero and it is completely not worth my time. So no, I won't be reading his timeline. Because I can't log in. I'm good friends with someone who is an absolutely face-blistering troll on Stormfront; everything he says online has to be part of his "act," if you will, so it would surprise me very little if this guy's entire Facebook schtick is keeping up his act. Welcome to the Internet. 2. I hope you read my other comment and stop treating women like they need to be protected from everything, because you perpetuate exactly what you hope to destroy with a blog post like this. 3. You got the pants trolled off you and want to argue about it with someone, and no, it's not going to be me. And now that your thread's been deleted from HN, it's not going to be anybody else here, either. Seriously, your reaction to the guy's post is absolutely comical given that you were being trolled, and is exactly what he wants you to do. Plus, now you've given him an excuse to ban you. I'm going to add a fourth thing: 4. You've spent more of your life talking to that guy, me, HN, and your blog's readers about this topic than you should have, by a mile. Focus on things that can actually make a difference, like listening to what women want to see change in the industry instead of projecting your penis onto the industry from a position of male authority.

tfinley 13y ago

"I didn't start programming because I wanted to spend the rest of my life being surrounded by mostly dudes." Strongly Agree.

Karunamon 13y ago

This kind of made me think about something I've wanted to ask for a long time but could never really crystallize until now. I'm probably kicking a hornet's nest here, probably because I'm going to word this in a way that gives an impression I do not actually have, so, fair warning. I ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt here that I'm not, in fact, a bigoted sociopath. <post type="devils-advocate" flame-retardant=105%/> This guy, on the other hand, says "software engineering is hostile to women and I like it that way." That's not what I gathered from that post. I read it as an understandable (note: understandable means comprehend-able, not acceptable or appropriate) overreaction to a certain faction of extremists who want the focus to become about feelings and PC rather than doing cool things and getting shit done. To an extent, I sympathize with those who are scandalized when they hear the whinging about a Torvalds rant on the kernel lists, or the extended brouhaha from the "donglegate" thing from earlier in the year. Such things come off very much as an attempt to hijack or attack the culture. Two questions. At what point is it socially acceptable to express exasperation with a group of people who ostensibly have noble goals, but then cause damage while they're at it? (Note: same answer has to apply to pretty much any '$minority rights' group behaving badly) At what point is "this is not a 'safe' space, (not in that people are going to go out of their way to offend you, but in that people have better things to spend their time on than measuring their every word for the slightest hint of '$ism'), so you may hear things that offend you, and how you choose to interpret and deal with that is entirely on you" ...an acceptable response? </post> I don't know, am I the only person that enjoys the somewhat acerbic nature of software engineering on the internet and doesn't want it to change all that much?

jacalata 13y ago
You can argue that you don't want software engineering to be a 'safe space' without arguing that it should remain a 'male space'. (People might respond that this isn't possible, and that your desire for the acerbic community is outweighed by the desire for women to get into engineering, but that's a different conversation to what you'll get by saying 'I don't think women should be in engineering').
haberman 13y ago
I can totally see what you are saying. I think the part of this post that really jumped out at me was "male space." Maybe I misinterpreted, but when I read that it came off to me as a club where there are insiders and outsiders. If he had left out the "male space" part, I would have probably assumed he meant something more like what you were saying.

pekk 13y ago

I trust you that he said this, but that doesn't mean he represents the whole industry or even a significant part; that's a ridiculous conclusion for you to draw. I've never heard anything like this.