4 ms·

I've been openly gay for many years and I've become intimately acquainted with the varying degrees of discrimination vs, acceptance. When you're in a situation

by mtrimpe 13y ago

I've been openly gay for many years and I've become intimately acquainted with the varying degrees of discrimination vs, acceptance. When you're in a situation like that your world divides into a) people who really treat you just like anyone else, b) people for whom what you are is a positive/item of interest, c) people who have some aversion for you but would like not to and d) people who just displaying like what you are. The easiest way to recognize type c) is actually that the first thing they say when you say you're gay is something like "I'm totally OK with gay people. My friend/brother/xxx is gay." I don't dislike these people at all; they're usually sweet and I can tell they're working on their issues which I respect very much. From what I had read so far Paul was a type c) when it came to sexism, so when this issue surfaced I really hoped his essay would convince me that he was a type b) or maybe even an a) but, given all the experience I've had paying detailed attention to dynamics like these because they have such a disproportionate influence on my life, I came away fairly confident that Paul is still firmly a c) with one foot cautiously on type b) That's why given that this is the topic of this discussion I don't think I'd be doing anyone a favor of I pretended I felt Paul came off scot-free in all of this. So yes; that makes me one of those "sexism accusers" you just called finger-pointing, ideologically blinded, upper middle class, oh so sensitive, fair trade coffee sipping, feel good armchair activists. In that case I do the same as when a male colleague makes a smart-ass joke to a female colleague about making them go get them a coffee, which is calling them an asshole for what they just did. (And no, you're not getting a pass by saying you were only talking about the real armchair activist any more than saying you only hate the real faggots would.)

ars_technician 13y ago
The difference you seem to be missing is the actual instances of sexism, which you called out and everyone here is fine with; and, crusades against people like pg, who have never shown any sexism.
coldtea 13y ago
>That's why given that this is the topic of this discussion I don't think I'd be doing anyone a favor of I pretended I felt Paul came off scot-free in all of this. That's where you are wrong. Paul might be the worst sexist pig for all I know -- but nothing of what he (actually) said in the interview, his response post, and his general conduct with YC and women founders, has given any reason at all for him to NOT get scot-free for "all of this". It's inventing reasons to accuse PG in "all of this", when none exists, that makes you a finger-pointer. And by how fast you turned from champion of tolerance to your "go fuck yourself" to someone in conversation, you only cemented this.
- mtrimpe 13y ago
  Ah OK. So the real problem is that my opinion is just plain wrong! The founder of an accelerator which has a reputation (earned or not) for being fratty and exclusionary and who runs a forum that's widely criticised for quickly silencing discussions on gender issues and being a bit of a hotbed for sexism spends several weeks coming up with an essay. The end result of all that hard work is something that's decidedly defensive, demonstrates that neither he, nor anyone in his inner circle, has taken the trouble of properly reading up on the literature surrounding gender issues, doesn't go much beyond the "it's good for business angle" and replies to comments [1] in a way that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of internalized oppression, one of the most basic concepts when it comes to discussing systemic discrimination. So because given all that I don't agree that PG now comes out looking like a saint I deserve to be described in the most derogatory terms you could think of; but me using a swear word invalidates my argument? You know what, that's a classic 'tone argument' [2] from derailment bingo [3]. I doubt you've ever heard of it and judging from what I've read so far PG probably hasn't either, which is sort of my point. And to reiterate once again; I very much appreciate what PG is doing and that he's taking positive steps in the right direction. That doesn't mean that I can't simultaneously believe that he has a long road ahead of him still. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7039270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7039270 [2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument [3] http://mlkshk.com/p/9FOI http://mlkshk.com/p/9FOI

by mtrimpe 13y ago

ars_technician 13y ago

The difference you seem to be missing is the actual instances of sexism, which you called out and everyone here is fine with; and, crusades against people like pg, who have never shown any sexism.

coldtea 13y ago

>That's why given that this is the topic of this discussion I don't think I'd be doing anyone a favor of I pretended I felt Paul came off scot-free in all of this. That's where you are wrong. Paul might be the worst sexist pig for all I know -- but nothing of what he (actually) said in the interview, his response post, and his general conduct with YC and women founders, has given any reason at all for him to NOT get scot-free for "all of this". It's inventing reasons to accuse PG in "all of this", when none exists, that makes you a finger-pointer. And by how fast you turned from champion of tolerance to your "go fuck yourself" to someone in conversation, you only cemented this.

mtrimpe 13y ago
Ah OK. So the real problem is that my opinion is just plain wrong! The founder of an accelerator which has a reputation (earned or not) for being fratty and exclusionary and who runs a forum that's widely criticised for quickly silencing discussions on gender issues and being a bit of a hotbed for sexism spends several weeks coming up with an essay. The end result of all that hard work is something that's decidedly defensive, demonstrates that neither he, nor anyone in his inner circle, has taken the trouble of properly reading up on the literature surrounding gender issues, doesn't go much beyond the "it's good for business angle" and replies to comments [1] in a way that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of internalized oppression, one of the most basic concepts when it comes to discussing systemic discrimination. So because given all that I don't agree that PG now comes out looking like a saint I deserve to be described in the most derogatory terms you could think of; but me using a swear word invalidates my argument? You know what, that's a classic 'tone argument' [2] from derailment bingo [3]. I doubt you've ever heard of it and judging from what I've read so far PG probably hasn't either, which is sort of my point. And to reiterate once again; I very much appreciate what PG is doing and that he's taking positive steps in the right direction. That doesn't mean that I can't simultaneously believe that he has a long road ahead of him still. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7039270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7039270 [2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument [3] http://mlkshk.com/p/9FOI http://mlkshk.com/p/9FOI