5 ms·

Sorry, but I find Shanley's approach to framing this issue completely the opposite of the OP here. The OP sees the good in good men and lifts them up. The closi

by gfodor 13y ago

Sorry, but I find Shanley's approach to framing this issue completely the opposite of the OP here. The OP sees the good in good men and lifts them up. The closing point about the joke she shared with her colleagues underlines it: there are people who are unable to laugh off a "dick in your hand" joke regardless of context and who it comes from. Not because of a lack of sense of humor, but because any such joke will be framed as oppressive and sexist due to the gender of the person it comes from. Shanley sees all men as de facto oppressors (of varying degrees) due to their gender and the existence of the patriarchy. (Don't believe me? Look at her point: "Men need to work with each other on sexism. It is not okay to lean on the class of people you oppress to solve your system or your discomfort with it.".) This is not a productive avenue for making progress IMHO.

zorpner 13y ago
This is not a productive avenue for making progress IMHO. As Roizen points out in her article, while she believes that things have improved, she's still often the only woman in the room. Other women, like Shanley Kane, believe that working within the system and ignoring or brushing off sexist behavior when it's experienced merely propagates the (unacceptable) status quo. They're different ways of looking at the problem from people who actually experiencing it, and they're both valid perspectives. Listening to the perspectives of women and trying to understand where they're coming from, even if it makes you uncomfortable, is literally the first step towards making progress.
jdp23 13y ago
I've shown Shanley's post to quite a few women in technology (including some diversity experts) and they all think her concrete suggestions are excellent. [As do I.] So I strongly suggest any guys who really want to help read it and act on the suggestions even if they would prefer a different framing. And specifically, which of her points do you disagree with? Are you saying that men don't need to work with each other on their sexism? Or, are you saying that instead of men taking a responsibility to address sexism or overcome their discomfort with this issue they should instead lean on women?
- benihana 13y ago
  >I've shown Shanley's post to quite a few women in technology (including some diversity experts) and they all think her concrete suggestions are excellent. [As do I.] So I strongly suggest any guys who really want to help read it and act on the suggestions even if they would prefer a different framing. Sorry, but an anecdotal story from a random anonymous person on Hacker News isn't very convincing. Put another way: I know several women in tech who think Shanley's approach is downright hostile and is not helping in the least and I tend to agree, so you should just disregard what she says.
  - jdp23 13y ago
    As somebody said elsewhere in the thread, Shanley is polarizing. You're saying that since you and others regard Shanley's approach as hostile, guys should disregard what she says. I'm saying that guys who want to help should find away to get past their initial reaction to an approach they see as hostile, look at her concrete suggestions, and act on them.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Did you read the post? Which substantive point in the post do you disagree with? If you have a problem only with the tone of the post, or its framing, then an honest rhetorical strategy would start by conceding that you agree with the substantive concerns of the post before moving on to attack the writer for tone, framing, or approach. As it stands, the comment you wrote could have been written by someone who hadn't read the post at all. I imagine that's not the message you meant to send.
- Dewie 13y ago
  > Are you saying that men don't need to work with each other on their sexism? That feels like a loaded question.
- gfodor 13y ago
  I push back hard on the tumblr-ization of language, much as I do with the Luntz-ification of language perpetrated by right wing outlets like Fox News. Terms like "patriarchy", "privilege", and even "problematic" serve to re-frame the debate in a way that causes many negative consequences. It is pretty much the same tactic used in politics to control the language in order to disarm your opponent before debate even begins. First, it causes debates on issues to immediately have one side assume the premise. If we are having a discussion about privilege, then I am already conceding that in this instance I had privilege in the first place. Second, it turns small issues between individuals into illustrative examples of a wider power and class struggle, regardless of how appropriate such extrapolations might be. Third, it carves a lens through which all day-to-day human interactions may suddenly become viewed, where innocent actions that normally would have gone unnoticed become immediately magnified into sexist acts because they fit into a pre-conceived mold defined by this language and ideology (lets call it what it is) regardless of context. This is what the OP is talking about. Fourth, these terms provide no way to measure progress, similar to the "War on Terror", the "War on the Patriarchy and White Male Privilege" will never be won since it is by definition immeasurable against an enemy that is a concept. Finally, in this particular case it serves to cause women to see men, all men, as inherently flawed and part of a systemic regime of oppression, and men to see themselves that way too. This is all counterproductive, dare I say, problematic.
calibraxis 13y ago
I use Shanley's work, and it's effective as hell. As a man, "What about the menz!?" is of zero interest to me. I can buy all the kleenexes to wipe my tears with the money boost I get from male supremacy. Obviously Shanley is unpopular among dudebros. If she weren't (and god forbid hit the top of HN) it's a sign she's doing something wrong.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Your last sentence seems to imply HN is full of "dudebros," when this thread largely shows quite the opposite.
  - arrrg 13y ago
    It doesn’t, really. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding and empathy, for the most part.
  - typon 13y ago
    Really? Are you reading the same thread as me? Look at the current top comment, which says that the "big takeaway" from this post has nothing to do with gender.
    - vacri 13y ago
      'current' top comment. As I write this, the current top comment talks about how men in general don't really understand the harrassment women get.
      - wpietri 13y ago
        It ended up dropping to second, but it was definitely at the top for at least an hour.
Mz 13y ago
I will suggest that some women, having been beaten and raped (edit: by men, in case I need to spell that out), have good reasons why they can't bring themselves to laugh off some kinds of jokes. I don't entirely disagree with some of your points but I certainly don't entirely agree with them either.
jordo37 13y ago
1) that joke was sexist, and Brad Feld's follow up after she called him out was more sexist. She may have a relationship with Brad which supersedes the joke itself and that makes it okay in the narrow context of their relationship, but that was a sexist joke. 2) I don't view men as oppressors, but I do think we as men have privilege and that is why we need to work with each other on the issue of sexism. I do not find her language condemning, but I have been working on issues of gender for several years now. In all honesty, I would love to hear more about why Shanley's language does not work for you as I think her core points are excellent and I would love to know what language to help share this with others.
- gfodor 13y ago
  Why do you get to define if a comment is sexist, and not the people who made and, more importantly heard, said comment? Herein lies the problem, people are all too willing to label language they dislike as 'sexist', regardless of the intent behind it or even the reaction to it by those who it was intended for. Language is a communication tool and a means to an end, not an end in itself, and to try to pin labels on it as an end in itself without context of what it was trying to accomplish and the effect it had on the listener seems backwards to me. The unfortunate effect here is that by focusing so much on "problematic" language we end up diluting the communication value of language itself, where the words someone chooses have negative consequences because they have been defined to do so by others, even if previously they would not have. Sometimes a dick joke is just a dick joke, and it's funny and people should laugh. It's not yet another example of the patriarchy eroding away a woman's agency. I posted above my issues with Shanley's language, in general I am strongly against the tumblr-ization of language for a number of reasons.
  - revdinosaur 13y ago
    I find your frequent use of "tumblr-isation" as a negative to be alarmingly anti-intellectual for this site. Do you realize that the terms you pick out, "privilege" and "patriarchy" are of academic origin from Gender Studies and that they have been co-opted by Tumblr? It seems that your entire case against Shanley is that they write in the convention of their academic peers.
wpietri 13y ago
I have occasional differences of opinion with Shanley on tactics, but I think her contribution is invaluable. Some people listen well to a quiet, compassionate word. But many need the application of a clue-by-four before they even begin to listen, and Shanley is excellent at applying that. She is also brilliant at expressing the anger that a lot of women feel. So I think her approach, although not the only useful one, has been immensely productive.
tptacek 13y ago
Wait, it's actually not okay to lean on a class of people you oppress to mitigate the oppression. We don't even have to get in to framing; the quote you used to sum Shanley up is self-evidently true.

by gfodor 13y ago

zorpner 13y ago

This is not a productive avenue for making progress IMHO. As Roizen points out in her article, while she believes that things have improved, she's still often the only woman in the room. Other women, like Shanley Kane, believe that working within the system and ignoring or brushing off sexist behavior when it's experienced merely propagates the (unacceptable) status quo. They're different ways of looking at the problem from people who actually experiencing it, and they're both valid perspectives. Listening to the perspectives of women and trying to understand where they're coming from, even if it makes you uncomfortable, is literally the first step towards making progress.

jdp23 13y ago

I've shown Shanley's post to quite a few women in technology (including some diversity experts) and they all think her concrete suggestions are excellent. [As do I.] So I strongly suggest any guys who really want to help read it and act on the suggestions even if they would prefer a different framing. And specifically, which of her points do you disagree with? Are you saying that men don't need to work with each other on their sexism? Or, are you saying that instead of men taking a responsibility to address sexism or overcome their discomfort with this issue they should instead lean on women?

benihana 13y ago
>I've shown Shanley's post to quite a few women in technology (including some diversity experts) and they all think her concrete suggestions are excellent. [As do I.] So I strongly suggest any guys who really want to help read it and act on the suggestions even if they would prefer a different framing. Sorry, but an anecdotal story from a random anonymous person on Hacker News isn't very convincing. Put another way: I know several women in tech who think Shanley's approach is downright hostile and is not helping in the least and I tend to agree, so you should just disregard what she says.
- jdp23 13y ago
  As somebody said elsewhere in the thread, Shanley is polarizing. You're saying that since you and others regard Shanley's approach as hostile, guys should disregard what she says. I'm saying that guys who want to help should find away to get past their initial reaction to an approach they see as hostile, look at her concrete suggestions, and act on them.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Did you read the post? Which substantive point in the post do you disagree with? If you have a problem only with the tone of the post, or its framing, then an honest rhetorical strategy would start by conceding that you agree with the substantive concerns of the post before moving on to attack the writer for tone, framing, or approach. As it stands, the comment you wrote could have been written by someone who hadn't read the post at all. I imagine that's not the message you meant to send.
Dewie 13y ago
> Are you saying that men don't need to work with each other on their sexism? That feels like a loaded question.
gfodor 13y ago
I push back hard on the tumblr-ization of language, much as I do with the Luntz-ification of language perpetrated by right wing outlets like Fox News. Terms like "patriarchy", "privilege", and even "problematic" serve to re-frame the debate in a way that causes many negative consequences. It is pretty much the same tactic used in politics to control the language in order to disarm your opponent before debate even begins. First, it causes debates on issues to immediately have one side assume the premise. If we are having a discussion about privilege, then I am already conceding that in this instance I had privilege in the first place. Second, it turns small issues between individuals into illustrative examples of a wider power and class struggle, regardless of how appropriate such extrapolations might be. Third, it carves a lens through which all day-to-day human interactions may suddenly become viewed, where innocent actions that normally would have gone unnoticed become immediately magnified into sexist acts because they fit into a pre-conceived mold defined by this language and ideology (lets call it what it is) regardless of context. This is what the OP is talking about. Fourth, these terms provide no way to measure progress, similar to the "War on Terror", the "War on the Patriarchy and White Male Privilege" will never be won since it is by definition immeasurable against an enemy that is a concept. Finally, in this particular case it serves to cause women to see men, all men, as inherently flawed and part of a systemic regime of oppression, and men to see themselves that way too. This is all counterproductive, dare I say, problematic.

calibraxis 13y ago

I use Shanley's work, and it's effective as hell. As a man, "What about the menz!?" is of zero interest to me. I can buy all the kleenexes to wipe my tears with the money boost I get from male supremacy. Obviously Shanley is unpopular among dudebros. If she weren't (and god forbid hit the top of HN) it's a sign she's doing something wrong.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Your last sentence seems to imply HN is full of "dudebros," when this thread largely shows quite the opposite.
- arrrg 13y ago
  It doesn’t, really. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding and empathy, for the most part.
- typon 13y ago
  Really? Are you reading the same thread as me? Look at the current top comment, which says that the "big takeaway" from this post has nothing to do with gender.
  - vacri 13y ago
    'current' top comment. As I write this, the current top comment talks about how men in general don't really understand the harrassment women get.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      It ended up dropping to second, but it was definitely at the top for at least an hour.

Mz 13y ago

I will suggest that some women, having been beaten and raped (edit: by men, in case I need to spell that out), have good reasons why they can't bring themselves to laugh off some kinds of jokes. I don't entirely disagree with some of your points but I certainly don't entirely agree with them either.

jordo37 13y ago

1) that joke was sexist, and Brad Feld's follow up after she called him out was more sexist. She may have a relationship with Brad which supersedes the joke itself and that makes it okay in the narrow context of their relationship, but that was a sexist joke. 2) I don't view men as oppressors, but I do think we as men have privilege and that is why we need to work with each other on the issue of sexism. I do not find her language condemning, but I have been working on issues of gender for several years now. In all honesty, I would love to hear more about why Shanley's language does not work for you as I think her core points are excellent and I would love to know what language to help share this with others.

gfodor 13y ago
Why do you get to define if a comment is sexist, and not the people who made and, more importantly heard, said comment? Herein lies the problem, people are all too willing to label language they dislike as 'sexist', regardless of the intent behind it or even the reaction to it by those who it was intended for. Language is a communication tool and a means to an end, not an end in itself, and to try to pin labels on it as an end in itself without context of what it was trying to accomplish and the effect it had on the listener seems backwards to me. The unfortunate effect here is that by focusing so much on "problematic" language we end up diluting the communication value of language itself, where the words someone chooses have negative consequences because they have been defined to do so by others, even if previously they would not have. Sometimes a dick joke is just a dick joke, and it's funny and people should laugh. It's not yet another example of the patriarchy eroding away a woman's agency. I posted above my issues with Shanley's language, in general I am strongly against the tumblr-ization of language for a number of reasons.
- revdinosaur 13y ago
  I find your frequent use of "tumblr-isation" as a negative to be alarmingly anti-intellectual for this site. Do you realize that the terms you pick out, "privilege" and "patriarchy" are of academic origin from Gender Studies and that they have been co-opted by Tumblr? It seems that your entire case against Shanley is that they write in the convention of their academic peers.

wpietri 13y ago

I have occasional differences of opinion with Shanley on tactics, but I think her contribution is invaluable. Some people listen well to a quiet, compassionate word. But many need the application of a clue-by-four before they even begin to listen, and Shanley is excellent at applying that. She is also brilliant at expressing the anger that a lot of women feel. So I think her approach, although not the only useful one, has been immensely productive.

tptacek 13y ago

Wait, it's actually not okay to lean on a class of people you oppress to mitigate the oppression. We don't even have to get in to framing; the quote you used to sum Shanley up is self-evidently true.