5 ms·

This is different for men and women. http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/ http://www.psmag.com/navigation/he

This is different for men and women. http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/ http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-ar... "Accounts with feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7." http://time.com/3305466/male-female-harassment-online/ http://time.com/3305466/male-female-harassment-online/ The study pointed out that the harassment targeted at men is not because they are men, as is clearly more frequently the case with women. It’s defining because a lot of harassment is an effort to put women, because they are women, back in their “place.”

belorn 12y ago
When the message is a threat of violence or hitmen, it should be taken serious regardless of the targeted person gender. It is very important to not trivialize harassment directed at men because they are male and not female. That is part of the very gender stereotype that it is the cause of the statistics your referenced, and reinforcing that behavior will only make things worse.
- angersock 12y ago
  No, that's stupid, because the cost of taking it seriously is far far greater than the estimated badness of any of those threats. Reasoning like that is why we have the TSA.
  - teddyh 12y ago
    You misunderstood; belorn meant “it should be taken [equally] serious regardless of the targeted person[’s] gender”.
- SamReidHughes 12y ago
  The "harassment" i.e. blog comments is not being trivialized. It's pre-trivial.
yummyfajitas 12y ago
This is a bit of a change of subject. Lennert Pottering is male. Would the aforementioned unpleasant behavior be more acceptable to you if it were directed via a random number generator (i.e. a random set of people are singled out to receive 100 messages/day) rather than a predictable decision process?
- minikites 12y ago
  I was responding to your overall premise: > Somewhere along the line, we gave this up and became a culture where feelings matter more than results. I think the solution here is for the tech world to regrow the thick skin it once had. I disagree that the solution is to regrow a thick skin and if you ignore the differing experiences that tech women have, you're overlooking a gigantic problem in the current tech industry and tech culture.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    It is unclear to me why a few people receiving a disproportionate amount of hate invalidates my "thick skin" proposal. I don't think 100x more hate would materially affect my experience beyond wasting a few more minutes of my time deleting it. Could you explain why you think otherwise?
    - minikites 12y ago
      Because I think both of your premises are incorrect. It's not "a few people", it's 50% of the population. It's not "100x" more hate, it a completely different kind of hate, one that is very threatening and personal, attacking people's core identity.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        It would be helpful if you explained the relevance of the distinctions you are making rather than simply their existence. Not to mention the relevance of this entire derailing of the underlying conversation. The delete button works just as well for "I hate your core identity" as "I'm looking for a javascript spetznatz".
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

belorn 12y ago

When the message is a threat of violence or hitmen, it should be taken serious regardless of the targeted person gender. It is very important to not trivialize harassment directed at men because they are male and not female. That is part of the very gender stereotype that it is the cause of the statistics your referenced, and reinforcing that behavior will only make things worse.

angersock 12y ago
No, that's stupid, because the cost of taking it seriously is far far greater than the estimated badness of any of those threats. Reasoning like that is why we have the TSA.
- teddyh 12y ago
  You misunderstood; belorn meant “it should be taken [equally] serious regardless of the targeted person[’s] gender”.
SamReidHughes 12y ago
The "harassment" i.e. blog comments is not being trivialized. It's pre-trivial.

yummyfajitas 12y ago

This is a bit of a change of subject. Lennert Pottering is male. Would the aforementioned unpleasant behavior be more acceptable to you if it were directed via a random number generator (i.e. a random set of people are singled out to receive 100 messages/day) rather than a predictable decision process?

minikites 12y ago
I was responding to your overall premise: > Somewhere along the line, we gave this up and became a culture where feelings matter more than results. I think the solution here is for the tech world to regrow the thick skin it once had. I disagree that the solution is to regrow a thick skin and if you ignore the differing experiences that tech women have, you're overlooking a gigantic problem in the current tech industry and tech culture.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  It is unclear to me why a few people receiving a disproportionate amount of hate invalidates my "thick skin" proposal. I don't think 100x more hate would materially affect my experience beyond wasting a few more minutes of my time deleting it. Could you explain why you think otherwise?
  - minikites 12y ago
    Because I think both of your premises are incorrect. It's not "a few people", it's 50% of the population. It's not "100x" more hate, it a completely different kind of hate, one that is very threatening and personal, attacking people's core identity.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      It would be helpful if you explained the relevance of the distinctions you are making rather than simply their existence. Not to mention the relevance of this entire derailing of the underlying conversation. The delete button works just as well for "I hate your core identity" as "I'm looking for a javascript spetznatz".

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]