6 ms·

Why not men too?

by muyuu 12y ago

Why not men too?

psykovsky 12y ago
Because men.
wpietri 12y ago
This response grates a little. It's so common that it's widely discussed and parodied. E.g.: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/ http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argu... http://www.robot-hugs.com/but-men/ http://www.robot-hugs.com/but-men/ And it's closely related to the "not all men" line, equally mocked: http://www.listen-tome.com/save-me/ http://www.listen-tome.com/save-me/ http://imgur.com/gallery/z5AYz66 http://imgur.com/gallery/z5AYz66 But assuming that you are sincere and just unaware of the context: The reason that I personally would offer to fund this service for women in tech is that diversity in tech is an issue I have been working on for a while. Even though women are a relatively small proportion of the field, those women are a disproportionately large share of those getting abused with things like doxxing. I don't like that and want it to stop. It would be my hope that by offering it widely, it would enable more women to speak up both about tech and about their experience in tech. Which I in turn hope will promote a more diverse and inclusive field. Which I think is a good end in itself, but I also think that means better empathy for all sorts of users of tech, and therefore better products and less systemic waste. Is that helpful?
- random_pr 12y ago
  Your post is very politicized. There is no use arguing politics. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/
  - wpietri 12y ago
    The whole point of democracy is arguing politics. There is plenty of use in it. That's why we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, for example. Plus deliberative bodies as a key element of every level of government. Also, that you construct it as politicized suggests you have a political opinion in opposition to women being treated as equals. If you oppose that, well, then you oppose that. But it would also explain why a) you insist on labeling views you don't like as "very politicized" and b) why you preemptively declare that there's no point in arguing. To me it reads as a slightly more grown up version of the hands-over-the-ears style of argumentation.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  This is sexist and ostracizing :P. Such service doesn't have a natural gender discrimination so it's actually additional work to create one. Sure, it might be worth to focus on marketing it to women, if indeed they get "disproportionately large share" of abuse (it sounds plausible to me, but I don't have data) - but there's no need for artificially limiting the service itself. Male privacy nerds would happily use it too.
  - skybrian 12y ago
    Nobody asked that the service to be limited to women. That's something you're adding to the conversation. So it seems to me that you're politicizing it even more.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      From the top comment of this thread: > And I would happily give money to a nonprofit who provides this as a free service for women in tech That's how I understood it, and I think it's supported by the poster's other comments.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        Skybrian is right; you're wrong. I am speaking of two separate things: a commercial product and a nonprofit that gives away free subscriptions to the commercial product. Although now that you mention it, if some sort of existing nonprofit focusing on diversity in tech built a service, that would also be something I'm glad to support. One easy way to tell that I didn't want guys excluded from the service: I said I wanted to subscribe, and I am a guy.
- muyuu 12y ago
  Still, it would make zero sense to me that someone would provide a service against doxxing and limit said service to women. Why discriminating against men? Men can also be victimized by doxxing. How about providing it to people instead of just the female subset of people?
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Sorry if I was unclear. I am talking about two separate things: a commercial service and a nonprofit who would provide subscriptions to the service. As I said, I want to subscribe. However, nonprofits pretty regularly provide services to limited groups of people. Veteran's groups focus on veterans. Women's shelters focus on women. The Alliance of Transylvanian Saxons focuses on Transylvanian Saxons. So if some existing nonprofit were to build this as part of their work, I'd have no problem with them limiting it to whatever group they were focusing on.
    - muyuu 12y ago
      A commercial service is paradoxically (or not) exonerated of their own market-limiting decisions. It's when we're talking about a non-profit that moral issues arise for things like discrimination for gender (in this case would be discrimination towards males). The problems doxxing creates don't distinguish between males and females. Veterans suffer a number of problems that these orgs care about, same for women's shelters (generally speaking) - they provide a service that is functionally different for their target group. Doxxed people are both genders and distinguishing between them is completely artificial and discriminatory in the pejorative sense of the word. The facilities you'd set up against doxxing would work just as well for males but for no reason whatsoever you'd leave them out.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        If the nonprofit is, as I imagined, targeted at diversity in tech or women in tech, then I am not seeing any moral issues. If some other non-profit would like to provide these hypothetical services to other groups or to everybody in general, that is also awesome. I would encourage that. But as somebody who already donates to various groups like the Ada Initiative and Black Girls Code, I am saying I would give further money to an organization like that for providing an anti-doxxing service to their target audience. The point of my (very short) comment was "take my money!" So that if some maker here was inspired, they'd know to contact me. That's all.
theorique 12y ago
Because patriarchy.

Why not men too?

by muyuu 12y ago

Why not men too?

psykovsky 12y ago

Because men.

wpietri 12y ago

This response grates a little. It's so common that it's widely discussed and parodied. E.g.: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/ http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argu... http://www.robot-hugs.com/but-men/ http://www.robot-hugs.com/but-men/ And it's closely related to the "not all men" line, equally mocked: http://www.listen-tome.com/save-me/ http://www.listen-tome.com/save-me/ http://imgur.com/gallery/z5AYz66 http://imgur.com/gallery/z5AYz66 But assuming that you are sincere and just unaware of the context: The reason that I personally would offer to fund this service for women in tech is that diversity in tech is an issue I have been working on for a while. Even though women are a relatively small proportion of the field, those women are a disproportionately large share of those getting abused with things like doxxing. I don't like that and want it to stop. It would be my hope that by offering it widely, it would enable more women to speak up both about tech and about their experience in tech. Which I in turn hope will promote a more diverse and inclusive field. Which I think is a good end in itself, but I also think that means better empathy for all sorts of users of tech, and therefore better products and less systemic waste. Is that helpful?

random_pr 12y ago
Your post is very politicized. There is no use arguing politics. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/
- wpietri 12y ago
  The whole point of democracy is arguing politics. There is plenty of use in it. That's why we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, for example. Plus deliberative bodies as a key element of every level of government. Also, that you construct it as politicized suggests you have a political opinion in opposition to women being treated as equals. If you oppose that, well, then you oppose that. But it would also explain why a) you insist on labeling views you don't like as "very politicized" and b) why you preemptively declare that there's no point in arguing. To me it reads as a slightly more grown up version of the hands-over-the-ears style of argumentation.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
This is sexist and ostracizing :P. Such service doesn't have a natural gender discrimination so it's actually additional work to create one. Sure, it might be worth to focus on marketing it to women, if indeed they get "disproportionately large share" of abuse (it sounds plausible to me, but I don't have data) - but there's no need for artificially limiting the service itself. Male privacy nerds would happily use it too.
- skybrian 12y ago
  Nobody asked that the service to be limited to women. That's something you're adding to the conversation. So it seems to me that you're politicizing it even more.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    From the top comment of this thread: > And I would happily give money to a nonprofit who provides this as a free service for women in tech That's how I understood it, and I think it's supported by the poster's other comments.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      Skybrian is right; you're wrong. I am speaking of two separate things: a commercial product and a nonprofit that gives away free subscriptions to the commercial product. Although now that you mention it, if some sort of existing nonprofit focusing on diversity in tech built a service, that would also be something I'm glad to support. One easy way to tell that I didn't want guys excluded from the service: I said I wanted to subscribe, and I am a guy.
muyuu 12y ago
Still, it would make zero sense to me that someone would provide a service against doxxing and limit said service to women. Why discriminating against men? Men can also be victimized by doxxing. How about providing it to people instead of just the female subset of people?
- wpietri 12y ago
  Sorry if I was unclear. I am talking about two separate things: a commercial service and a nonprofit who would provide subscriptions to the service. As I said, I want to subscribe. However, nonprofits pretty regularly provide services to limited groups of people. Veteran's groups focus on veterans. Women's shelters focus on women. The Alliance of Transylvanian Saxons focuses on Transylvanian Saxons. So if some existing nonprofit were to build this as part of their work, I'd have no problem with them limiting it to whatever group they were focusing on.
  - muyuu 12y ago
    A commercial service is paradoxically (or not) exonerated of their own market-limiting decisions. It's when we're talking about a non-profit that moral issues arise for things like discrimination for gender (in this case would be discrimination towards males). The problems doxxing creates don't distinguish between males and females. Veterans suffer a number of problems that these orgs care about, same for women's shelters (generally speaking) - they provide a service that is functionally different for their target group. Doxxed people are both genders and distinguishing between them is completely artificial and discriminatory in the pejorative sense of the word. The facilities you'd set up against doxxing would work just as well for males but for no reason whatsoever you'd leave them out.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      If the nonprofit is, as I imagined, targeted at diversity in tech or women in tech, then I am not seeing any moral issues. If some other non-profit would like to provide these hypothetical services to other groups or to everybody in general, that is also awesome. I would encourage that. But as somebody who already donates to various groups like the Ada Initiative and Black Girls Code, I am saying I would give further money to an organization like that for providing an anti-doxxing service to their target audience. The point of my (very short) comment was "take my money!" So that if some maker here was inspired, they'd know to contact me. That's all.

theorique 12y ago

Because patriarchy.