5 ms·

> There had been interest, but one of the committers had dismissed the idea out of hand because a woman had proposed it. It blows my mind that this stuff still

by kohanz 11y ago

> There had been interest, but one of the committers had dismissed the idea out of hand because a woman had proposed it. It blows my mind that this stuff still happens. In the OSS world of all places. I can't even compute how someone can apply such "logic".

logfromblammo 11y ago
It requires one to abandon certain assumptions about human behavior. When you have discarded enough, many possible hypotheses that could explain the behavior appear: 1. The person was misogynist, and actually believed that women are less capable than men, and their ideas less valuable. 2. The person was insecure about their own position of power, and would seize upon any convenient excuse to undermine potential future challengers to his authority. 3. The person minimized effort, and shot down the idea using arbitrary reasoning only as the means to avoid having to implement any part of it himself. 4. The person was inexperienced and ignorant about socially acceptable behaviors, and was merely copying previously observed behaviors. 5. The person was a troll, and chose that reason as the one which would be most inflammatory to the target. ... I could continue, but it suffices to show that if something that actually happened cannot be explained while preserving your current set of assumptions, one or more of them must be flawed. In most cases, the easiest to strike down is the assumption that individual humans cannot hold logically incompatible beliefs, or cannot act rationally at some times and irrationally at others. Smart people can do some incredibly stupid things. Another one that seems common is the assumption that all members of a synthetic tribe will tend to hold similar values and beliefs, and conduct themselves in a similar manner. People assume that members of a religion will behave in a particular way. People assume that members of a profession will act in a certain way.
Puts 11y ago
I think we need to start recognizing that this is just the sign of low intelligence. You can not argue with people who are judgmental. It's just like arguing with a drunk. Whatever you say is just waste of time and energy and by even going in to the discussion you let them drag you down to their level.
- vijayr 11y ago
  even going in to the discussion you let them drag you down to their level Not only that, it also encourages them to argue even more in future. These types of people have already formed an opinion and then search for reasons to believe what they chose to believe. The best thing to do in such situations is to walk away.
  - justizin 11y ago
    > The best thing to do in such situations is to walk away. Unfortunately, if that is the reaction to something like a patch being rejected because it came from a woman, being non-confrontational and ignoring someone who is an idiot, but has power, galvanizes their idiotic power.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >"we need to start recognizing that this is just the sign of low intelligence" >"You can not argue with people who are judgmental" You should think about what you're saying.
- mrits 11y ago
  It is not a sign of low intelligence. Just like being religious is not a sign of low intelligence. What we need to realize is extremely bright people choose to identify with ideas that are not true. Personally I think it comes social evolution and the need to belong to a group. It would be impossible to get along with everyone unless we were willing to compromise our personal beliefs and values to some extent.
  - morgante 11y ago
    > Just like being religious is not a sign of low intelligence. It's not a 100% accurate sign, but it's certainly a pretty good signal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#S...
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
zo1 11y ago
Why? I have seen ideas/suggestions blown off for equally vapid reasons. Sometimes they just don't like me, and don't like that I suggested it, for whatever reason that is. Why should a reason of "female" be special?
- justizin 11y ago
  > Why should a reason of "female" be special? It just is. It doesn't mean that vapid reasons are not vapid, but this isn't vapid, it's toxic.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    That's the closest I've seen to someone admitting that feminism is a religious belief system.
  - adrusi 11y ago
    "It just is"? Seriously? You can't explain anything with "it just is", let alone a controversial subject. I don't know what other kinds of vapid reasons the parent was referring to, but many are just as bad as "female". There's the obvious ones: racist, homophobic and transphobic justification for example, but also less common, also harmful vapid justifications. Dismissing someone's idea because theyre an ex-convict is a good example. Or on the basis of their age. These are all quite bad, even if not completely equally so. I'd humor an argument that "female" is the worst of these simply because there are a lot more women than ex-convicts and members of a gender or sexuality minority, and therefore more people who could potentially be hurt. But not "it just is".
- babygoat 11y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that since you didn't understand the reasons some of your ideas have been rejected, that it's fine to reject other people's ideas for any reason you like?
  - zo1 11y ago
    That's not what I'm saying at all. Let me give you an analogy: "He got teased for being fat". I got teased all the time, why is being teased about being fat any different/special?" I.e. I'm not saying it's "okay" to tease someone just because I question why being teased about being "fat" is any different to other kinds of teasing.
savanaly 11y ago
> There had been interest, but one of the committers had dismissed the idea out of hand because a woman had proposed it. This also blows my mind. 100% of my colleagues and friends who work in programming would suffer severe whiplash from the double take they would take after reading a statement like that from someone we were working with. How would someone who says something like that in a non-joking way not be immediately ostracized? They would be in any programmer community I've ever been a part of (besides maybe /g/? though even there I think people would just roll their eyes and assume you were trolling.)
- tome 11y ago
  How would someone who says something like that in a joking way not be immediately ostracized?
  - ascendantlogic 11y ago
    Different people and groups have different tolerances for off-color humor. One person's humor is another person's outrage. Note that my response is not an endorsement of those sort of jokes.
  - someDevOrOther 11y ago
    Maybe in the style of the old tv show "All in the Family" where an openly racist character often said racist things in a way that highlighted the foolishness of racism? Just guessing.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
      Archie Bunker wasn't being "ironically racist".
      - adrusi 11y ago
        No, the writers were.
  - pavedwalden 11y ago
justizin 11y ago
When I read this, I thought to myself, this is probably the one person on every project that basically finds some irrational reason to reject basically any idea. "It came from a woman" is one of the most irrational reasons I can imagine, but such a person also probably applies countless prejudices with no basis. And this behavior is probably tolerated because some people on the project feel they can't get by without this person, which leads to subtle social cues that continue to fuel this behavior.

by kohanz 11y ago

logfromblammo 11y ago

It requires one to abandon certain assumptions about human behavior. When you have discarded enough, many possible hypotheses that could explain the behavior appear: 1. The person was misogynist, and actually believed that women are less capable than men, and their ideas less valuable. 2. The person was insecure about their own position of power, and would seize upon any convenient excuse to undermine potential future challengers to his authority. 3. The person minimized effort, and shot down the idea using arbitrary reasoning only as the means to avoid having to implement any part of it himself. 4. The person was inexperienced and ignorant about socially acceptable behaviors, and was merely copying previously observed behaviors. 5. The person was a troll, and chose that reason as the one which would be most inflammatory to the target. ... I could continue, but it suffices to show that if something that actually happened cannot be explained while preserving your current set of assumptions, one or more of them must be flawed. In most cases, the easiest to strike down is the assumption that individual humans cannot hold logically incompatible beliefs, or cannot act rationally at some times and irrationally at others. Smart people can do some incredibly stupid things. Another one that seems common is the assumption that all members of a synthetic tribe will tend to hold similar values and beliefs, and conduct themselves in a similar manner. People assume that members of a religion will behave in a particular way. People assume that members of a profession will act in a certain way.

Puts 11y ago

I think we need to start recognizing that this is just the sign of low intelligence. You can not argue with people who are judgmental. It's just like arguing with a drunk. Whatever you say is just waste of time and energy and by even going in to the discussion you let them drag you down to their level.

vijayr 11y ago
even going in to the discussion you let them drag you down to their level Not only that, it also encourages them to argue even more in future. These types of people have already formed an opinion and then search for reasons to believe what they chose to believe. The best thing to do in such situations is to walk away.
- justizin 11y ago
  > The best thing to do in such situations is to walk away. Unfortunately, if that is the reaction to something like a patch being rejected because it came from a woman, being non-confrontational and ignoring someone who is an idiot, but has power, galvanizes their idiotic power.
forgetsusername 11y ago
>"we need to start recognizing that this is just the sign of low intelligence" >"You can not argue with people who are judgmental" You should think about what you're saying.
mrits 11y ago
It is not a sign of low intelligence. Just like being religious is not a sign of low intelligence. What we need to realize is extremely bright people choose to identify with ideas that are not true. Personally I think it comes social evolution and the need to belong to a group. It would be impossible to get along with everyone unless we were willing to compromise our personal beliefs and values to some extent.
- morgante 11y ago
  > Just like being religious is not a sign of low intelligence. It's not a 100% accurate sign, but it's certainly a pretty good signal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#S...
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

zo1 11y ago

Why? I have seen ideas/suggestions blown off for equally vapid reasons. Sometimes they just don't like me, and don't like that I suggested it, for whatever reason that is. Why should a reason of "female" be special?

justizin 11y ago
> Why should a reason of "female" be special? It just is. It doesn't mean that vapid reasons are not vapid, but this isn't vapid, it's toxic.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  That's the closest I've seen to someone admitting that feminism is a religious belief system.
- adrusi 11y ago
  "It just is"? Seriously? You can't explain anything with "it just is", let alone a controversial subject. I don't know what other kinds of vapid reasons the parent was referring to, but many are just as bad as "female". There's the obvious ones: racist, homophobic and transphobic justification for example, but also less common, also harmful vapid justifications. Dismissing someone's idea because theyre an ex-convict is a good example. Or on the basis of their age. These are all quite bad, even if not completely equally so. I'd humor an argument that "female" is the worst of these simply because there are a lot more women than ex-convicts and members of a gender or sexuality minority, and therefore more people who could potentially be hurt. But not "it just is".
babygoat 11y ago
Are you seriously suggesting that since you didn't understand the reasons some of your ideas have been rejected, that it's fine to reject other people's ideas for any reason you like?
- zo1 11y ago
  That's not what I'm saying at all. Let me give you an analogy: "He got teased for being fat". I got teased all the time, why is being teased about being fat any different/special?" I.e. I'm not saying it's "okay" to tease someone just because I question why being teased about being "fat" is any different to other kinds of teasing.

savanaly 11y ago

> There had been interest, but one of the committers had dismissed the idea out of hand because a woman had proposed it. This also blows my mind. 100% of my colleagues and friends who work in programming would suffer severe whiplash from the double take they would take after reading a statement like that from someone we were working with. How would someone who says something like that in a non-joking way not be immediately ostracized? They would be in any programmer community I've ever been a part of (besides maybe /g/? though even there I think people would just roll their eyes and assume you were trolling.)

tome 11y ago
How would someone who says something like that in a joking way not be immediately ostracized?
- ascendantlogic 11y ago
  Different people and groups have different tolerances for off-color humor. One person's humor is another person's outrage. Note that my response is not an endorsement of those sort of jokes.
- someDevOrOther 11y ago
  Maybe in the style of the old tv show "All in the Family" where an openly racist character often said racist things in a way that highlighted the foolishness of racism? Just guessing.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    Archie Bunker wasn't being "ironically racist".
    - adrusi 11y ago
      No, the writers were.
- pavedwalden 11y ago

justizin 11y ago

When I read this, I thought to myself, this is probably the one person on every project that basically finds some irrational reason to reject basically any idea. "It came from a woman" is one of the most irrational reasons I can imagine, but such a person also probably applies countless prejudices with no basis. And this behavior is probably tolerated because some people on the project feel they can't get by without this person, which leads to subtle social cues that continue to fuel this behavior.