10 ms·

This was awesome. Not because it dispels a meme that is negative in the industry, not because it is some sort of proof a woman can succeed in tech, or any other

This was awesome. Not because it dispels a meme that is negative in the industry, not because it is some sort of proof a woman can succeed in tech, or any other of this tropic nonsense. It was such an amazing message that was totally gender neutral: "I like building things because I am curious and I pursue knowledge for its own sake" With all the confirmation bias and name calling (which I am certainly guilty of from time to time) it is refreshing to hear someone talking about how they just want[0] to focus on building something exciting and not focusing on politics. [0]this originally said "both sides to shut up to they can get back to building and hacking.", which was not meant literally, but to convey the sentiment the edited section now reflects. edit: If you strongly disagree with me, and I am being sincere here, I can promise your energy will be much better spent building/doing/creating/enjoying something than engaging in a debate with me. If you are up to the challenge, go out and do. If you take some time to go out and do something awesome and you still feel like you would like to converse, I would like to talk about your projects/etc and my email is listed. Cheers. [final edit:] I have been doing a lot of thinking about cultural problems. I have began a change in perspective that has lead to personal growth, asking not why something matters but when/contextually something matters. Maybe whatever is being argued down thread is the single biggest issue you find fault with in our society or maybe it is the 5th, 10th issue, etc. I can only reiterate that "creating" will better your cause but this is not the context or the "when". Go start a scholarship, teach people to code, work on a product, call your senator, etc. Doing something is much better than talking about something and if there was a place to reasonably have meaningful discourse, I assure you this is not that place.

detcader 11y ago
Why should women shut up about their experiences?
- vonklaus 11y ago
  > they just want both sides to shut up > Why should women Sorry, not keen to argue here. Quite a good post in the original article, thought it was an interesting take. italics added for emphasis.
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    This assumes an equivalence between men and women that doesn't exist here. If both sides were equally put-upon, it'd be neutral to call for both sides to shut up. When one side has a clear advantage, it is not.
    - traverseda 11y ago
      >When one side has a clear advantage, it is not. I suspect this is the big difference driving a lot of this debate. You see a clear advantage, I see a lot of small advantages in specific situations, along with personal preferences. To a lot of us, it's not a clear advantage. I definitely make more money, but I'm much more likely to commit suicide or become homeless. I'm a lot more likely to be injured on the job.
      - justizin 11y ago
        Right, and I mean, /sure/ the slaves don't have freedom, but they also don't have to pay bills and stuff. It pretty much washes out.
        traverseda 11y ago
        Not sure I understand what point you're trying to get at here. I understand that you think there's a very obvious advantage, but I don't really understand why. Said advantage isn't obvious to me.
        kbenson 11y ago
        Unfortunately, I think people are interpreting this in the context of the reply (slavery), not your original point (advantages vs disadvantages of genders).
        kbenson 11y ago
        Using sarcasm to gloss over everything about a position and rebut a gross oversimplification of it doesn't exactly bolster your position, in my view. I think the point the GP was trying to make was that while women face clear disadvantages in some contexts, they also have clear advantages in others. In many societies (but of course not all), women are a protected class of people. This comes with an assorted set of advantages (less strenuous work, better expected health outcomes, etc.) The argument is not that these advantages outweigh the disadvantages, or even that they necessarily even them out, but that to ignore them entirely in advancing an argument, and then to immediately attempt to draw (tenuous, at best) parallels to slavery is a disservice to serious discussion. Also, apparently the Godwin's law corollary with regard to discrimination is slavery. :/
- rmdi 11y ago
  Why should anyone not voice his or her opinion/shut up is what you wanted to say I want to think.
pohl 11y ago
...it is refreshing to hear someone talking about how want both sides to shut up so they can get back to building... Wouldn't it be even more refreshing, though, to watch them just choose to tune-out and go back to hacking, rather than asking anyone to shut up?
- krstck 11y ago
  That's what most people are doing. Unfortunately, the people that actually do spend a bunch of time writing essays and Twitter blasts are the ones that, somehow, get to speak for everyone else. I hate that. I'm glad Meredith takes the time to provide a counter viewpoint.
pdabbadabba 11y ago
> it is refreshing to hear someone talking about how they just want both sides to shut up so they can get back to building and hacking. I think this is an unfortunate (though entirely relatable!) attitude because it ignores the fact that there are groups whose needs for a comfortable, collegial hacking environment are poorly met by many communities today. For people in these groups, and end to the ongoing inclusiveness debate would, in itself, prevent them from getting back to building and hacking in the same way that others can. I agree that having this discussion can too often get in the way of everyone's ability to focus hacking in the way they want. Sometimes this is because feminists (and advocates for other groups) come on too strong, or call names, or use other unproductive (and sometime misdirected) tactics. But I think it equally often is a result of others' being unprepared to listen to others' reasonable demands for inclusion, resulting in battle instead of growth. I also think that "we" (i.e., those whose needs are already well met by the hacking community) should happily tolerate some degree of distraction from hacking if it will help make our communities more open to others who share our interests and goals. Edit: Your edit is welcome. "I like building things because I am curious and I pursue knowledge for its own sake" certainly is a welcome message. In the context of this discussion, though, I still get the impression that this is supposed to imply: "can't we all just leave this arguing behind and get back to building things?" I think the answer is 'no' if we are committed, as we should be, to ensuring that the pursuit of this ideal is equally open to everyone. In fact, what makes that hacker ethos so important is exactly why it is important to engage in these debates. Of course if you instead mean "can't we all just listen to each other and try earnestly to meet one another's needs so that we can all focus on building things" then I say merely "amen."
- traverseda 11y ago
  >it ignores the fact that there are groups whose needs for a comfortable, collegial hacking environment are poorly met by many communities today. Most notably, poor people. As a hackery type who came from poverty, these seem a lot like silly problems. I've hung out in some pretty hostile places to get time with a soldering iron or a computer. If you have access to any "hacking environment" or even just tools, you're already incredibly privileged.
  - 11y ago
demian 11y ago
It's really important to keep focus as long as we don't oversimplify the issues.
rayiner 11y ago
The "shut up and build things" position embodies the tacit assumption that the world naturally pushes itself to an equillibrium that is fair and just. The assumption that racism and sexism result in elastic deformation of society that will go away as soon as you remove whatever force is warping it. I don't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If you bend it, it'll stay bent. You have to hammer it back into straightness. Talking (and browbeating and prosecuting when necessary) is how you do that. PS: I don't disagree with the author that not everyone needs to be on the front line of every culture war. But I think someone needs to be.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  The assumption that racism and sexism result in elastic deformation of society that will go away as soon as you remove whatever force is warping it. Yes, this is the economic assumption - folks are greedy and will exploit undervalued resources. I don't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If you bend it, it'll stay bent. This ignores the history of various oppressed groups who unbent themselves (east Asians, south Asians, Jews, Irish). It also ignores the fact that women have unbent themselves in most fields, just not math heavy STEM fields.
  - joe5150 11y ago
    it's hard to argue that any of those groups are truly "unbent" outside of very narrow, precarious and conditional contexts.
  - afarrell 11y ago
    I'd argue the Irish have "unbent themselves". What prejudice or discrimination do the Irish face in contemporary America? (My background: Grew up in the New England then moved to Austin. I look Mediterranean but my last name is Farrell and I play the bodhran...mediocrely) I'm highly skeptical of the idea that this "unbending" is anything but a loud, activist process.
    - msandford 11y ago
zamalek 11y ago
> building and hacking. Hell yeah. I was just talking about it the other day: how we need to let it all go and get back to making cool stuff and having fun. With all the vitriol in the industry at the moment I'm surprised that anyone wants to enter it. I agree that we need to sort out our demographics (we really need to sort out our demographics), but can't we do that with positivity instead of negativity? A positive attitude makes such a difference. Bit of an anecdote: one team where I work are always too busy to help. Everyone knows it and they know it. Getting help from them is like trying to find the Higgs Boson. After my project was delayed by month because of the dependency on this team I was seconds away from escalating the shit as high a possible. Toys were going to be flung far and wide, heads were going to roll. For some reason I didn't. I walked into the office and said, "how can I help you guys help me?" Suddenly I was at the front of the queue. Ten minutes later we had a working solution. Next time somebody does something unsavory think about approaching them as a friend and not an enemy. Maybe the dude isn't a misogynist, maybe he just had a brain fart. Maybe he didn't have bad intentions. The only thing this bickering has achieved is labeling people. "Misogynist" is such a strong word to use when someone made a simple mistake. Don't we all care about losing the labels and having an equal standing with each other? Stopping other from doing that starts with stopping yourself. Let's build something we can be proud of, instead of destroying the little that is left. The next time someone makes a mistake try building their character, don't destroy their reputation.
Retra 11y ago
Your attitude is disappointing and short-sighted. It reminds me of a discussion I had some time ago where someone was saying "Moore's law ensures we don't have to worry about optimization." But Moore's law isn't a law of nature, it's a consequence of human behavior. Moore's law is true because hardware designers are focused on optimization! It just wouldn't be true if everyone agreed not to focus on optimization. And here you are saying "If we all focussed on tech problems, we wouldn't have to worry about social problems." But social problems don't fix themselves. Social equality is not a law of nature. Someone has to work on it. In effect, you are trying to argue something that contradicts one of the assumptions you've used in your argument.

detcader 11y ago

Why should women shut up about their experiences?

vonklaus 11y ago
> they just want both sides to shut up > Why should women Sorry, not keen to argue here. Quite a good post in the original article, thought it was an interesting take. italics added for emphasis.
- astazangasta 11y ago
  This assumes an equivalence between men and women that doesn't exist here. If both sides were equally put-upon, it'd be neutral to call for both sides to shut up. When one side has a clear advantage, it is not.
  - traverseda 11y ago
    >When one side has a clear advantage, it is not. I suspect this is the big difference driving a lot of this debate. You see a clear advantage, I see a lot of small advantages in specific situations, along with personal preferences. To a lot of us, it's not a clear advantage. I definitely make more money, but I'm much more likely to commit suicide or become homeless. I'm a lot more likely to be injured on the job.
    - justizin 11y ago
      Right, and I mean, /sure/ the slaves don't have freedom, but they also don't have to pay bills and stuff. It pretty much washes out.
      - traverseda 11y ago
        Not sure I understand what point you're trying to get at here. I understand that you think there's a very obvious advantage, but I don't really understand why. Said advantage isn't obvious to me.
        kbenson 11y ago
        Unfortunately, I think people are interpreting this in the context of the reply (slavery), not your original point (advantages vs disadvantages of genders).
      - kbenson 11y ago
        Using sarcasm to gloss over everything about a position and rebut a gross oversimplification of it doesn't exactly bolster your position, in my view. I think the point the GP was trying to make was that while women face clear disadvantages in some contexts, they also have clear advantages in others. In many societies (but of course not all), women are a protected class of people. This comes with an assorted set of advantages (less strenuous work, better expected health outcomes, etc.) The argument is not that these advantages outweigh the disadvantages, or even that they necessarily even them out, but that to ignore them entirely in advancing an argument, and then to immediately attempt to draw (tenuous, at best) parallels to slavery is a disservice to serious discussion. Also, apparently the Godwin's law corollary with regard to discrimination is slavery. :/
rmdi 11y ago
Why should anyone not voice his or her opinion/shut up is what you wanted to say I want to think.

pohl 11y ago

...it is refreshing to hear someone talking about how want both sides to shut up so they can get back to building... Wouldn't it be even more refreshing, though, to watch them just choose to tune-out and go back to hacking, rather than asking anyone to shut up?

krstck 11y ago
That's what most people are doing. Unfortunately, the people that actually do spend a bunch of time writing essays and Twitter blasts are the ones that, somehow, get to speak for everyone else. I hate that. I'm glad Meredith takes the time to provide a counter viewpoint.

pdabbadabba 11y ago

> it is refreshing to hear someone talking about how they just want both sides to shut up so they can get back to building and hacking. I think this is an unfortunate (though entirely relatable!) attitude because it ignores the fact that there are groups whose needs for a comfortable, collegial hacking environment are poorly met by many communities today. For people in these groups, and end to the ongoing inclusiveness debate would, in itself, prevent them from getting back to building and hacking in the same way that others can. I agree that having this discussion can too often get in the way of everyone's ability to focus hacking in the way they want. Sometimes this is because feminists (and advocates for other groups) come on too strong, or call names, or use other unproductive (and sometime misdirected) tactics. But I think it equally often is a result of others' being unprepared to listen to others' reasonable demands for inclusion, resulting in battle instead of growth. I also think that "we" (i.e., those whose needs are already well met by the hacking community) should happily tolerate some degree of distraction from hacking if it will help make our communities more open to others who share our interests and goals. Edit: Your edit is welcome. "I like building things because I am curious and I pursue knowledge for its own sake" certainly is a welcome message. In the context of this discussion, though, I still get the impression that this is supposed to imply: "can't we all just leave this arguing behind and get back to building things?" I think the answer is 'no' if we are committed, as we should be, to ensuring that the pursuit of this ideal is equally open to everyone. In fact, what makes that hacker ethos so important is exactly why it is important to engage in these debates. Of course if you instead mean "can't we all just listen to each other and try earnestly to meet one another's needs so that we can all focus on building things" then I say merely "amen."

traverseda 11y ago
>it ignores the fact that there are groups whose needs for a comfortable, collegial hacking environment are poorly met by many communities today. Most notably, poor people. As a hackery type who came from poverty, these seem a lot like silly problems. I've hung out in some pretty hostile places to get time with a soldering iron or a computer. If you have access to any "hacking environment" or even just tools, you're already incredibly privileged.
- 11y ago

demian 11y ago

It's really important to keep focus as long as we don't oversimplify the issues.

rayiner 11y ago

The "shut up and build things" position embodies the tacit assumption that the world naturally pushes itself to an equillibrium that is fair and just. The assumption that racism and sexism result in elastic deformation of society that will go away as soon as you remove whatever force is warping it. I don't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If you bend it, it'll stay bent. You have to hammer it back into straightness. Talking (and browbeating and prosecuting when necessary) is how you do that. PS: I don't disagree with the author that not everyone needs to be on the front line of every culture war. But I think someone needs to be.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
The assumption that racism and sexism result in elastic deformation of society that will go away as soon as you remove whatever force is warping it. Yes, this is the economic assumption - folks are greedy and will exploit undervalued resources. I don't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If you bend it, it'll stay bent. This ignores the history of various oppressed groups who unbent themselves (east Asians, south Asians, Jews, Irish). It also ignores the fact that women have unbent themselves in most fields, just not math heavy STEM fields.
- joe5150 11y ago
  it's hard to argue that any of those groups are truly "unbent" outside of very narrow, precarious and conditional contexts.
- afarrell 11y ago
  I'd argue the Irish have "unbent themselves". What prejudice or discrimination do the Irish face in contemporary America? (My background: Grew up in the New England then moved to Austin. I look Mediterranean but my last name is Farrell and I play the bodhran...mediocrely) I'm highly skeptical of the idea that this "unbending" is anything but a loud, activist process.
  - msandford 11y ago

zamalek 11y ago

> building and hacking. Hell yeah. I was just talking about it the other day: how we need to let it all go and get back to making cool stuff and having fun. With all the vitriol in the industry at the moment I'm surprised that anyone wants to enter it. I agree that we need to sort out our demographics (we really need to sort out our demographics), but can't we do that with positivity instead of negativity? A positive attitude makes such a difference. Bit of an anecdote: one team where I work are always too busy to help. Everyone knows it and they know it. Getting help from them is like trying to find the Higgs Boson. After my project was delayed by month because of the dependency on this team I was seconds away from escalating the shit as high a possible. Toys were going to be flung far and wide, heads were going to roll. For some reason I didn't. I walked into the office and said, "how can I help you guys help me?" Suddenly I was at the front of the queue. Ten minutes later we had a working solution. Next time somebody does something unsavory think about approaching them as a friend and not an enemy. Maybe the dude isn't a misogynist, maybe he just had a brain fart. Maybe he didn't have bad intentions. The only thing this bickering has achieved is labeling people. "Misogynist" is such a strong word to use when someone made a simple mistake. Don't we all care about losing the labels and having an equal standing with each other? Stopping other from doing that starts with stopping yourself. Let's build something we can be proud of, instead of destroying the little that is left. The next time someone makes a mistake try building their character, don't destroy their reputation.

Retra 11y ago

Your attitude is disappointing and short-sighted. It reminds me of a discussion I had some time ago where someone was saying "Moore's law ensures we don't have to worry about optimization." But Moore's law isn't a law of nature, it's a consequence of human behavior. Moore's law is true because hardware designers are focused on optimization! It just wouldn't be true if everyone agreed not to focus on optimization. And here you are saying "If we all focussed on tech problems, we wouldn't have to worry about social problems." But social problems don't fix themselves. Social equality is not a law of nature. Someone has to work on it. In effect, you are trying to argue something that contradicts one of the assumptions you've used in your argument.