"How I Explained REST to My Wife" taken down because of gender-oriented nature(tomayko.com)
tomayko.com
"How I Explained REST to My Wife" taken down because of gender-oriented nature
http://tomayko.com/writings/rest-to-my-wife?down
106 comments
I used this article to explain REST to so, so many non-technical folks, as well as techies who were enamored with SOAP.
You are right about the gender issue being a loss for the community. Now this article is taken down because people are stupid and lack nuance when their emotions kick in.
There was never anything misogynistic about this article, but now because of an absurd responsibility of authors to never possibly offend the ignorant, or the knee-jerk reactionaries, or the (I hate to say it) offended for the sake of attention people.
The professional victimization cult that has hijacked gender and race issues on so many fronts take away from real victims of real gender and race discrimination. These professional victim cults are easy to recognize: they will do absolutely nothing to help victims of discrimination unless they belong to one particular group that they identify with. How many parenting articles written by women discriminate against "bumbling men" who "can't handle the kids?" Where are these groups then? My mother bailed on my 4 siblings and I when I was 3, and left my dad to take all of us on. She never paid a cent of child support, but I had to grow up watching crap like "choosy mom's choose JIF" and "Dr. Mom recommends Robitussin." My mother was a drug addict, and a feminist organization paid her legal bills when she tried to take us away from my father after being gone for 5 years. They never once asked me or my siblings what we thought, for them there was a bigger battle to fight that was beyond the immediate victims.
The professional victim cults don't care about discrimination, they just care about the streams of funding they get from particular special interest groups. In the meantime, take a look at high school graduation rates of females vs. males, and ask yourself who needs more help these days.
You are right about the gender issue being a loss for the community. Now this article is taken down because people are stupid and lack nuance when their emotions kick in.
There was never anything misogynistic about this article, but now because of an absurd responsibility of authors to never possibly offend the ignorant, or the knee-jerk reactionaries, or the (I hate to say it) offended for the sake of attention people.
The professional victimization cult that has hijacked gender and race issues on so many fronts take away from real victims of real gender and race discrimination. These professional victim cults are easy to recognize: they will do absolutely nothing to help victims of discrimination unless they belong to one particular group that they identify with. How many parenting articles written by women discriminate against "bumbling men" who "can't handle the kids?" Where are these groups then? My mother bailed on my 4 siblings and I when I was 3, and left my dad to take all of us on. She never paid a cent of child support, but I had to grow up watching crap like "choosy mom's choose JIF" and "Dr. Mom recommends Robitussin." My mother was a drug addict, and a feminist organization paid her legal bills when she tried to take us away from my father after being gone for 5 years. They never once asked me or my siblings what we thought, for them there was a bigger battle to fight that was beyond the immediate victims.
The professional victim cults don't care about discrimination, they just care about the streams of funding they get from particular special interest groups. In the meantime, take a look at high school graduation rates of females vs. males, and ask yourself who needs more help these days.
Just be sure not to slide into the professional victim cult of "males suppressed by evil feminazis"...
Hyperbole and escalation is NOT the right way to fix this issue. Just accept that there's a problem, however small and partially subjective, and think about how to solve it constructively while being neither defensive nor giving in to unreasonable demands.
Hyperbole and escalation is NOT the right way to fix this issue. Just accept that there's a problem, however small and partially subjective, and think about how to solve it constructively while being neither defensive nor giving in to unreasonable demands.
I'm tempted to ask my wife to write a blog post on "How I explained different kinds of Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms in the construction industry to my husband".
I'm lucky enough to be married to an expert in her field so I get to learn lots of cool stuff just by asking!
I'm lucky enough to be married to an expert in her field so I get to learn lots of cool stuff just by asking!
Sounds pretty interesting, if you do, please post it on HN :)
Every time she mentions that stuff I have to be careful not to say "Arbiter, cool - just like Halo!" [although I always think it].
Please make sure to submit it with the title "How I Explained Different Kinds of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the Construction Industry to my Significant Other" and keep it as gender neutral as possible to prevent yourself from being discriminatory.
I wonder if anyone would have been upset if it was called "How I explained it to my partner"
Or if PETA would've shown up if he'd "explained it to his dog".
Single people.
I don't mind overreactions to gender issues. I mind reactions that actually retard our progress towards a more egalitarian and just society. Getting people to censor content you object to takes information away from the ongoing conversation. Personally blaming Ryan for sexism misunderstands gender norms and privileges as some sort of "original sin" people carry around.
The concerns are not bullshit, but the way they are addressed is. But they're not addressing the issue as human beings but as ideologues whipping a fallen humanity into shape, so what do you expect?
The concerns are not bullshit, but the way they are addressed is. But they're not addressing the issue as human beings but as ideologues whipping a fallen humanity into shape, so what do you expect?
> Transcribing a conversation with your wife, wherein the wife in this case is the non-technical part is not discriminating - it is a fact.
Except it was not a transcription, it was some sort of Socratic dialog with the "wife" part being written just so in order to create the optimum amount of tech ignorance for the author to fill.
> No-one would have said anything if a woman posted "How I explained REST to My Husband".
Really? I'm pretty sure there would have been a lot of remarks about the reversal of the "normal" roles.
Really, I dislike overzealous feminism but I can understand this case. The point of the title was really to convey "this is an explanation of REST for non-programmers". Since approximately none of us know the author's wife and whether she lacks technical understanding, the real title actually doesn't convey this information unless you add the stereotype that women don't understand tech.
Except it was not a transcription, it was some sort of Socratic dialog with the "wife" part being written just so in order to create the optimum amount of tech ignorance for the author to fill.
> No-one would have said anything if a woman posted "How I explained REST to My Husband".
Really? I'm pretty sure there would have been a lot of remarks about the reversal of the "normal" roles.
Really, I dislike overzealous feminism but I can understand this case. The point of the title was really to convey "this is an explanation of REST for non-programmers". Since approximately none of us know the author's wife and whether she lacks technical understanding, the real title actually doesn't convey this information unless you add the stereotype that women don't understand tech.
I don't think you're right that he made up his wife's words to achieve a Socratic dialogue, and then pinned it on his wife. I think she actually did it. The evidence is this comment by Ryan Tomayko, taken from the Wayback link (which appears elsewhere in this thread):
> There’s a bit of context missing from the beginning of the post: I had been busy at work and hadn’t seen her much in the past week or so. When that happens she starts getting jealous of the laptop and wants to hover over my shoulder — that’s a sign, it means: put it down and pay attention to me. If I don’t heel to that hint, she’ll start asking me about whatever’s on the screen. If I’m lucky it’s vim and a terminal running screen, which freaks her out and she leaves. Otherwise, I’m usually in the browser or my newsreader. It just so happened that at this time, I was reading Roy’s Bio so she saw his picture and says, “Who is Roy Fielding??!?,” using the exact the same tone and inflection you might when saying “WTF?”
> When this happens, I usually just say, “Oh, it’s nothing,” or something like, “it’s just some stuff about a thing.”
> Anyway, the funny thing is that I wasn’t really trying to explain anything at first. It started out as a bit of joke — a be careful what you ask for type thing. But then she says, “Oh, I get it.” and I so I kept on going and the next thing I know we’re talking about polymorphism and URL canonicalization and all kinds of crazy shit.
> There’s a bit of context missing from the beginning of the post: I had been busy at work and hadn’t seen her much in the past week or so. When that happens she starts getting jealous of the laptop and wants to hover over my shoulder — that’s a sign, it means: put it down and pay attention to me. If I don’t heel to that hint, she’ll start asking me about whatever’s on the screen. If I’m lucky it’s vim and a terminal running screen, which freaks her out and she leaves. Otherwise, I’m usually in the browser or my newsreader. It just so happened that at this time, I was reading Roy’s Bio so she saw his picture and says, “Who is Roy Fielding??!?,” using the exact the same tone and inflection you might when saying “WTF?”
> When this happens, I usually just say, “Oh, it’s nothing,” or something like, “it’s just some stuff about a thing.”
> Anyway, the funny thing is that I wasn’t really trying to explain anything at first. It started out as a bit of joke — a be careful what you ask for type thing. But then she says, “Oh, I get it.” and I so I kept on going and the next thing I know we’re talking about polymorphism and URL canonicalization and all kinds of crazy shit.
>it was some sort of Socratic dialog with the "wife" part being written just so in order to create the optimum amount of tech ignorance for the author to fill.
Wait, you:
1) Are not the author. You have no idea what the author had in mind when he wrote those.
2) BUT, you are accusing the author of sexism by presuming a sexist version of the event by YOURSELF and accusing the author for it, despite the author CLEARLY letting you know he didn't intend it to become so.
3) Are manipulating statements purposely to induce fiery discussions amongst an otherwise peaceful community.
>Since approximately none of us know the author's wife and whether she lacks technical understanding, the real title actually doesn't convey this information unless you add the stereotype that women don't understand tech.
This is enough proof that you are here to add nothing but controversy and promote nonconstructive discussion.
If you read the original article, which I recommend you please do if you haven't (looks like you didn't anyway), the Wife clearly asks
People like you who jump straight into conclusions like 'yes it's sexism! bury him alive!' are the reason why I feel uncomfortable sitting next to a woman from the tech sector with the fear of losing my job or being accused of being a sexist for no reason apparently.
I honestly hope that someday I can just sit next to a 'person' without being conscious of their gender..and that day is when this world will be a much happier place to live in, with trolls like you left aloof.
Wait, you:
1) Are not the author. You have no idea what the author had in mind when he wrote those.
2) BUT, you are accusing the author of sexism by presuming a sexist version of the event by YOURSELF and accusing the author for it, despite the author CLEARLY letting you know he didn't intend it to become so.
3) Are manipulating statements purposely to induce fiery discussions amongst an otherwise peaceful community.
>Since approximately none of us know the author's wife and whether she lacks technical understanding, the real title actually doesn't convey this information unless you add the stereotype that women don't understand tech.
This is enough proof that you are here to add nothing but controversy and promote nonconstructive discussion.
If you read the original article, which I recommend you please do if you haven't (looks like you didn't anyway), the Wife clearly asks
Wife: How does it work?
People like you who jump straight into conclusions like 'yes it's sexism! bury him alive!' are the reason why I feel uncomfortable sitting next to a woman from the tech sector with the fear of losing my job or being accused of being a sexist for no reason apparently.
I honestly hope that someday I can just sit next to a 'person' without being conscious of their gender..and that day is when this world will be a much happier place to live in, with trolls like you left aloof.
> 1) Are not the author. You have no idea what the author had in mind when he wrote those.
No more or less than you.
> 2) BUT, you are accusing the author of sexism by presuming a sexist version of the event by YOURSELF and accusing the author for it, despite the author CLEARLY letting you know he didn't intend it to become so.
I am not presuming a version of the event, I am describing what expression the text makes when paying attention to gender. Texts can make an impression not intended by the author. And no, that doesn't mean the person who gets that impression is "manipulating" the text. There is absolutely no need to presume malice for anyone here, as you seem intent to do.
> 3) Are manipulating statements purposely
No, I am not. The comment that comes closest to that is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5498284 , and you're calling me a troll for criticizing it.
> People like you who jump straight into conclusions like 'yes it's sexism! bury him alive!'
You're building a pretty big strawman there.
> I honestly hope that someday I can just sit next to a 'person' without being conscious of their gender..and that day is when this world will be a much happier place to live in,
I agree completely, but that is not the world we live in, and acting like it were is not necessarily productive.
> with trolls like you left aloof.
This could be a rational discussion if you could kindly refrain from resorting to insults.
No more or less than you.
> 2) BUT, you are accusing the author of sexism by presuming a sexist version of the event by YOURSELF and accusing the author for it, despite the author CLEARLY letting you know he didn't intend it to become so.
I am not presuming a version of the event, I am describing what expression the text makes when paying attention to gender. Texts can make an impression not intended by the author. And no, that doesn't mean the person who gets that impression is "manipulating" the text. There is absolutely no need to presume malice for anyone here, as you seem intent to do.
> 3) Are manipulating statements purposely
No, I am not. The comment that comes closest to that is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5498284 , and you're calling me a troll for criticizing it.
> People like you who jump straight into conclusions like 'yes it's sexism! bury him alive!'
You're building a pretty big strawman there.
> I honestly hope that someday I can just sit next to a 'person' without being conscious of their gender..and that day is when this world will be a much happier place to live in,
I agree completely, but that is not the world we live in, and acting like it were is not necessarily productive.
> with trolls like you left aloof.
This could be a rational discussion if you could kindly refrain from resorting to insults.
Sigh, so an interesting and thought provoking article is taken down because it could have been percieved as sexist? Why not just s/wife/partner/g and call it a day?
I don't think that it was inflammatory. Maybe it's due to wildly unchecked privilege, but I read it as "A way to convey the REST metaphor to a nontechnical person". I didn't see it as "women are stupid and need handholding to understand technology".
I don't think that it was inflammatory. Maybe it's due to wildly unchecked privilege, but I read it as "A way to convey the REST metaphor to a nontechnical person". I didn't see it as "women are stupid and need handholding to understand technology".
The language in the original article had two properties that stood out to me:
* The dialog was entirely unrealistic- to the point that a 'dialogue' was clearly simply the wrong form for what Tomayko wanted to do
* the 'wife' was portrayed alternatively as infantile, naive and purely reactive.
I follow Ryan Tomayko vaguely and I'd be surprised if this was a reflection of his behaviour. From what little I know he seems to have some awareness of and sympathy with struggles that come under "left politics".
But my knowing that doesn't erase the issues with his original post.
My comment on the original posting was thus:
> So Ryan Tomayko's conversions with his wife are akin in tone and style to a language textbook aimed at tweens?
You can't have that coupled with "wife" and simply wave away the problematic implications, not in our culture as of stands today. It's admirable that Tomayko is mature enough to consider challenges like this - instead of just going on the ultra defensive MRA spiel like some Redditor.
* The dialog was entirely unrealistic- to the point that a 'dialogue' was clearly simply the wrong form for what Tomayko wanted to do
* the 'wife' was portrayed alternatively as infantile, naive and purely reactive.
I follow Ryan Tomayko vaguely and I'd be surprised if this was a reflection of his behaviour. From what little I know he seems to have some awareness of and sympathy with struggles that come under "left politics".
But my knowing that doesn't erase the issues with his original post.
My comment on the original posting was thus:
> So Ryan Tomayko's conversions with his wife are akin in tone and style to a language textbook aimed at tweens?
You can't have that coupled with "wife" and simply wave away the problematic implications, not in our culture as of stands today. It's admirable that Tomayko is mature enough to consider challenges like this - instead of just going on the ultra defensive MRA spiel like some Redditor.
What if he was talking about his specific, non-technical, wife? Why is that sexist. My wife is not technical at all, but I still understand that many women are. In fact I know a lot of women who are much more technical than me.
From his own comments on the original post, he was:
> p: Ugghh. I have to admit, this post does seem kind of sexist now that you mention it. It never occured to me that it might be taken as such. I didn’t mean to imply my wife was a layperson due to her being female. I use “explained to my wife” at work as a simple way of saying that something is being described in a way that you might be able to explain to layperson (like people who make buying decisions :) Of course, everyone at work knows that my wife is non-technical and also that she is one of the only people outside of work I get to have grown-up conversations with.
>
>> Dude, your wife must really love you to go through all that which was obviously of way more interest to you than to her!
>
> There’s a bit of context missing from the beginning of the post: I had been busy at work and hadn’t seen her much in the past week or so. When that happens she starts getting jealous of the laptop and wants to hover over my shoulder — that’s a sign, it means: put it down and pay attention to me. If I don’t heel to that hint, she’ll start asking me about whatever’s on the screen. If I’m lucky it’s vim and a terminal running screen, which freaks her out and she leaves. Otherwise, I’m usually in the browser or my newsreader. It just so happened that at this time, I was reading Roy’s Bio so she saw his picture and says, “Who is Roy Fielding??!?,” using the exact the same tone and inflection you might when saying “WTF?”
>
> When this happens, I usually just say, “Oh, it’s nothing,” or something like, “it’s just some stuff about a thing.”
>
> Anyway, the funny thing is that I wasn’t really trying to explain anything at first. It started out as a bit of joke — a be careful what you ask for type thing. But then she says, “Oh, I get it.” and I so I kept on going and the next thing I know we’re talking about polymorphism and URL canonicalization and all kinds of crazy shit.
>
> She gets me going on purpose just so she can see my arms waving and the vein pop out of my head while I’m trying to describe this stuff. I don’t think she really pays all that much attention to what I’m actually saying.
This also explains the tone that some have complained is unrealistic: She was not trying to have a serious discussion about technology, but to wind him up.
Maybe including that as an introduction to the article would have pacified some of the complaints, but the comment I've quoted above was posted in 2006 as the 6th comment on the post. It's really ridiculous that he kept getting complaints about this post.
> p: Ugghh. I have to admit, this post does seem kind of sexist now that you mention it. It never occured to me that it might be taken as such. I didn’t mean to imply my wife was a layperson due to her being female. I use “explained to my wife” at work as a simple way of saying that something is being described in a way that you might be able to explain to layperson (like people who make buying decisions :) Of course, everyone at work knows that my wife is non-technical and also that she is one of the only people outside of work I get to have grown-up conversations with.
>
>> Dude, your wife must really love you to go through all that which was obviously of way more interest to you than to her!
>
> There’s a bit of context missing from the beginning of the post: I had been busy at work and hadn’t seen her much in the past week or so. When that happens she starts getting jealous of the laptop and wants to hover over my shoulder — that’s a sign, it means: put it down and pay attention to me. If I don’t heel to that hint, she’ll start asking me about whatever’s on the screen. If I’m lucky it’s vim and a terminal running screen, which freaks her out and she leaves. Otherwise, I’m usually in the browser or my newsreader. It just so happened that at this time, I was reading Roy’s Bio so she saw his picture and says, “Who is Roy Fielding??!?,” using the exact the same tone and inflection you might when saying “WTF?”
>
> When this happens, I usually just say, “Oh, it’s nothing,” or something like, “it’s just some stuff about a thing.”
>
> Anyway, the funny thing is that I wasn’t really trying to explain anything at first. It started out as a bit of joke — a be careful what you ask for type thing. But then she says, “Oh, I get it.” and I so I kept on going and the next thing I know we’re talking about polymorphism and URL canonicalization and all kinds of crazy shit.
>
> She gets me going on purpose just so she can see my arms waving and the vein pop out of my head while I’m trying to describe this stuff. I don’t think she really pays all that much attention to what I’m actually saying.
This also explains the tone that some have complained is unrealistic: She was not trying to have a serious discussion about technology, but to wind him up.
Maybe including that as an introduction to the article would have pacified some of the complaints, but the comment I've quoted above was posted in 2006 as the 6th comment on the post. It's really ridiculous that he kept getting complaints about this post.
Frankly, having re-read it from Internet Archive (http://web.archive.org/web/20110225075111/http://tomayko.com...), the dialogue might have been unrealistic, but the "wife" this is aimed at is substantially more technical than most people. (EDIT: and reading the comments to his original post, it was a conversation with his actual wife.... )
If I tried explaining REST to my mom or some of the non-technical guys at the gym, for example, it'd have taken vastly more explanation.
Frankly I consider taking it down like this cowardly. If he wanted to address these "concerns" then replace "(my) wife" with "Bob" or something else and add a line that "some people took offense to the original version, so I've changed it to avoid taking the focus away from the purpose" or something to that effect.
If I tried explaining REST to my mom or some of the non-technical guys at the gym, for example, it'd have taken vastly more explanation.
Frankly I consider taking it down like this cowardly. If he wanted to address these "concerns" then replace "(my) wife" with "Bob" or something else and add a line that "some people took offense to the original version, so I've changed it to avoid taking the focus away from the purpose" or something to that effect.
An alternative viewpoint:
I considered that an article that took a real discussion (I assume he did explain it to his wife) that wasn't recorded, wrote it up in a way that resembles a conversation in which the wife is the one the explanation is targeted.
The article wasn't about his wife, for all I care about. Replace it with 'son', 'father', 'drinking buddy' and the article format could've been the same. The author expands that train of thought that helped him explain the topic at hand in a recent conversation, the other party is merely a placeholder for the real thing that took place before.
Actually, it reminded me a little of teacher/scholar type of 'dialoges', not Socrates, not Master Wq from the vim koans, but something inbetween and related. It was a frame for the real content - and in my world not at all offending.
I considered that an article that took a real discussion (I assume he did explain it to his wife) that wasn't recorded, wrote it up in a way that resembles a conversation in which the wife is the one the explanation is targeted.
The article wasn't about his wife, for all I care about. Replace it with 'son', 'father', 'drinking buddy' and the article format could've been the same. The author expands that train of thought that helped him explain the topic at hand in a recent conversation, the other party is merely a placeholder for the real thing that took place before.
Actually, it reminded me a little of teacher/scholar type of 'dialoges', not Socrates, not Master Wq from the vim koans, but something inbetween and related. It was a frame for the real content - and in my world not at all offending.
My recollection could have been wrong, I seemed to recall the dialog seeming a little contrived but not to the degree you describe.
I might try to pull it out of cache and then reconsider.
I might try to pull it out of cache and then reconsider.
Here it is: http://ompldr.org/vaHp4NQ
[deleted]
> I read it as "A way to convey the REST metaphor to a nontechnical person"
How exactly did you read it that way without any knowledge about his wife's background?
By implicitly assuming "wife => woman => nontechnical", that's how. That's really what makes the title work.
How exactly did you read it that way without any knowledge about his wife's background?
By implicitly assuming "wife => woman => nontechnical", that's how. That's really what makes the title work.
No. Picture the title being "How I explained REST to my brother." That still conveys the exact same sentiment, which means the "wife" part is just a red herring.
> That still conveys the exact same sentiment
No, it doesn't. Could be a little brother who's just written his first PHP script. Could be a big brother who's worked for 20 years as DBA. Lots of articles out there trying to explain REST to such people.
But wife? That means "nontechnical" - just look at the comments here.
No, it doesn't. Could be a little brother who's just written his first PHP script. Could be a big brother who's worked for 20 years as DBA. Lots of articles out there trying to explain REST to such people.
But wife? That means "nontechnical" - just look at the comments here.
I so disagree. This is basic English: the "Explaining REST" part of the sentence is the part that implies that the explainee isn't technical (else why would they need to have it explained to them?).
Making the subject "brother", "sister", "mom", "dad", or "husband" has the exact same meaning to me--they are all anonymous relations and so the "non-technical" implication still carries. The subject the author chose was "wife", presumably because this was based on an actual conversation with his wife.
The subject does have a chance to turn the implication around. If your brother worked for 20 years as a DBA then the title would have to be "Explaining REST to a DBA" to get the correct implication.
Making the subject "brother", "sister", "mom", "dad", or "husband" has the exact same meaning to me--they are all anonymous relations and so the "non-technical" implication still carries. The subject the author chose was "wife", presumably because this was based on an actual conversation with his wife.
The subject does have a chance to turn the implication around. If your brother worked for 20 years as a DBA then the title would have to be "Explaining REST to a DBA" to get the correct implication.
> the "Explaining REST" part of the sentence is the part that implies that the explainee isn't technical (else why would they need to have it explained to them?).
Because you can be technically inclined without perfect knowledge of REST? As I wrote: lots of articles do that. This article was very popular exactly because of the "totally non-technical" aspect.
> The subject does have a chance to turn the implication around. If your brother worked for 20 years as a DBA then the title would have to be "Explaining REST to a DBA" to get the correct implication.
And this article could be equally clear with the title "How I Explained REST to someone completely non-technical" or even "How I Explained REST to My (non-technical) Wife" - but that is not the title it had.
Because you can be technically inclined without perfect knowledge of REST? As I wrote: lots of articles do that. This article was very popular exactly because of the "totally non-technical" aspect.
> The subject does have a chance to turn the implication around. If your brother worked for 20 years as a DBA then the title would have to be "Explaining REST to a DBA" to get the correct implication.
And this article could be equally clear with the title "How I Explained REST to someone completely non-technical" or even "How I Explained REST to My (non-technical) Wife" - but that is not the title it had.
It's remarkable that HN commenters will insist that there is no issue of sexism or racism even after the author has conceded it and apologised.
I understand where feminist come from on the issue, but I do think that sometimes they take it to far. His wife is obvoisly non-technical. It's not about "omg these womenz don't get tech". It's more about this is how a conversation went between a technical and non-technical person, who happen to be husband and wife.
I know that people feel that using "wife" enforces stereotypes, but I really don't see it in this post. Sometimes picking on these very tiny issues makes it very hard to identify with your cause.
I know that people feel that using "wife" enforces stereotypes, but I really don't see it in this post. Sometimes picking on these very tiny issues makes it very hard to identify with your cause.
"Sometimes picking on these very tiny issues makes it very hard to identify with your cause."
This. Because you're taking an informative, factual statement describing a particular relationship (husband working with technology, wife with limited relationship to technology), and saying that it's not any good to describe this fact, because other people who want to have a different sort of relationship might feel outnumbered or something.
People who are interested in actually doing something about gender-related issues in technology should consider that at a certain point, it's less productive to whine about something and more productive to ignore it and cope so you can fight bigger battles. I think we passed that point on the way to this article, and then went on to enter the zone where people stop even respecting that you're fighting...
This. Because you're taking an informative, factual statement describing a particular relationship (husband working with technology, wife with limited relationship to technology), and saying that it's not any good to describe this fact, because other people who want to have a different sort of relationship might feel outnumbered or something.
People who are interested in actually doing something about gender-related issues in technology should consider that at a certain point, it's less productive to whine about something and more productive to ignore it and cope so you can fight bigger battles. I think we passed that point on the way to this article, and then went on to enter the zone where people stop even respecting that you're fighting...
You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to explain the same thing to my mom and my grandma and every other non-technical female out there and publish a post with a similar title and will never take it down. Because, this kind of feminism movement is dangerous and someone should put an end to this "blind" feminism. A technical person explaining something technical to a non-technical person isn't sexism.
I'm sure this wouldn't have been an issue if a woman had written 'How I explained cooking to my husband'.
One word - EGO. It's amazing how much it can screw up constructive processes within a community.
I'm sure this wouldn't have been an issue if a woman had written 'How I explained cooking to my husband'.
One word - EGO. It's amazing how much it can screw up constructive processes within a community.
And your "what I'm going to do" plan doesn't have anything to do with ego AT ALL, right?
YES, it exhibits my ego, but I'm certainly not stupid - There is a difference between being a sexist and being labelled as a sexist for no apparent reason by some feminist on rage.
Well, so you expect me to sit silently in a corner and watch this happen? What happened to the author today is also what will happen to me tomorrow, so I'm no way going to give way for random feminist/extremist to screw me like that.
Well, so you expect me to sit silently in a corner and watch this happen? What happened to the author today is also what will happen to me tomorrow, so I'm no way going to give way for random feminist/extremist to screw me like that.
That the reason is not apparent to you doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist or is invalid. You don't solve issues by assuming the other side is acting in bad faith, fabricating strawmen and indulging in revenge fantasies.
The only one here who is "on rage" is you.
The only one here who is "on rage" is you.
A dark matter physicist friend of mine created a blog called "physics for my mom." He faced similar issues, but simply said "No, I'm honestly writing this for my mom--she's not a physicist. It's my personal blog."
Thanks to the internet archive we can still enjoy this article:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110225075111/http://tomayko.com...
http://web.archive.org/web/20110225075111/http://tomayko.com...
I read this, the whole time thinking "please don't make a cooking or cleaning analogy", no such luck.
The conversation wasn't nearly what I expected, it goes into more detail than I expected but there are a few points, like the sweeper thing, that were probably big triggers.
The conversation wasn't nearly what I expected, it goes into more detail than I expected but there are a few points, like the sweeper thing, that were probably big triggers.
That and the fact that the headings of the two members of the conversation are: Ryan and Wife. Giving her a name probably would have helped...
Maybe she didn't feel like having her identity plastered all over the Internet just because she happened to be married to Ryan?
I would never release personally identifable information about my wife on the Internet without getting her permission first.
I would never release personally identifable information about my wife on the Internet without getting her permission first.
It took years before I referred to my wife as anything but "my wife" even at work, because most people didn't know her, and so didn't know here name and it was simply easier to refer to her that way.
At this duty station I'm the same. No one here knows my wife so I don't refer to her (or even my children) by name.
At my first duty station it was much more tight-knit; we knew each other by first name, met off-hours as a group (including spouse and children), etc. So there it wasn't unusual to refer to someone's wife by first name.
Now I can see why people would be offended about referring to "the wife" (and it's less savory alternates), as if you were resigned to torturing yourself once you got home and not actually in a committed relationship with a human being. But that's not what is happening when talking about your actual wife, just as it's considered perfectly acceptable to refer to one's mother, brother, father, or sister by role instead of name.
At my first duty station it was much more tight-knit; we knew each other by first name, met off-hours as a group (including spouse and children), etc. So there it wasn't unusual to refer to someone's wife by first name.
Now I can see why people would be offended about referring to "the wife" (and it's less savory alternates), as if you were resigned to torturing yourself once you got home and not actually in a committed relationship with a human being. But that's not what is happening when talking about your actual wife, just as it's considered perfectly acceptable to refer to one's mother, brother, father, or sister by role instead of name.
She's his wife, that's personally identifiable information by itself, far more so than a first name. Also I assume that he ran it by her first in any case as to post that conversation without clearing it with her would be a very bad move. I rarely post anything to do with my wife online and never without talking to her about it. There is also a large difference between vocal habits and written habits. I feel like replacing wife with a first name(even a fake one if she didn't want her real one posted) would have been less likely to offend. (I assume it was his intention not to offend as he removed the piece due to it offending)
Might men and women actually be neurologically different? Louann Brizendine and Doreen Kimura (neuroscientists both) sure think so, and present copious evidence to that effect:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0767920104 http://www.science.ca/scientists/scientistprofile.php?pID=10
Men and women have systematically different muscle masses, lifespans, even organs. Yet it is taboo to imagine that their brains might be different too, on average. Indeed Ryan is persecuted for the indirect implication that women, on average, might be less technically inclined! If this generalization was actually untrue it would not be necessary to scream at people like Larry Summers to "disprove" it. The zeal of people invested in the denial of biology is astonishing; they seek to personally destroy anyone who even indirectly endorses anything related to gender difference.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0767920104 http://www.science.ca/scientists/scientistprofile.php?pID=10
Men and women have systematically different muscle masses, lifespans, even organs. Yet it is taboo to imagine that their brains might be different too, on average. Indeed Ryan is persecuted for the indirect implication that women, on average, might be less technically inclined! If this generalization was actually untrue it would not be necessary to scream at people like Larry Summers to "disprove" it. The zeal of people invested in the denial of biology is astonishing; they seek to personally destroy anyone who even indirectly endorses anything related to gender difference.
Men are more aggressive (and stupid), live 5 years less on average, are taller and more muscular, are more hairy, cannot have babies, and can tolerate less pain (random facts verified by science) -- but GOD FORBID if men and women also have any differences in how they approach professions or cultural issues.
Despite the fact that fashion is a trillion dollar industry for women but most men could not care less if their sock are of a slightly different color.
If you want to fight "sexism", go fight Cosmopolitan. Or not -- ever stopped to consider it might be OK for women to like this stuff, like it's OK for men to like "Cars and Gadgets" magazines?
Despite the fact that fashion is a trillion dollar industry for women but most men could not care less if their sock are of a slightly different color.
If you want to fight "sexism", go fight Cosmopolitan. Or not -- ever stopped to consider it might be OK for women to like this stuff, like it's OK for men to like "Cars and Gadgets" magazines?
I looked into the pain tolerance point you made a while back and it's not really confirmed one way or the other which gender deals with pain better.
Yes, could be, it was only a research I've read, so nothing 100% conclusive.
(OT, In general I think you cannot take research results published on journals for granted until they are at least 10 years old and have been included in undergraduate syllabus.
Else you get all the mixed "coffee causes heart attacks", "coffee is good for your heart" papers alternating every other week).
(OT, In general I think you cannot take research results published on journals for granted until they are at least 10 years old and have been included in undergraduate syllabus.
Else you get all the mixed "coffee causes heart attacks", "coffee is good for your heart" papers alternating every other week).
It's a conversation that actually happened, between two people who happened to be of opposite gender. There is no reasonable way to read gender messages into something like that.
Does anyone else feel like the pendulum is swinging too far in the opposite direction? We're over-compensating here.
Yes, but then I will be considered sexist.
I understand there are issues of gender discrimination, but taking down a post from 2004 because it mentioned a "wife" is crazy.
I understand there are issues of gender discrimination, but taking down a post from 2004 because it mentioned a "wife" is crazy.
I know this will not be the most popular opinion to voice but you know what? I call major first world problems.
By now women (thankfully!) have the right to vote, to study, to pick and divorce their partners as THEY see fit, they are allowed to drive, to drink, to be artists, to be engineers, scientists, to be anything they want, there are extremely influential political and economic positions held by very capable women. Now, I am NOT saying we are perfect and women should just stop complaining - but I AM going to say let's just be happy for a moment we made it this far because there are still quite a lot of countries in this world where all the aforementioned are denied to women and splitting hairs on comparatively petty subjects like the stereotypically non-tech "grrrls" seems like a waste of everyone's time and effort. Better focus on subjects that actually matter instead of wasting it on over-compensating and über-political-correctness.
I may not be working in the most hip and trendy kind of places so YMMV, in my own experience the IT industry I have seen so far definitely IS predominantly male to the point having 1/3 female colleagues would seem like the maximum I (n)ever (even) encountered. In the university where I studied they were trying hard to attract female students, we started with maybe 1/3 or so female; then came the programming lessons and unfortunately those mainly got rid of most of the girls. At the end, there were just a couple of girls left who finished their degree. IT is not for everybody and there are a lot of guys who just cannot do it either, why is it such an atrocity to say the same about girls? Nobody would cry murder if the article was explaining it to "my little brother".
By now women (thankfully!) have the right to vote, to study, to pick and divorce their partners as THEY see fit, they are allowed to drive, to drink, to be artists, to be engineers, scientists, to be anything they want, there are extremely influential political and economic positions held by very capable women. Now, I am NOT saying we are perfect and women should just stop complaining - but I AM going to say let's just be happy for a moment we made it this far because there are still quite a lot of countries in this world where all the aforementioned are denied to women and splitting hairs on comparatively petty subjects like the stereotypically non-tech "grrrls" seems like a waste of everyone's time and effort. Better focus on subjects that actually matter instead of wasting it on over-compensating and über-political-correctness.
I may not be working in the most hip and trendy kind of places so YMMV, in my own experience the IT industry I have seen so far definitely IS predominantly male to the point having 1/3 female colleagues would seem like the maximum I (n)ever (even) encountered. In the university where I studied they were trying hard to attract female students, we started with maybe 1/3 or so female; then came the programming lessons and unfortunately those mainly got rid of most of the girls. At the end, there were just a couple of girls left who finished their degree. IT is not for everybody and there are a lot of guys who just cannot do it either, why is it such an atrocity to say the same about girls? Nobody would cry murder if the article was explaining it to "my little brother".
>After receiving a number of reasonable complaints about the gender-oriented nature of this article from people I respect very much, I've decided to take it down for good.
Possible translation: after a lot of people with nothing better to do took offense at a tech article, I took it down because: 1) I don't want to be hated, 2) I don't want to lose my job, 3) I can't be bothered to even argue against the flock.
It might not be what Ryan means (I can't speak for him), but it sure is what many people mean when having to take down something because of PC complaints.
This thing is getting out of hand. It's the first world idea of a "cause" by people whose idea of "revolution" and "making society better" is blog posts and twitter snark.
The very first programmer was a woman. For a lot of time, computer operators were mostly women. There are not many things stopping women at entering IT, and sexism sure is not one of them. Women thrive at other places with much more deep and inherent sexism (or, to put it better, with actual sexism, instead of mere tit jokes, which is what is mostly mistaken as sexism in the tech community).
I attended uni 15 years ago for Comp Sci. On my year we were like 70% men and 30% women. Not because they feared for sexism (actually there was nothing of the kind -- students were either good or bad at lessons, regardless of sex). We all had fun together, in large mixed groups. Sexism never was an issue, and I've never heard any woman complain about it in the university. Other fields were like 70% women 30% men (Applied Math, Medicine, Biology, etc). Men mostly wanted to get into comp sci because they liked games, programming and this internet thing already. Women avoided the Comp Sci not because of some fear of sexism and such, but because it was considered to have bad work prospects (times/salary/etc), whereas biology was considered to be "blooming" at the time.
Possible translation: after a lot of people with nothing better to do took offense at a tech article, I took it down because: 1) I don't want to be hated, 2) I don't want to lose my job, 3) I can't be bothered to even argue against the flock.
It might not be what Ryan means (I can't speak for him), but it sure is what many people mean when having to take down something because of PC complaints.
This thing is getting out of hand. It's the first world idea of a "cause" by people whose idea of "revolution" and "making society better" is blog posts and twitter snark.
The very first programmer was a woman. For a lot of time, computer operators were mostly women. There are not many things stopping women at entering IT, and sexism sure is not one of them. Women thrive at other places with much more deep and inherent sexism (or, to put it better, with actual sexism, instead of mere tit jokes, which is what is mostly mistaken as sexism in the tech community).
I attended uni 15 years ago for Comp Sci. On my year we were like 70% men and 30% women. Not because they feared for sexism (actually there was nothing of the kind -- students were either good or bad at lessons, regardless of sex). We all had fun together, in large mixed groups. Sexism never was an issue, and I've never heard any woman complain about it in the university. Other fields were like 70% women 30% men (Applied Math, Medicine, Biology, etc). Men mostly wanted to get into comp sci because they liked games, programming and this internet thing already. Women avoided the Comp Sci not because of some fear of sexism and such, but because it was considered to have bad work prospects (times/salary/etc), whereas biology was considered to be "blooming" at the time.
> Possible translation: after a lot of people with nothing better to do took offense at a tech article, I took it down because: 1) I don't want to be hated, 2) I don't want to lose my job, 3) I can't be bothered to even argue against the flock.
Which part of "reasonable complaints about the gender-oriented nature of this article [..] from people I respect very much" implies that to you?
> This thing is getting out of hand.
This isn't helping.
Which part of "reasonable complaints about the gender-oriented nature of this article [..] from people I respect very much" implies that to you?
> This thing is getting out of hand.
This isn't helping.
>Which part of "reasonable complaints about the gender-oriented nature of this article [..] from people I respect very much" implies that to you?
All of it. It's a public apology for something he did in good faith and was never problematic for him until the complaints forced him to take it down.
So I read the "reasonable complaints [...] from people I respect very much" as:
"some people I don't wish to annoy and otherwise respect have been bothering me with this shit, so, fine, I give up".
I was clear that it's my interpretation, it doesn't have to be what he feels. But, then again, it _could_ be.
I don't always take what people say at face value.
The same way when you read a politicians statement you sometimes just know he means the opposite or something different.
All of it. It's a public apology for something he did in good faith and was never problematic for him until the complaints forced him to take it down.
So I read the "reasonable complaints [...] from people I respect very much" as:
"some people I don't wish to annoy and otherwise respect have been bothering me with this shit, so, fine, I give up".
I was clear that it's my interpretation, it doesn't have to be what he feels. But, then again, it _could_ be.
I don't always take what people say at face value.
The same way when you read a politicians statement you sometimes just know he means the opposite or something different.
Dude, my humble advice - don't feed him/her. It's a troll, just check out the previous comments.
Ah, yes. Expressing the same opinion multiple times within a discussion is trolling. At least when you disagree.
Really classy.
Really classy.
Not taking things at face value is one thing, putting words into people's mouths that directly contradict what they actually said is something entirely else, and pretty damn toxic - just ignore what people say and assume they meant something that fits your view of things. Not a way to have a rational discussion.
Here's a good test: Would the article have been just as compelling and informative if he had written it to his husband? Everything the same except replace the word "wife" with "husband".
Yes it would have. Just because his partner is a woman this article can't be written this way. That upsets me.
Yes it would have. Just because his partner is a woman this article can't be written this way. That upsets me.
Sometimes, reality reinforces stereotypes.
I don't blame Ryan at all for not wanting to be part of that conversation. It's a huge toxic distraction.
Still, it was a valuable article. I hope he will neuter it and re-post.
I don't blame Ryan at all for not wanting to be part of that conversation. It's a huge toxic distraction.
Still, it was a valuable article. I hope he will neuter it and re-post.
Actually, I think the stereotype he was targeting was that of software nerds who are married with non-technical women. This is my case and my wife isn't offended. I don't have the data to backup this, but from my personal perspective, all the male software and IT people I've meet enough to know if they were married, were with a non-technical partner (yes, even gay couples).
And this is not an issue, I wouldn't want to state in my divorce papers: "she's an emacs poweruser".
Honestly it seems like he could just change "wife" to any random name or even person #2 and it would be ok.
No, actually that would not be ok. The way he dealt with it was his way. And it shows how wrong the whole gender-discussion has become.
Some overreacting (or say very sensitive), but very loudly "screaming" (aka blogging/tweeting/et al) voices (female and male) have hijacked a very legit discussion for womens rights, womens equality, womens chances in this world and made a mockery out of it.
what these voices did imho, was a disservice to the just cause for equality between all genders (perceived or biological).
Some overreacting (or say very sensitive), but very loudly "screaming" (aka blogging/tweeting/et al) voices (female and male) have hijacked a very legit discussion for womens rights, womens equality, womens chances in this world and made a mockery out of it.
what these voices did imho, was a disservice to the just cause for equality between all genders (perceived or biological).
What? My take on the article was the knowledge transfer of a REST developer to a non-developer. His wife was only a figure relative to his position; the genders could have been swapped and it wouldn't change the context of the article...?
I would have kept the article up purposely as my belief that it isn't offensive and that people are ignorant and arrogant.
I would have kept the article up purposely as my belief that it isn't offensive and that people are ignorant and arrogant.
Having studied literature, I really feel, that wife in this context was a fictional character, solely for the purpose of giving an audience that is not that technically experienced something/-one to relate to.
That on the other hand just makes this case a case of misinterpreting fiction for reality.
Reminds me of a story the acclaimed author Umberto Eco once told about his book "Foucault's Pendulum":
His main character walks through a named street in Paris and sees a burning hotel ... and so on. Eco receives a letter, in which a reader accuses him of not getting the facts right, as there never was a hotel in this street.
So is Eco discriminating hotels in Paris with this book?
That on the other hand just makes this case a case of misinterpreting fiction for reality.
Reminds me of a story the acclaimed author Umberto Eco once told about his book "Foucault's Pendulum":
His main character walks through a named street in Paris and sees a burning hotel ... and so on. Eco receives a letter, in which a reader accuses him of not getting the facts right, as there never was a hotel in this street.
So is Eco discriminating hotels in Paris with this book?
I'm not sure why people are so outraged about this.
It was the author's choice, and he came to it after having arguments posed to him that made him rethink the way it came across and how he uses things like, "Explain it to my wife" in every day language. I for one, applaud someone him for being willing and open to criticism which he personally came to the conclusion he was not comfortable with.
No one hacked his site and defaced it and took it down, no one complained to his hosting company...It was his choice, because he apparently cares about how he comes across, and was moved by valid arguments from others.
Things like this that are more subtle are honestly the most important to address. Since people tend to not call other people out on them, they'll go on using latently sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. phrases and language and not understand what impact that makes. Many people, like this author, are really reasonable and it gives them something to think about - especially if you come to them about it in a reasonable way, which I'm assuming some people did.
As for the issue of the person in the dialog, perhaps it could be replaced with something like a kindergartener, generic male buddy, or even make things fun like Plato/Aristotle or what they did in GEB with Achilles/Tortoise.
I really applaud the author for making this change. The article was a bit uncomfortable for me as a woman in tech.
And as a side note: If you think this is an "overreaction" (which I don't think it is), there's way worse stuff out there to be outraged about. I got banned on a (biological) woman's health board for using the word "female" because not everyone identifies as female and apparently I offended some people. It felt like something from the Women's First bookstore sketch in Portlandia :)
It was the author's choice, and he came to it after having arguments posed to him that made him rethink the way it came across and how he uses things like, "Explain it to my wife" in every day language. I for one, applaud someone him for being willing and open to criticism which he personally came to the conclusion he was not comfortable with.
No one hacked his site and defaced it and took it down, no one complained to his hosting company...It was his choice, because he apparently cares about how he comes across, and was moved by valid arguments from others.
Things like this that are more subtle are honestly the most important to address. Since people tend to not call other people out on them, they'll go on using latently sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. phrases and language and not understand what impact that makes. Many people, like this author, are really reasonable and it gives them something to think about - especially if you come to them about it in a reasonable way, which I'm assuming some people did.
As for the issue of the person in the dialog, perhaps it could be replaced with something like a kindergartener, generic male buddy, or even make things fun like Plato/Aristotle or what they did in GEB with Achilles/Tortoise.
I really applaud the author for making this change. The article was a bit uncomfortable for me as a woman in tech.
And as a side note: If you think this is an "overreaction" (which I don't think it is), there's way worse stuff out there to be outraged about. I got banned on a (biological) woman's health board for using the word "female" because not everyone identifies as female and apparently I offended some people. It felt like something from the Women's First bookstore sketch in Portlandia :)
I've sit back and seen so many posts lately about gender-issues. Is it really necessary?
I understand that woman feel discriminated and I see some pretty aweful examples where guys are doing all the wrong things. In the case of the woman who got fired, I felt it was unjust from sendgrid. It shows how badly some guys copy with the issue. So that doesn't help.
The baseline should be that we're all equal. What are the arguments against that?
I feel it's kind of sexist to assume that an article might be offensive to woman, because well, they might just take offense. That implies that woman are very sensitive to these articles, which reinforces the stereotype... Doesn't that belittle woman infinitely more? It just reaches the opposite effect.
The original author didn't think: "Let's belittle woman as much as possible just for the fun of it", that thought (I am pretty sure) never crossed his mind. The article could also have referred to, my father or my cousin.
I understand that woman feel discriminated and I see some pretty aweful examples where guys are doing all the wrong things. In the case of the woman who got fired, I felt it was unjust from sendgrid. It shows how badly some guys copy with the issue. So that doesn't help.
The baseline should be that we're all equal. What are the arguments against that?
I feel it's kind of sexist to assume that an article might be offensive to woman, because well, they might just take offense. That implies that woman are very sensitive to these articles, which reinforces the stereotype... Doesn't that belittle woman infinitely more? It just reaches the opposite effect.
The original author didn't think: "Let's belittle woman as much as possible just for the fun of it", that thought (I am pretty sure) never crossed his mind. The article could also have referred to, my father or my cousin.
I find it sad that this has happened, sexism in technology is a problem but this sort of this is people taking offence at the most ridiculous things.
Does it matter that the example he used was explaining REST to his wife? If the roles had been reversed would be in the position we are now?
Gender roles within technology wasn't the point of the original post, it was about explaining a piece of complicated technology to someone who had no prior understanding of it, it was circumspect that the person being explained to was a woman.
Again I find it sad that if the gender roles were reversed or if the other people was male that we probably would not be in this position as no one would object to a man explaining to another man about some technology that he does not under, is that sexism?
Does it matter that the example he used was explaining REST to his wife? If the roles had been reversed would be in the position we are now?
Gender roles within technology wasn't the point of the original post, it was about explaining a piece of complicated technology to someone who had no prior understanding of it, it was circumspect that the person being explained to was a woman.
Again I find it sad that if the gender roles were reversed or if the other people was male that we probably would not be in this position as no one would object to a man explaining to another man about some technology that he does not under, is that sexism?
archived version from 16.01.2013
http://web.archive.org/web/20130116034443/http://tomayko.com...
http://web.archive.org/web/20130116034443/http://tomayko.com...
This gives me an idea: a podcast or blog post series in which I explain technical concepts to my non-technical wife. I know I'm not the only one whose significant other has a hard time relating to the work I do and the hobbies I pursue, and it would be nice to provide them with some context. I know I enjoy learning about the nuances of my wife's work (early childhood education) and it gives me a better appreciation for her talents when I'm given the nitty-gritty domain specific details of her job.
Just the other day I was trying to explain the term "meta" to my wife and having a hard time of it. Trying to put it into terms that didn't involve programming was an interesting mental exercise.
Just the other day I was trying to explain the term "meta" to my wife and having a hard time of it. Trying to put it into terms that didn't involve programming was an interesting mental exercise.
Consider this for a thought experiment: "How I Explained REST to My Teenage Daughter". Same exact gender, except the response would be positive since in this case he'd be perceived as encouraging technical literacy in a young woman.
Could you just change the word 'wife' to 'spouse' and put it back up? It was an awesome article.
Unless there's a "How I Explained X to My Wife" meme going around, I'm not sure I understand the point of this. It clearly was never intended in such an offensive direction (not even lightheartedly) and it's descriptive usefulness seems to far outweigh such concerns!
Of course, if Tomayko did not actually have this conversation with his partner, then that could explain much and make the decision to remove the content more understandable.
Of course, if Tomayko did not actually have this conversation with his partner, then that could explain much and make the decision to remove the content more understandable.
This is not only stupid but expressly counter to social justice ends.
The whole argument that society is riddled with privileges is not supposed to be an indictment of individuals. By it's very nature, privilege means that you don't have it because of something you did or are as an individual. It's a systemic feature of society, not some personal moral failing.
So if Ryan's article evinces sexism (and I question that greatly) the proper response is not to harangue him into self-censorship. This just bullies him for something he is not personally responsible for while driving the systemic problem deeper down. What we should be doing is having an open conversation about it.
But now we can't, because it's so objectionable to reflect the sexism we all have within us that we must pretend we're beyond it. How is this in the interests of genuine egalitarianism?
The whole argument that society is riddled with privileges is not supposed to be an indictment of individuals. By it's very nature, privilege means that you don't have it because of something you did or are as an individual. It's a systemic feature of society, not some personal moral failing.
So if Ryan's article evinces sexism (and I question that greatly) the proper response is not to harangue him into self-censorship. This just bullies him for something he is not personally responsible for while driving the systemic problem deeper down. What we should be doing is having an open conversation about it.
But now we can't, because it's so objectionable to reflect the sexism we all have within us that we must pretend we're beyond it. How is this in the interests of genuine egalitarianism?
%s/wife/friend/g
Fixed it for you. I really liked the post. I even read it sometimes just to keep my mind fresh on the REST idea. I dont understand why people would be offended that you used your wife as the other person. Its perfectly normal to explane your wife what you do.
Fixed it for you. I really liked the post. I even read it sometimes just to keep my mind fresh on the REST idea. I dont understand why people would be offended that you used your wife as the other person. Its perfectly normal to explane your wife what you do.
I still think learning shouldn't slowed down by stuff like this.
If someone writes about quantum mechanics and is a sexist, but he's the only one who can write it in a manner that I understand it, I'm SO gonna read it...
If someone writes about quantum mechanics and is a sexist, but he's the only one who can write it in a manner that I understand it, I'm SO gonna read it...
Women are allowed to not understand things, just as much as men.
If I had received complaint, I'd have replied with a big flaming "fuck you" (well, I'd probably have worded it somewhat diplomatically). Fighting sexism and discrimination also means fighting zealots on the other side.
People who'd complain about this are typically "feeding the troll", and while it's not as bad as "trolling" (used here as an euphemism for discrimination) itself, we have a much better handle on that.
People who'd complain about this are typically "feeding the troll", and while it's not as bad as "trolling" (used here as an euphemism for discrimination) itself, we have a much better handle on that.
This story is about an author deciding to remove an article from his website in 2004.
Edit: I am wrong, at least partly and possibly wholly.
Edit: I am wrong, at least partly and possibly wholly.
This story is about an author deciding to remove an article that was posted (and upvoted!) to HN multiple times.
I'd say it was good content and personally liked the article.
In addition this story shows that 'sexism' (think PyCon etc.) is not easy to identify and no objective rules seems to be agreeable enough. For me, this article wasn't even remotely sexist and even if the author himself got convinced, I fail to see a reason to take it down and cannot see anything offending about it.
In fact, I discussed that very article with my own wife multiple times.
I'd say it was good content and personally liked the article.
In addition this story shows that 'sexism' (think PyCon etc.) is not easy to identify and no objective rules seems to be agreeable enough. For me, this article wasn't even remotely sexist and even if the author himself got convinced, I fail to see a reason to take it down and cannot see anything offending about it.
In fact, I discussed that very article with my own wife multiple times.
no. This is a story about an author succumbing to pressure to remove an article 9 years after it was written.
Ah, OK, apparently you're right about the 9 years after it was written. Do you have anything to back up the "succumbing to pressure" bit? It sounds pretty consensual from the text.
Sad. It wasn't even about gender!
Can't it just be re-titled
"How I explained REST to My Spouse".
Anyone complaining is clear 'projecting'....
"How I explained REST to My Spouse".
Anyone complaining is clear 'projecting'....
[deleted]
I don't get who go around and take these "gender issues" seriously. Is it femenists, males, females, trolls? (or something else not listed of course)
My take is that it's people that like to get upset for non issues, while avoiding all the real issues that require personal commitment.
That, and people going with the flock.
That, and people going with the flock.
You mean unconsciously wanting to get upset about it, or do they really just go around trying to find stuff to hate on?
The second, I think.
They have some personal issues, from not having slept well to more deep rooted stuff, and they take it out on the internet on whatever attracts their attention and can justify some "hate".
I doubt if perfectly normal people care if Ryan used "to my wife" or "to my spouse" etc.
If someone wrote "How I explained Monads to my husband" I could not care less normally -- but on a bad day, I could take offense for similarly BS stuff, like "how dare you write that shit about Apple", etc.
They have some personal issues, from not having slept well to more deep rooted stuff, and they take it out on the internet on whatever attracts their attention and can justify some "hate".
I doubt if perfectly normal people care if Ryan used "to my wife" or "to my spouse" etc.
If someone wrote "How I explained Monads to my husband" I could not care less normally -- but on a bad day, I could take offense for similarly BS stuff, like "how dare you write that shit about Apple", etc.
Here's a mirror I pulled from cache and reformatted a bit: http://ompldr.org/vaHp4NQ
[deleted]
Ask HN: How can this post end up on page 3 so quickly (just refreshed the page) and still have increased in value (more points)?
"How I explained REST to my liberal arts significant other"
Fixed. No need to take it down for trendy political correctness.
Fixed. No need to take it down for trendy political correctness.
Rename the article to"How to explain REST to non-techies, my wife for example?"
"How I explained REST to a beautiful cloud in the sky, while being sheltered by a tree born out of Mother Gaia's infinite love, yes, a cloud in the sky, no! actually it was about to rain, so the cloud wasn't exactly white and... well... never mind, just learn REST by yourself."
"Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog-lovers, the cat-lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! All the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean. Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did. Magazines became a nice blend of vanilla tapioca. Books, so the damned snobbish critics said, were dishwater. No wonder books stopped selling, the critics said. But the public, knowing what it wanted, spinning happily, let the comic-books survive. And the three-dimensional sex-magazines, of course.
There you have it, Montag. It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics, the good old confessions, or trade journals."
"Yes, but what about the firemen, then?" asked Montag.
"Ah." Beatty leaned forward in the faint mist of smoke from his pipe. "What more easily explained and natural? With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers, and swimmers instead of examiners, critics, knowers, and imaginative creators, the word `intellectual,' of course, became the swear word it deserved to be. You always dread the unfamiliar. Surely you remember the boy in your own school class who was exceptionally 'bright,' did most of the reciting and answering while the others sat like so many leaden idols, hating him. And wasn't it this bright boy you selected for beatings and tortures after hours? Of course it was. We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against. So! A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon. Breach man's mind. Who knows who might be the target of the well-read man? Me? I won't stomach them for a minute. And so when houses were finally fireproofed completely, all over the world (you were correct in your assumption the other night) there was no longer need of firemen for the old purposes. They were given the new job, as custodians of our peace of mind, the focus of our understandable and rightful dread of being inferior; official censors, judges, and executors. That's you, Montag, and that's me."
The door to the parlour opened and Mildred stood there looking in at them, looking at Beatty and then at Montag. Behind her the walls of the room were flooded with green and yellow and orange fireworks sizzling and bursting to some music composed almost completely of trap-drums, tom-toms, and cymbals. Her mouth moved and she was saying something but the sound covered it.
Beatty knocked his pipe into the palm of his pink hand, studied the ashes as if they were a symbol to be diagnosed and searched for meaning.
"You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can't have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What do we want in this country, above all? People want to be happy, isn't that right? Haven't you heard it all your life? I want to be happy, people say. Well, aren't they? Don't we keep them moving, don't we give them fun? That's all we live for, isn't it? For pleasure, for titillation? And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these."
"Yes."
There you have it, Montag. It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics, the good old confessions, or trade journals."
"Yes, but what about the firemen, then?" asked Montag.
"Ah." Beatty leaned forward in the faint mist of smoke from his pipe. "What more easily explained and natural? With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers, and swimmers instead of examiners, critics, knowers, and imaginative creators, the word `intellectual,' of course, became the swear word it deserved to be. You always dread the unfamiliar. Surely you remember the boy in your own school class who was exceptionally 'bright,' did most of the reciting and answering while the others sat like so many leaden idols, hating him. And wasn't it this bright boy you selected for beatings and tortures after hours? Of course it was. We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against. So! A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon. Breach man's mind. Who knows who might be the target of the well-read man? Me? I won't stomach them for a minute. And so when houses were finally fireproofed completely, all over the world (you were correct in your assumption the other night) there was no longer need of firemen for the old purposes. They were given the new job, as custodians of our peace of mind, the focus of our understandable and rightful dread of being inferior; official censors, judges, and executors. That's you, Montag, and that's me."
The door to the parlour opened and Mildred stood there looking in at them, looking at Beatty and then at Montag. Behind her the walls of the room were flooded with green and yellow and orange fireworks sizzling and bursting to some music composed almost completely of trap-drums, tom-toms, and cymbals. Her mouth moved and she was saying something but the sound covered it.
Beatty knocked his pipe into the palm of his pink hand, studied the ashes as if they were a symbol to be diagnosed and searched for meaning.
"You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can't have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What do we want in this country, above all? People want to be happy, isn't that right? Haven't you heard it all your life? I want to be happy, people say. Well, aren't they? Don't we keep them moving, don't we give them fun? That's all we live for, isn't it? For pleasure, for titillation? And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these."
"Yes."
I'd actually never seen the original article before. Glad it's still on the wayback machine. http://web.archive.org/web/20110225075111/http://tomayko.com...
I think people need to realize that there are differences between facts and being gender discriminating. Transcribing a conversation with your wife, wherein the wife in this case is the non-technical part is not discriminating - it is a fact. No-one would have said anything if a woman posted "How I explained REST to My Husband".
Please, stop this overreaction to the so-called gender issues.