Kathy Sierra On The Primer On Sexism Discussion(farukat.es)
farukat.es
Kathy Sierra On The Primer On Sexism Discussion
http://farukat.es/journal/2012/10/669-kathy-sierra-primer-sexism-discussion
138 comments
I also found Kathy's blog very insightful and it's a great tragedy that she stopped writing.
An eye-opener for me was her "Is Twitter TOO good?" post: http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/0...
For me, this opened up how I thought about products, especially in terms of psychology. I can't really remember when I have read that insightful posts from anybody else (and Kathy had a ton of them).
An eye-opener for me was her "Is Twitter TOO good?" post: http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/0...
For me, this opened up how I thought about products, especially in terms of psychology. I can't really remember when I have read that insightful posts from anybody else (and Kathy had a ton of them).
Thanks so much for posting this Kevin! I was late to the party in terms of reading her blog, so I'm glad I now have "the best of" collection. You rock!
It's not directly related to this article, but on the click through (primer link) there's an idea that really resonated with me:
If you're western/male/white/straight you're playing life on 'very easy' mode.
This probably betrays my 'gamified' lifestyle, and maybe it trivializes the issue somewhat, but its a much more compelling argument to me than using the term 'privilege' which is loaded with baggage (hey! I worked hard to get where I am. I'm not some privileged kid who's parent spent big to send me to a good college...)
It's really an idea that connects to my demographic, rather than disconnecting them, which is what a lot of this discourse does.
So you're a great hacker? sweet. You did that on EASY mode.
That guy over there, he's transgender, he's playing on hard and he's where you are despite that.
Those hackers girls in the corner? They're playing on nightmare difficulty.
Just a little bit of gentle respect for that goes a long way.
It's a really great metaphor to explain these ideas to people I know. Just my $0.02
If you're western/male/white/straight you're playing life on 'very easy' mode.
This probably betrays my 'gamified' lifestyle, and maybe it trivializes the issue somewhat, but its a much more compelling argument to me than using the term 'privilege' which is loaded with baggage (hey! I worked hard to get where I am. I'm not some privileged kid who's parent spent big to send me to a good college...)
It's really an idea that connects to my demographic, rather than disconnecting them, which is what a lot of this discourse does.
So you're a great hacker? sweet. You did that on EASY mode.
That guy over there, he's transgender, he's playing on hard and he's where you are despite that.
Those hackers girls in the corner? They're playing on nightmare difficulty.
Just a little bit of gentle respect for that goes a long way.
It's a really great metaphor to explain these ideas to people I know. Just my $0.02
It would be a great metaphor if it were extended out to all the handicaps people face.
That straight white male programmer who has struggled with mental illness since adolescence? He's on nightmare difficulty too.
The guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth but lost his father as a child? Hasn't been too easy for him either.
The girl who grew up with loving parents from a poor neighborhood and didn't see her first computer until college? Well, she's got some huge handicaps, but some pretty solid roots too.
I've been privileged in many ways, and I've also struggled in many ways. I'd like to think that I played the hand I got as well as I could, and extended a hand out to those who didn't quite have the same privileges whenever possible. I wouldn't really expect otherwise from anyone else.
That straight white male programmer who has struggled with mental illness since adolescence? He's on nightmare difficulty too.
The guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth but lost his father as a child? Hasn't been too easy for him either.
The girl who grew up with loving parents from a poor neighborhood and didn't see her first computer until college? Well, she's got some huge handicaps, but some pretty solid roots too.
I've been privileged in many ways, and I've also struggled in many ways. I'd like to think that I played the hand I got as well as I could, and extended a hand out to those who didn't quite have the same privileges whenever possible. I wouldn't really expect otherwise from anyone else.
You are concentrating on the metaphor too much and missing the main point.
Everyone struggles and is privileged in some ways. All these ways are not equal. I dislike the term "privilege" as it's rarely used in a useful context. But your reaction is the very definition of the word.
"extended a hand out to those who didn't quite have the same privileges whenever possible. I wouldn't really expect otherwise from anyone else"
You expect that from everyone else because you had a "privileged" upbringing obviously. Most people know that this expectation is naive. Extraordinarily naive I must say.
Everyone struggles and is privileged in some ways. All these ways are not equal. I dislike the term "privilege" as it's rarely used in a useful context. But your reaction is the very definition of the word.
"extended a hand out to those who didn't quite have the same privileges whenever possible. I wouldn't really expect otherwise from anyone else"
You expect that from everyone else because you had a "privileged" upbringing obviously. Most people know that this expectation is naive. Extraordinarily naive I must say.
FWIW, I am not white, nor was I rich growing up. My father was an immigrant and a non-native-speaker. I am straight and male, so I've got that at least.
I'm curious just which attributes you think are more equal than others.
I'm curious just which attributes you think are more equal than others.
I wasn't trying to rank which aspects are more career damaging.
I was pointing out that "we all have our struggles, just be nice to everyone and expect the same" is the most bland of platitudes and seems very dismissive of the real and measurable biases evident in our culture that this kind of thing is trying to address.
Any of the other handicaps or struggles you point out affect people who are not white, straight and male in basically equal numbers. So the comparison is not white/non-white vs average/autistic, it's native american gay women on the spectrum vs white straight male on the spectrum. That's the point. That's why I said you were missing the point.
I admit that I assumed you were a white straight male because you conflated being non-white/gay/female with being handicapped.
I was pointing out that "we all have our struggles, just be nice to everyone and expect the same" is the most bland of platitudes and seems very dismissive of the real and measurable biases evident in our culture that this kind of thing is trying to address.
Any of the other handicaps or struggles you point out affect people who are not white, straight and male in basically equal numbers. So the comparison is not white/non-white vs average/autistic, it's native american gay women on the spectrum vs white straight male on the spectrum. That's the point. That's why I said you were missing the point.
I admit that I assumed you were a white straight male because you conflated being non-white/gay/female with being handicapped.
Well, if you don't agree with the social justice crowd, that automatically makes you a privileged white person. Duh.
"It would be a great metaphor if it were extended out to all the handicaps people face."
This. People often forget that 32.8% of Americans are disabled, including 27.1% of adults age 18 - 64. (According to the CDC.)
This. People often forget that 32.8% of Americans are disabled, including 27.1% of adults age 18 - 64. (According to the CDC.)
I was curious about that figure - here's the breakdown:
Overall, 16% of adults aged 18 years and over experienced some hearing difficulty without a hearing aid (defined as ‘‘a little trouble hearing,’’ ‘‘moderate trouble,’’ ‘‘a lot of trouble,’’ or ‘‘deaf’’). Men were more likely to have experienced hearing trouble than women.
The report is interesting. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/disable.htm
Percent of adults with hearing trouble: 16.2%
Percent of adults with vision trouble: 9.4%
Percent of adults unable (or very difficult) to walk a quarter mile: 7.3%
Percent of adults with any physical functioning difficulty: 15.6%
Overall, 16% of adults aged 18 years and over experienced some hearing difficulty without a hearing aid (defined as ‘‘a little trouble hearing,’’ ‘‘moderate trouble,’’ ‘‘a lot of trouble,’’ or ‘‘deaf’’). Men were more likely to have experienced hearing trouble than women.
The report is interesting. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/disable.htm
Also, within any given year 26% of the U.S. population will suffer from mental illness, and 46% will suffer from it during their lifetime:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/1ANYDIS_ADULT.shtml
Within any given year 15% of families are below the poverty line, and 58% will fall below it at some point in their life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
Normal is kinda abnormal.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/1ANYDIS_ADULT.shtml
Within any given year 15% of families are below the poverty line, and 58% will fall below it at some point in their life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
Normal is kinda abnormal.
The distinction is that this particular "handicap" applies to 51% of the whole population. It's not unreasonable to consider it more important than the other ones.
So, I don't think it's unreasonable to try and lower barriers for women who choose to go into tech. (I don't think it's unreasonable to try and lower barriers for anyone who chooses to go into tech, but like you say, targeting women affects 51% of the population, so it has a pretty high return on investment.) I think it's worth supporting our female colleagues, and celebrating what they achieve. (FWIW, a friend of mine has a blog that does precisely that: http://techladyallstars.com/)
I object to framing the debate as a "handicap", because I've found that whenever you start identifying something as a handicap it tends to become one. (Edit: shit, just reread the thread and I did that. Poor word choice on my part.) My own experience is race; my father was sure that the reason that he kept getting passed over for promotions was because he was non-white, and as a result, he ignored all the other possible reasons that were under his control. I've been very careful not to identify myself in racial terms since, because I don't want to give those stereotypes power over me.
I read Kathy's account of being oblivious to all the little microaggressions going on around her. I explicitly made a different choice: I knew from the beginning that there may be people who see me as "just a programmer" or "not leadership material" or "socially awkward nerd" or "undateable" because physically I look Asian. And so I figured I'd work on the parts that I could change, and everything else is somebody else's problem. They're entitled to whatever preconceptions they have; if that's a problem, I can go find other people to interact with.
I really like that Kathy came here to clarify that she was sharing her personal experience, just as Laura shared hers, and now I'm sharing mine. Isn't the meta-problem here that we don't see each other as individuals, and that it's all the "1%" and the "99%" and the "51%" and the "49%"? And I think that if there're specific policies that make it easier for 51% of the population, that's a good thing. But that doesn't make it a handicap, nor should they be a protected group exempt from the same standards we apply to anyone else, nor should we forget that there are all sorts of other axes that we can categorize people by, and some of them have it a lot easier than others.
I object to framing the debate as a "handicap", because I've found that whenever you start identifying something as a handicap it tends to become one. (Edit: shit, just reread the thread and I did that. Poor word choice on my part.) My own experience is race; my father was sure that the reason that he kept getting passed over for promotions was because he was non-white, and as a result, he ignored all the other possible reasons that were under his control. I've been very careful not to identify myself in racial terms since, because I don't want to give those stereotypes power over me.
I read Kathy's account of being oblivious to all the little microaggressions going on around her. I explicitly made a different choice: I knew from the beginning that there may be people who see me as "just a programmer" or "not leadership material" or "socially awkward nerd" or "undateable" because physically I look Asian. And so I figured I'd work on the parts that I could change, and everything else is somebody else's problem. They're entitled to whatever preconceptions they have; if that's a problem, I can go find other people to interact with.
I really like that Kathy came here to clarify that she was sharing her personal experience, just as Laura shared hers, and now I'm sharing mine. Isn't the meta-problem here that we don't see each other as individuals, and that it's all the "1%" and the "99%" and the "51%" and the "49%"? And I think that if there're specific policies that make it easier for 51% of the population, that's a good thing. But that doesn't make it a handicap, nor should they be a protected group exempt from the same standards we apply to anyone else, nor should we forget that there are all sorts of other axes that we can categorize people by, and some of them have it a lot easier than others.
targeting women affects 51% of the population, so it has a pretty high return on investment.
You are misusing the term "return on investment". Return on investment = outcome / investment (or log(outcome/investment)/time, which is the rate of return).
The return on investment due to targeting women is (# of good developers found who would not otherwise be developers) / (cost of targeting).
You are misusing the term "return on investment". Return on investment = outcome / investment (or log(outcome/investment)/time, which is the rate of return).
The return on investment due to targeting women is (# of good developers found who would not otherwise be developers) / (cost of targeting).
For the most part, I agree.
Affirmative action in hiring only serves to promote stereotypes. I wish they'd do away with it so I wouldn't have to deal with people telling me that it'll be omg SO easy for me because I'm a minority. Just treat me the same as everyone else. As it is, the suspicion of my abilities is justified, because most minorities have been let in despite much lower stats in order to satisfy racial/gender quotas and etc. I can't blame people for thinking I might not have gotten in on my own merits when I have no way of telling whether or not I DID get in on my own merits.
Don't lower the bar--help us train.
Affirmative action in hiring only serves to promote stereotypes. I wish they'd do away with it so I wouldn't have to deal with people telling me that it'll be omg SO easy for me because I'm a minority. Just treat me the same as everyone else. As it is, the suspicion of my abilities is justified, because most minorities have been let in despite much lower stats in order to satisfy racial/gender quotas and etc. I can't blame people for thinking I might not have gotten in on my own merits when I have no way of telling whether or not I DID get in on my own merits.
Don't lower the bar--help us train.
The conclusions of this analogy are fairly offensive if you only consider race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality in the equation.
Who has it worse: A middle class white woman of that grew up with loving parents that supported her fascination with computers who now has to deal with an environment that seems strangely tolerant, by 21st century standards, of misogynistic behavior, or a straight white man who grew up poor with abusive parents and was bullied in school for his entire childhood (hell, maybe he even has some sort of mental or physical handicap!), but managed to focus his free time on learning about computers anyways, and does not today deal with racial or sexual discrimination in his workplace?
That's an extreme example, but I've heard enough startlingly ignorant retorts along the lines of "you don't understand, it doesn't matter how bad you had it, women always have it worse," or "how dare you spend most of your free time learning in front of a computer!" to know that I'm happier keeping the "privilege" debate out of mind.
I also think it's ridiculous to claim that a trans person is playing on "hard mode," while a "hacker girl" is playing on "nightmare mode." I don't think "possibly deals with some misogynistic behavior in her workplace and possibly feels discouraged by the lack of women in her field" is anywhere near as bad as having to deal with the scorn of a very large portion of society, possibly being disowned by one's parents (and very likely some kind of disappointment or other negative behavior from them otherwise, even if they try to be accepting), being avoided even by people who mean no harm (especially if you can't pass), or the constant mixture of shame, self-denial, and wistfulness you feel if you decided to accept living as the gender you didn't want to be. Ok, I think I've scraped enough off the tip of that iceberg.
Regardless, I think it's ultimately about as pointless to try to rank people by the amount of "privilege" they "enjoy" as it is to have a discussion about which fictional character would beat who in a fight. Why would you try to take someone's achievements away from them for the sake of an argument or a cause? That's just rude.
I can't wait for us to reach the "end game" where everyone has learned to be professional and only judge people by the results they bring to the table, but while I hope there is a path to it that does not focus on wracking every white, male, and/or straight person with guilt and witch hunting everyone who dares express the slightest hint of a contrary opinion, maybe I'm just a dreamer who doesn't know anything and the only way to change culture is to declare thermonuclear war on the loudest mouths and wait for everyone else to fall in line out of fear.
Who has it worse: A middle class white woman of that grew up with loving parents that supported her fascination with computers who now has to deal with an environment that seems strangely tolerant, by 21st century standards, of misogynistic behavior, or a straight white man who grew up poor with abusive parents and was bullied in school for his entire childhood (hell, maybe he even has some sort of mental or physical handicap!), but managed to focus his free time on learning about computers anyways, and does not today deal with racial or sexual discrimination in his workplace?
That's an extreme example, but I've heard enough startlingly ignorant retorts along the lines of "you don't understand, it doesn't matter how bad you had it, women always have it worse," or "how dare you spend most of your free time learning in front of a computer!" to know that I'm happier keeping the "privilege" debate out of mind.
I also think it's ridiculous to claim that a trans person is playing on "hard mode," while a "hacker girl" is playing on "nightmare mode." I don't think "possibly deals with some misogynistic behavior in her workplace and possibly feels discouraged by the lack of women in her field" is anywhere near as bad as having to deal with the scorn of a very large portion of society, possibly being disowned by one's parents (and very likely some kind of disappointment or other negative behavior from them otherwise, even if they try to be accepting), being avoided even by people who mean no harm (especially if you can't pass), or the constant mixture of shame, self-denial, and wistfulness you feel if you decided to accept living as the gender you didn't want to be. Ok, I think I've scraped enough off the tip of that iceberg.
Regardless, I think it's ultimately about as pointless to try to rank people by the amount of "privilege" they "enjoy" as it is to have a discussion about which fictional character would beat who in a fight. Why would you try to take someone's achievements away from them for the sake of an argument or a cause? That's just rude.
I can't wait for us to reach the "end game" where everyone has learned to be professional and only judge people by the results they bring to the table, but while I hope there is a path to it that does not focus on wracking every white, male, and/or straight person with guilt and witch hunting everyone who dares express the slightest hint of a contrary opinion, maybe I'm just a dreamer who doesn't know anything and the only way to change culture is to declare thermonuclear war on the loudest mouths and wait for everyone else to fall in line out of fear.
Kathy was absolutely not trying to rank people by how much privilege they enjoy. And you're misunderstanding the "hard mode" metaphor; factors are not necessarily sole determinants. It has been demonstrated, for example, that in science being female is a hindrance and being male is an asset. [1] That doesn't mean that there are not some males who have it worse than some females; it means that, for a male and a female coming from exactly the same background with exactly the same experience, the male will be better off. Being male is a privilege, and being female is a drawback.
I can understand, however, that a lot of us white males (I am one too) find this threatening because it seems like it's intended to "wrack us with guilt," as you put it. I guess maybe there are times when that's the goal, but Kathy here clearly doesn't intend to shove that down our throats. She's trying to genuinely point out something that even people who've been in the industry for years (like she has) might not see. And that's jarring, and it's kind of shocking, but it is not supposed to be a guilt trip. It's just supposed to bring us to awareness of simple facts that many people these days aren't willing to acknowledge.
[1] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/201...
I can understand, however, that a lot of us white males (I am one too) find this threatening because it seems like it's intended to "wrack us with guilt," as you put it. I guess maybe there are times when that's the goal, but Kathy here clearly doesn't intend to shove that down our throats. She's trying to genuinely point out something that even people who've been in the industry for years (like she has) might not see. And that's jarring, and it's kind of shocking, but it is not supposed to be a guilt trip. It's just supposed to bring us to awareness of simple facts that many people these days aren't willing to acknowledge.
[1] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/201...
In actual practice (as opposed to a narrow experiment) women are more likely to be hired, promoted, or given a grant than a similarly qualified man.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12062&page=R1
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12062&page=R1
The study I linked to is absolutely not a "narrow experiment" - it's the largest and most thoroughgoing study of its kind ever done. The study you're linking to, by contrast, is a narrow experiment, is more than three years old, and has been superseded by new data. It'd probably be worth actually reading the link I gave.
Huh? Your study is a single experiment, which sends a single modified resume out to people and asks their opinion on pay/qualifications.
In contrast, the one I linked to examines real market outcomes at multiple career events. Unless you believe the situation has changed significantly in the past three years, your criticism of the age of my study is irrelevant.
In contrast, the one I linked to examines real market outcomes at multiple career events. Unless you believe the situation has changed significantly in the past three years, your criticism of the age of my study is irrelevant.
I can't take the word "privilege" seriously anymore. I'm generally liberal myself, but the extremists have coopted the word to mean "all white and/or male people everywhere" and I just cannot get behind that.
A hacker girl can't get married or visit her husband in the hospital due to lack of legal standing. That's why every female has it worse than men, you can clearly see this as gay men can get married and trans men never experience discrimination. Don't forget, all black people everywhere have it awful and all white people have it great. Those gay kids getting bullied to death need to check their privilege, geez.
(You may also enjoy this, which pokes fun at the recent phenomenon: http://fuckyeahsocialjusticesally.tumblr.com/ )
The privilege metaphor is great for people who can only think in terms of black and white, good or evil, privilege or nonprivileged. In truth, reality is greyscale.
A hacker girl can't get married or visit her husband in the hospital due to lack of legal standing. That's why every female has it worse than men, you can clearly see this as gay men can get married and trans men never experience discrimination. Don't forget, all black people everywhere have it awful and all white people have it great. Those gay kids getting bullied to death need to check their privilege, geez.
(You may also enjoy this, which pokes fun at the recent phenomenon: http://fuckyeahsocialjusticesally.tumblr.com/ )
The privilege metaphor is great for people who can only think in terms of black and white, good or evil, privilege or nonprivileged. In truth, reality is greyscale.
It’s not about ranking, it’s about checking and being aware of one’s privilege. It’s only ever detractors who seem to want to make it about ranking or anything like that. Of course, when going down to the micro level it gets complicated. It always is. It’s probably also not a good idea to be quick to mix macro and micro level views, but privilege is still a useful concept.
The important thing about privilege is that you exactly cannot judge people merely by what they bring to the table. That is just not possible. That’s not a witch hunt. People with privilege are not bad people. In fact, most people probably have some sort of privilege. It’s complex. That’s the point.
(That trope about the prosecuted white straight man there, that’s very cute by the way. How can you write that without your brain exploding? I never understand how anyone could come to that preposterous conclusion. What is wrong with those people?)
The important thing about privilege is that you exactly cannot judge people merely by what they bring to the table. That is just not possible. That’s not a witch hunt. People with privilege are not bad people. In fact, most people probably have some sort of privilege. It’s complex. That’s the point.
(That trope about the prosecuted white straight man there, that’s very cute by the way. How can you write that without your brain exploding? I never understand how anyone could come to that preposterous conclusion. What is wrong with those people?)
I've seen people say with a straight face that when a white person is a victim of a black person's crime, the white person deserves it because SLAVERY!
I've also had people tell me that the civilians who died in the WTC attacks deserved it because America is evil and imperialistic in its dealing with other countries. This [HARD-MODE!!] metaphor has gone over great with this same crowd, not so much with me, who thinks the people who are dead got a game over and aren't really playing on any difficulty anymore.
I've also had people tell me that the civilians who died in the WTC attacks deserved it because America is evil and imperialistic in its dealing with other countries. This [HARD-MODE!!] metaphor has gone over great with this same crowd, not so much with me, who thinks the people who are dead got a game over and aren't really playing on any difficulty anymore.
I don't find these two examples comparable because I find it hard to believe that the American population is currently voting or acting to reinstate slavery.
When you pay your taxes to the Pentagon and vote to reelect George W Bush, AlQaeda members see you about the same way that Allied pilots of World War 2 saw the innocent German civilians that they fried with strategic bombing.
A friend of mine would have been killed in the 911 attack had my friend been on a different train, so I'm not pointing this out because I enjoy being attacked by AlQaeda. I'm saying this because I feel the responsibility issue is similar to that in last election in the UK, for the following reason:
The election was a choice between Dumb and Dumber because of our electoral system. The system makes it infeasible for any party other than the big 2, so at best you get to vote for the second-worst policy or waste your vote. There was a referendum to move to preferential voting instead.
The people voted for Dumber, and then voted against electoral reform. So the current bad policy continues by popular decision.
If I'm not supposed to blame the British people for choosing this stupidity, who am I supposed to blame?
When you pay your taxes to the Pentagon and vote to reelect George W Bush, AlQaeda members see you about the same way that Allied pilots of World War 2 saw the innocent German civilians that they fried with strategic bombing.
A friend of mine would have been killed in the 911 attack had my friend been on a different train, so I'm not pointing this out because I enjoy being attacked by AlQaeda. I'm saying this because I feel the responsibility issue is similar to that in last election in the UK, for the following reason:
The election was a choice between Dumb and Dumber because of our electoral system. The system makes it infeasible for any party other than the big 2, so at best you get to vote for the second-worst policy or waste your vote. There was a referendum to move to preferential voting instead.
The people voted for Dumber, and then voted against electoral reform. So the current bad policy continues by popular decision.
If I'm not supposed to blame the British people for choosing this stupidity, who am I supposed to blame?
Regardless of who you blame, you shouldn't be going around murdering them. Yes?
Also, the person you may be killing might have voted -for- the reform. In which case, the blame was not even justified in the first place.
And even if it was someone who voted a way that you don't like--it still doesn't give you license to go out and kill them without warning.
Also, the person you may be killing might have voted -for- the reform. In which case, the blame was not even justified in the first place.
And even if it was someone who voted a way that you don't like--it still doesn't give you license to go out and kill them without warning.
No but look:
The result of the 2 votes is that the British people are just fine and dandy with David Cameron and his policies.
Said policies are to cut healthcare and education for the British people, while spending to send more helicopters to Afghanistan.
Said helicopters kill people. Wartime kills include many innocents who get bombed, not "accidentally" but rather nonchalantly.
Now put yourself in the shoes of an Afghan who is getting his relatives slaughtered by British helicopters.
He has got a pretty strong motive for vengeance: "You Brits supported the bastards who killed my family!"
If the Afghan decides to bomb London, he's going to bomb London.
He's not going to canvas every Londoner, ask me personally how I voted, and wait for the day that I'm out of town before bombing the city.
I don't really understand how I'm supposed to criticise him for it unless I think there's an alternate course of action were the roles reversed IE that a Londoner would have done in his shoes.
And if you look at body counts over time, Anglo Saxon countries are pretty indiscriminately bloodthirsty, and usually kill with much less provocation.
So I find this sort of reasoning hypocritical and insufficient. The world just doesn't work this way.
You can ask the citizens of Dresden about World War 2. I bet some of the victims voted against Hitler, or were even in the anti-Nazi resistance...
The result of the 2 votes is that the British people are just fine and dandy with David Cameron and his policies.
Said policies are to cut healthcare and education for the British people, while spending to send more helicopters to Afghanistan.
Said helicopters kill people. Wartime kills include many innocents who get bombed, not "accidentally" but rather nonchalantly.
Now put yourself in the shoes of an Afghan who is getting his relatives slaughtered by British helicopters.
He has got a pretty strong motive for vengeance: "You Brits supported the bastards who killed my family!"
If the Afghan decides to bomb London, he's going to bomb London.
He's not going to canvas every Londoner, ask me personally how I voted, and wait for the day that I'm out of town before bombing the city.
I don't really understand how I'm supposed to criticise him for it unless I think there's an alternate course of action were the roles reversed IE that a Londoner would have done in his shoes.
And if you look at body counts over time, Anglo Saxon countries are pretty indiscriminately bloodthirsty, and usually kill with much less provocation.
So I find this sort of reasoning hypocritical and insufficient. The world just doesn't work this way.
You can ask the citizens of Dresden about World War 2. I bet some of the victims voted against Hitler, or were even in the anti-Nazi resistance...
And if you look at body counts over time, Anglo Saxon countries are pretty indiscriminately bloodthirsty, and usually kill with much less provocation.
Wow, racist much?
Cruelty isn't copyright caucasian. Plenty of shit has gone down that had nothing to do with europeans.
I still don't condone terrorism and murder, since an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I'm sorry you feel that your countrymen are such terrible people that they deserve to die. I'm not the biggest fan of my own country, but I can't say I've ever condoned wholesale slaughter of its citizens.
Wow, racist much?
Cruelty isn't copyright caucasian. Plenty of shit has gone down that had nothing to do with europeans.
I still don't condone terrorism and murder, since an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I'm sorry you feel that your countrymen are such terrible people that they deserve to die. I'm not the biggest fan of my own country, but I can't say I've ever condoned wholesale slaughter of its citizens.
>I'm sorry you feel that your countrymen are such terrible people that they deserve to die
It personally suits me fine if AlQaeda never existed.
>Wow, racist much?
Stop personalising it; it's not about me, it's about consistency.
See, the Jihadi pulling the trigger doesn't see him self as a "terrorist" committing "murder", he sees himself as a "fighter for freedom" performing "service", much like the Marine on the other side does.
That's why I'm trying to be cold-bloodedly objective, otherwise things become just a matter of opinion.
So a question for you:
If "wholesale slaughter" of innocent civilians is wrong, then will you condemn the strategic bombing of Germany in World War 2?
If you condone the strategic bombing of Germany(, or drone strikes in Pakistan), then how can you condemn Jihadi bombings on the basis of "wholesale slaughter"?
It personally suits me fine if AlQaeda never existed.
>Wow, racist much?
Stop personalising it; it's not about me, it's about consistency.
See, the Jihadi pulling the trigger doesn't see him self as a "terrorist" committing "murder", he sees himself as a "fighter for freedom" performing "service", much like the Marine on the other side does.
That's why I'm trying to be cold-bloodedly objective, otherwise things become just a matter of opinion.
So a question for you:
If "wholesale slaughter" of innocent civilians is wrong, then will you condemn the strategic bombing of Germany in World War 2?
If you condone the strategic bombing of Germany(, or drone strikes in Pakistan), then how can you condemn Jihadi bombings on the basis of "wholesale slaughter"?
Almost anyone in America is playing on 'easy mode'. The people playing on 'nightmare mode' predominately live in third world countries.
I can easily imagine that my career was influenced by my location/gender/race/sexual orientation, but my "hacker skills", for better or worse, were gained in solitude. There would have be no direct social repercussions for girls my age to do as I did, because in reality nobody ever needed to know. It was something even I kept hidden until I started to become confident in what I was doing, and additionally, wasn't really exposed to anyone else like me until many years later.
All of these discussions seem to centre around the idea of women being discriminated in hacker groups. I won't dispute it happens, but that seems orthogonal to learning the skills in the first place. Maybe it is just my privilege talking, but it is really difficult to imagine social pressures applying so strongly when alone where secrets can be kept. Having to keep those secrets is a travesty in and of itself, but quite different to what you were speaking to.
All of these discussions seem to centre around the idea of women being discriminated in hacker groups. I won't dispute it happens, but that seems orthogonal to learning the skills in the first place. Maybe it is just my privilege talking, but it is really difficult to imagine social pressures applying so strongly when alone where secrets can be kept. Having to keep those secrets is a travesty in and of itself, but quite different to what you were speaking to.
The truth is that there is a story behind everybody, and there is good fortune and misery to be found at every level.
Don't presume to know about an individual or their circumstances until you get to know them well and be prepared to be surprised.
Don't presume to know about an individual or their circumstances until you get to know them well and be prepared to be surprised.
I wish he would provide any citations for that claim.
Wonder if he is aware that men die on average ten years earlier than women? Or that the human population is descendant from twice as many women as men, meaning men are much less likely to reproduce? (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anyt... )
I think the latter is a pretty damning point, given that reproducing is pretty important to the human condition. So perhaps there are more video games that cater to male needs, but that doesn't help much with the stuff that matters, like having children.
I am not even sure what exactly he refers to by easy mode. What was the easy mode I got that women don't get?
Wonder if he is aware that men die on average ten years earlier than women? Or that the human population is descendant from twice as many women as men, meaning men are much less likely to reproduce? (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anyt... )
I think the latter is a pretty damning point, given that reproducing is pretty important to the human condition. So perhaps there are more video games that cater to male needs, but that doesn't help much with the stuff that matters, like having children.
I am not even sure what exactly he refers to by easy mode. What was the easy mode I got that women don't get?
>I think the latter is a pretty damning point, given that reproducing is pretty important to the human condition.
Not according to 21th century hip ideology. You're insulting all LGBT guys by saying that.
Not according to 21th century hip ideology. You're insulting all LGBT guys by saying that.
They can adopt. There are so many foster kids who need a good home. :(
Why am I insulting LGBT guys/gals? Everybody is free to choose, but it is still a fact that reproduction (or rather, having kids) is important for a lot of people. Even some LGBT people try to adopt children afaik.
Also without reproduction nobody would be here.
Also without reproduction nobody would be here.
>Also without reproduction nobody would be here.
I know that, I was being sarcastic towards the attitude that sees things that formed the bases of society since ever was one, like reproduction, are viewed as "optional" or "sexist" nowadays, because we should be "above that".
Of course we only get to have the privilege of saving that (and still have a human population on the planet) due to overpopulation in other parts of the world, and we still get declining and aging population our own countries for that.
That's also why we get to have our LGBT privilege. In the large scheme of things, a mostly LGBT society would mean a dead society, because of no reproduction.
I know that, I was being sarcastic towards the attitude that sees things that formed the bases of society since ever was one, like reproduction, are viewed as "optional" or "sexist" nowadays, because we should be "above that".
Of course we only get to have the privilege of saving that (and still have a human population on the planet) due to overpopulation in other parts of the world, and we still get declining and aging population our own countries for that.
That's also why we get to have our LGBT privilege. In the large scheme of things, a mostly LGBT society would mean a dead society, because of no reproduction.
Why do you think LGBT can't reproduce? I know someone who is literally the spawn of a lesbian with a turkey baster.
>Why do you think LGBT can't reproduce?
Well, B (and maybe T's) can.
But LG cannot by definition, except if they momentarily act like non LG's by reproducing with other partners against their own sexual preferences.
And that if they _do_ have the will to reproduce, considering that in primates in nature it's a strictly heterosexual deal (and in fact, the male/female sexes were evolved as a means to that very end).
In addition, for several prominent LG thinkers, "gay marriage" and "having a baby" (surrogates, etc), is the losing proposition of adopting/mimicking the dominant paradigm. Essentially it's the opposite of feminism.
Well, B (and maybe T's) can.
But LG cannot by definition, except if they momentarily act like non LG's by reproducing with other partners against their own sexual preferences.
And that if they _do_ have the will to reproduce, considering that in primates in nature it's a strictly heterosexual deal (and in fact, the male/female sexes were evolved as a means to that very end).
In addition, for several prominent LG thinkers, "gay marriage" and "having a baby" (surrogates, etc), is the losing proposition of adopting/mimicking the dominant paradigm. Essentially it's the opposite of feminism.
I don't have any interest in having kids, but I really don't think that wanting artificial insemination means that you're secretly heterosexual.
in nature it's a strictly heterosexual deal
It's actually quite natural for other orientations as well:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/05/madrid-zoos-g...
I can see this happening in nature if maybe both of the original parents got killed off or something. The presence of homo-penguins means that the offspring might get rescued and safely reared by the happy couple instead of perishing.
in nature it's a strictly heterosexual deal
It's actually quite natural for other orientations as well:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/05/madrid-zoos-g...
I can see this happening in nature if maybe both of the original parents got killed off or something. The presence of homo-penguins means that the offspring might get rescued and safely reared by the happy couple instead of perishing.
Sarcastic flamebaiting isn't appropriate for HN. Your previous post was problematic.
Yes, it is a good metaphor. Credit goes to John Scalzi (linked in the original Primer): http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...
> If you're western/male/white/straight you're playing life on 'very easy' mode.
When I read this, my interpretation is "Your achievements don't count because you are a white man."
Is that what you were trying to express?
When I read this, my interpretation is "Your achievements don't count because you are a white man."
Is that what you were trying to express?
Perhaps Louis CK can explain it in a way that makes it make more sense to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
It's not about denigrating anyone's achievements. It's about understanding that some things make your life easier. Being born straight, white, and male, in the United States (or other first world countries) provides a tremendous amount of benefit to you. To deny that benefit is to deny reality.
It doesn't mean when you do something good it doesn't count...it just means that you probably would have had a harder time had you been born non-white, non-male, non-straight. No one is saying you're bad for being white, male, or straight, or that what you accomplish does not count.
Denying you receive privileges for being a straight white male can be offensive or upsetting to those who don't experience life with those privileges. It's a complicated issue, of course, and there are plenty of straight white males who have to overcome significant hurdles; but given the same circumstances, the straight white male has an easier time getting ahead in business (especially tech and science), being treated with respect, not being treated like a child (women are frequently treated like children by well-meaning men), and not being treated like an outsider.
You're not being blamed for being born lucky. You're just being asked to acknowledge it.
It's not about denigrating anyone's achievements. It's about understanding that some things make your life easier. Being born straight, white, and male, in the United States (or other first world countries) provides a tremendous amount of benefit to you. To deny that benefit is to deny reality.
It doesn't mean when you do something good it doesn't count...it just means that you probably would have had a harder time had you been born non-white, non-male, non-straight. No one is saying you're bad for being white, male, or straight, or that what you accomplish does not count.
Denying you receive privileges for being a straight white male can be offensive or upsetting to those who don't experience life with those privileges. It's a complicated issue, of course, and there are plenty of straight white males who have to overcome significant hurdles; but given the same circumstances, the straight white male has an easier time getting ahead in business (especially tech and science), being treated with respect, not being treated like a child (women are frequently treated like children by well-meaning men), and not being treated like an outsider.
You're not being blamed for being born lucky. You're just being asked to acknowledge it.
I think the historical narrative that Louis CK has presented in the clip is wrong. Sure at any point in the past 500 years you could probably point out a group of white men that are far better off than the majority of society but those people would always be outliers.
Imagine all the men born in German and Great Britain eighteen years before WWI. Just as they were graduating secondary school they would have been drafted and forced to kill each other in some of the most horrible battle conditions in recorded history. Does lying in a waterlogged trench, dying slowly over three days of a gut wound sound like a privilege?
Men currently account for 92% of occupational deaths in the US. Imagine what it was like a century ago, before occupational safety standards. A coal miner in 1910 had the privilege of being able to vote and to wear pants but his wife had the privilege of not being crushed to death in a poorly supported tunnel or dying of black lung.
Men have far higher rates of mental illness and drug addiction. Men are more likely to attempt suicide and more likely to succeed. Men who are victims of rape or domestic abuse are often ridiculed. At least one study showed 40% of domestic abuse victims are men. The majority of US rape victims are men. Unemployment rates are currently higher among men.
Imagine you're a woman and you really like small children and want to work in a career with them. That's perfectly acceptable.
A man doing the same thing is constantly viewed with suspicion and often faces false accusations.
You say men have the advantage of being treated with respect but I think that is highly dependent on the circumstances.
I will readily admit that the greatest factors that have affected my life are random. We all play the birth lottery but I don't see your ranking of various characteristics as justified or useful.
To me it just seems like a way to dismiss people and their achievements because of things beyond their control.
Imagine all the men born in German and Great Britain eighteen years before WWI. Just as they were graduating secondary school they would have been drafted and forced to kill each other in some of the most horrible battle conditions in recorded history. Does lying in a waterlogged trench, dying slowly over three days of a gut wound sound like a privilege?
Men currently account for 92% of occupational deaths in the US. Imagine what it was like a century ago, before occupational safety standards. A coal miner in 1910 had the privilege of being able to vote and to wear pants but his wife had the privilege of not being crushed to death in a poorly supported tunnel or dying of black lung.
Men have far higher rates of mental illness and drug addiction. Men are more likely to attempt suicide and more likely to succeed. Men who are victims of rape or domestic abuse are often ridiculed. At least one study showed 40% of domestic abuse victims are men. The majority of US rape victims are men. Unemployment rates are currently higher among men.
Imagine you're a woman and you really like small children and want to work in a career with them. That's perfectly acceptable.
A man doing the same thing is constantly viewed with suspicion and often faces false accusations.
You say men have the advantage of being treated with respect but I think that is highly dependent on the circumstances.
I will readily admit that the greatest factors that have affected my life are random. We all play the birth lottery but I don't see your ranking of various characteristics as justified or useful.
To me it just seems like a way to dismiss people and their achievements because of things beyond their control.
As soon as I hit reply I felt ill. You're right of course. I recall reading about the origins of the plate tectonics and the experiences of women trying to make careers in academic geology in the 1970s. Those women experienced explicit sexism, being told that women don't have a place in geology departments. Those women were certainly playing on "hard mode".
But I still can't believe that it's useful to apply this concept to everyone on a society wide basis. It just seems like too wide a net. The world is more complicated than that.
But I still can't believe that it's useful to apply this concept to everyone on a society wide basis. It just seems like too wide a net. The world is more complicated than that.
The points you made in your prior comment are all valid, but don't really alter the reality of the difference or of the idea of privilege (which everyone has in some circumstances; as you note, women working in child care have a massive amount of privilege over men). Interestingly, I know some radical feminists who view nearly all of it as symptoms of patriarchy.
For example, a side effect of men being grownups, and women being child-like, is that men suffer consequences in court at a much higher rate than women. Women are viewed as both weak and incapable of making rational choices, and so when they commit crimes, including violence against men, they receive child-like treatment. Where an abusive man might spend time in jail, an abusive woman gets a slap on the wrist and the man gets snickered at for being too weak to stand up to the woman. Woman==Weak and Victim, Man==Strong and In Control.
Similarly, women are seen as safe to be around children because they effectively are children according to this worldview. Men should be ambitious and driven, and shouldn't be wasting time playing with kids, and should be viewed with suspicion if that's how they want to spend their time...there must be something wrong with them, some ulterior motive. This is insulting to both men and women; and it just falls out naturally from the way men and women are currently viewed by our institutions and our society. We could go on for days talking about ways women and men get treated differently, and it's not really about who gets treated worse (though, again, most of the time, us white guys get a hell of a lot of advantages over just about everyone else as long as our goals align with what we're expected to want out of life).
So, I think it's unfortunate that so much time gets spent trying to pick apart the idea of privilege without realizing that it's dangerous for everyone for these kinds of inequalities to exist, but it's generally more oppressive for non-white, non-male, non-straight folks.
I absolutely concede that it's complicated. I doubt anyone, even the most militant old school feminist, would argue that it's simple. It's just a matter of checking your privilege now and then; it's all most folks are asking for when they talk about privilege, and I think that's entirely fair.
I'll give an example: I'm involved in activism in my local community, and have found myself talking to media a lot lately. One of my friends noted that all the people in our activist community who were talking to media with regularity are white, middle class, able-bodied, straight-looking men, even though plenty of women, black and brown folks, disabled folks, obviously LGBTQ, etc. people exist within this community. Media were simply walking into the room, looking around, and picking the person who looked most like they were in charge...wouldn't you know, they'd pick the middle class straight white guy to talk to? It's the way the world is. Changing it means checking that privilege on a conscious level. The next time I was asked for an interview I redirected him to a woman in a wheelchair who is probably a much better speaker for our cause than I am; in a world without this pre-existing bias, she's the person he would have talked to, because she was heading up the meeting. But, due to that bias, he came to me. When you start looking for this bias (and you can call it whatever you like, but this is what people mean when they say "privilege"), you'll start to see it everywhere.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that we can recognize that it's complicated and that everyone is dealing with shit, while also recognizing trends and societal bias and favoritism.
For example, a side effect of men being grownups, and women being child-like, is that men suffer consequences in court at a much higher rate than women. Women are viewed as both weak and incapable of making rational choices, and so when they commit crimes, including violence against men, they receive child-like treatment. Where an abusive man might spend time in jail, an abusive woman gets a slap on the wrist and the man gets snickered at for being too weak to stand up to the woman. Woman==Weak and Victim, Man==Strong and In Control.
Similarly, women are seen as safe to be around children because they effectively are children according to this worldview. Men should be ambitious and driven, and shouldn't be wasting time playing with kids, and should be viewed with suspicion if that's how they want to spend their time...there must be something wrong with them, some ulterior motive. This is insulting to both men and women; and it just falls out naturally from the way men and women are currently viewed by our institutions and our society. We could go on for days talking about ways women and men get treated differently, and it's not really about who gets treated worse (though, again, most of the time, us white guys get a hell of a lot of advantages over just about everyone else as long as our goals align with what we're expected to want out of life).
So, I think it's unfortunate that so much time gets spent trying to pick apart the idea of privilege without realizing that it's dangerous for everyone for these kinds of inequalities to exist, but it's generally more oppressive for non-white, non-male, non-straight folks.
I absolutely concede that it's complicated. I doubt anyone, even the most militant old school feminist, would argue that it's simple. It's just a matter of checking your privilege now and then; it's all most folks are asking for when they talk about privilege, and I think that's entirely fair.
I'll give an example: I'm involved in activism in my local community, and have found myself talking to media a lot lately. One of my friends noted that all the people in our activist community who were talking to media with regularity are white, middle class, able-bodied, straight-looking men, even though plenty of women, black and brown folks, disabled folks, obviously LGBTQ, etc. people exist within this community. Media were simply walking into the room, looking around, and picking the person who looked most like they were in charge...wouldn't you know, they'd pick the middle class straight white guy to talk to? It's the way the world is. Changing it means checking that privilege on a conscious level. The next time I was asked for an interview I redirected him to a woman in a wheelchair who is probably a much better speaker for our cause than I am; in a world without this pre-existing bias, she's the person he would have talked to, because she was heading up the meeting. But, due to that bias, he came to me. When you start looking for this bias (and you can call it whatever you like, but this is what people mean when they say "privilege"), you'll start to see it everywhere.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that we can recognize that it's complicated and that everyone is dealing with shit, while also recognizing trends and societal bias and favoritism.
> For example, a side effect of men being grownups, and women being child-like
Who the hell says this? Where are you getting it from?
You make tons of assertions but what are they based on?
As far as I can tell you made an absolute statement "White men have privileges that nullify their achievements. Women are not privileged so their achievements count.". I pointed out several cases where men were disadvantaged as compared to women and you start throwing up a bunch of bullshit.
Who the hell says this? Where are you getting it from?
You make tons of assertions but what are they based on?
As far as I can tell you made an absolute statement "White men have privileges that nullify their achievements. Women are not privileged so their achievements count.". I pointed out several cases where men were disadvantaged as compared to women and you start throwing up a bunch of bullshit.
"White men have privileges that nullify their achievements. Women are not privileged so their achievements count."
That is not a quote from anything I have written, and is not what I've said or implied. You're taking this in a far more argumentative direction than I had any desire to go in. Perhaps I've struck a nerve?
That is not a quote from anything I have written, and is not what I've said or implied. You're taking this in a far more argumentative direction than I had any desire to go in. Perhaps I've struck a nerve?
> You're taking this in a far more argumentative direction than I had any desire to go in. Perhaps I've struck a nerve?
Arguments are fun. No harm done.
Arguments are fun. No harm done.
[deleted](1)
I’m always mystified how people could interpret it that way.
Your achievements do count, but they happen in a context. To ignore that context is foolish.
Your achievements do count, but they happen in a context. To ignore that context is foolish.
Yes, and it's kind of true.
Achievements are only relative.
Achievements are only relative.
Reminds me of http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/height_discrimi...
Conclusion: "For centuries, short men have shrugged their shoulders and carried on. They, at least, still see themselves, and are seen by others, as variegated individuals, not as a monotonal social group. That may be the best approach to all such human characteristics."
Conclusion: "For centuries, short men have shrugged their shoulders and carried on. They, at least, still see themselves, and are seen by others, as variegated individuals, not as a monotonal social group. That may be the best approach to all such human characteristics."
If you're western/male/white/straight you're playing life on 'very easy' mode.
But what does this actually mean? Explain it like I'm 5.
Do I need to earn more EXP to level up my computer programming ability? Do my enemies automatically gain +10% disruption resistance? In video games the meaning of "nightmare difficulty" is quite concrete. Not so much in this conversation.
But what does this actually mean? Explain it like I'm 5.
Do I need to earn more EXP to level up my computer programming ability? Do my enemies automatically gain +10% disruption resistance? In video games the meaning of "nightmare difficulty" is quite concrete. Not so much in this conversation.
Here's one specific list: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html
I've seen that list before. I've suffered from nearly all those things while living in a foreign country. It's really not a big deal unless you choose to make it one.
A large number of those problems are of the form "I prefer people of my race, but there aren't very many of them. Oh noes." If you have narrow preferences of any sort, racial or otherwise, your life will be harder. Big surprise.
Should I feel doubly awesome because people thought I was a smart hotshot dev even while I suffered from these horrible problems?
A large number of those problems are of the form "I prefer people of my race, but there aren't very many of them. Oh noes." If you have narrow preferences of any sort, racial or otherwise, your life will be harder. Big surprise.
Should I feel doubly awesome because people thought I was a smart hotshot dev even while I suffered from these horrible problems?
That's a very bad example that misses the point, one that builds confidence that "privilege" is PC BS, as yummyfayitas points shows.
The discussion of "privilege" , like so many things, is corruotd and drowned out by extremists, so its salient points get lost.
The discussion of "privilege" , like so many things, is corruotd and drowned out by extremists, so its salient points get lost.
This metaphor is overly simplistic to the point of absurdity. I wish people would stop profligately promoting this nonsense.
This pedophile over there? He's playing in VERY HARD mode, and yet he made it to a congressman.
See where the analogy breaks down? Playing "hard mode" doesn't mean you're also doing something worthwhile.
See where the analogy breaks down? Playing "hard mode" doesn't mean you're also doing something worthwhile.
"You are wrong because of things you cannot know" - impossible to argue with, not very useful. (Disclaimer: I don't know Kathy Sierra, or rather, the first time I heard about her was when she quit blogging, I think, because of that vile stream of hate spam. I have nothing against her, in fact I believe what people said at the time, that she made great contributions before leaving).
What I actually said was that I was wrong, and that "just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it isn't there." That's not quite the same as saying "you were wrong."
And I also didn't say "because of things you cannot know." Yes, there WERE things that I -- and perhaps others -- cannot know, but I also had plenty of evidence I was ignoring because it didn't fit my personal experience. There were studies, stats, research, and yes -- an overwhelming number of personal anecdotes from too many credible women for me to have ignored the possibility for that long.
I still do not know how pervasive or deep the problems of sexism are -- this is not a domain I have studied. But I was wrong to have used my sole personal experience as evidence that there wasn't really a problem.
And I also didn't say "because of things you cannot know." Yes, there WERE things that I -- and perhaps others -- cannot know, but I also had plenty of evidence I was ignoring because it didn't fit my personal experience. There were studies, stats, research, and yes -- an overwhelming number of personal anecdotes from too many credible women for me to have ignored the possibility for that long.
I still do not know how pervasive or deep the problems of sexism are -- this is not a domain I have studied. But I was wrong to have used my sole personal experience as evidence that there wasn't really a problem.
Hi Kathy, it is good you bring up these points as you did in the letter, it is definitely hard to see past privilege and assumptions.
I must say though, as a long time reader and fan, and regarding your modesty regarding yourself, that your design insights place you in the top 0.1% of developers, not average as you stated. Also, you mentioned you felt your looks were below average. I would normally never comment on someone's looks since it is inappropriate in a professional environment, but you mention in the article along the lines that you suspect your looks at 55 were not good enough to be discriminated against, but at 55 you were an exceptionally beautiful person, and again far above average. I thought you were closer to 40 than 55. I'll assume your coding skills aren't great like you claim since I have no idea about that as I've not seen your code, but someone with the level of insight into human factors/interaction design comes along quite rarely and your skills and insight there are remarkable and exceptionally valuable. Any company would benefit more from one Kathy Sierra overseeing design than they would from 100 of the best coders.
I must say though, as a long time reader and fan, and regarding your modesty regarding yourself, that your design insights place you in the top 0.1% of developers, not average as you stated. Also, you mentioned you felt your looks were below average. I would normally never comment on someone's looks since it is inappropriate in a professional environment, but you mention in the article along the lines that you suspect your looks at 55 were not good enough to be discriminated against, but at 55 you were an exceptionally beautiful person, and again far above average. I thought you were closer to 40 than 55. I'll assume your coding skills aren't great like you claim since I have no idea about that as I've not seen your code, but someone with the level of insight into human factors/interaction design comes along quite rarely and your skills and insight there are remarkable and exceptionally valuable. Any company would benefit more from one Kathy Sierra overseeing design than they would from 100 of the best coders.
As a fellow female in technology, I just want to say you are a beautiful woman (not that it's relevant or if that matters or anything, I just feel like I have to say it) and your amazing contribution to the field as well as your humility despite all that is incredibly inspiring.
I'm sorry that you(or anyone for that matter) had to go through what you went through. I want to thank you for keep speaking up for women who may not have the voice to speak up themselves and I hope you continue to do so and because you never know who you may reach with your writing.
I'm sorry that you(or anyone for that matter) had to go through what you went through. I want to thank you for keep speaking up for women who may not have the voice to speak up themselves and I hope you continue to do so and because you never know who you may reach with your writing.
It seems to me you drew analogies between her and you, from the initial state of "seeing no problem at all", and then you realizing that you simply didn't see it. That to me sounds as if you were implying that just like you, she simply doesn't see it and there she is wrong, analogous to the way you were wrong.
Also her article doesn't sound to me as if she claims that there is no problem, just that it is obviously not a problem for every woman.
Also her article doesn't sound to me as if she claims that there is no problem, just that it is obviously not a problem for every woman.
Yes, I suppose I was. Her post reminded me of the posts I used to make, and so yes, I guess I was implying that she, too, was wrong. I agree with you; it was not useful. I have nothing more to add.
[insert expletive here], Kathy, don't quietly slink away. It matters not a whit that not everybody is listening; many are. Whether we are enough or not, I can't say.
The worst of all possible outcomes is that one day Laura (and others like her) should awaken into the same harsh reality that blindsided you. And that will happen unless we, as a community, seriously address the tolerance we have for behaviour that simply should not be tolerated. We need to be reminded that it exists, and that while the behaviour might not be universally pervasive, a sort of tolerance of it, whether with a grudge or a giggle, is nearly so.
I truly hope that Laura never has her eyes opened in the way yours were, but that hope hinges largely on the scenery changing in the meantime. "Make your users awesome" was a message we needed to hear, and that cry was silenced not merely by direct action, but by tolerance as well. This message, if anything, is more important. Let those who have ears, at least, hear it.
The worst of all possible outcomes is that one day Laura (and others like her) should awaken into the same harsh reality that blindsided you. And that will happen unless we, as a community, seriously address the tolerance we have for behaviour that simply should not be tolerated. We need to be reminded that it exists, and that while the behaviour might not be universally pervasive, a sort of tolerance of it, whether with a grudge or a giggle, is nearly so.
I truly hope that Laura never has her eyes opened in the way yours were, but that hope hinges largely on the scenery changing in the meantime. "Make your users awesome" was a message we needed to hear, and that cry was silenced not merely by direct action, but by tolerance as well. This message, if anything, is more important. Let those who have ears, at least, hear it.
I still found it interesting to read about your experiences, so I am bit sorry I worded my comment so strongly. To me it wasn't useful in the context of those two articles, but of course it is useful to hear about your personal experiences as an independent data point.
It was, though.
I loved hearing your experience and I thank you for sharing. There is a difference between saying "your experience is wrong" and saying, as you did, "your experience is incomplete." You have evidence that her experience is incomplete: your own experience contradicts it.
We should care about your experience. Any theory of the world that fails to entertain it as possible is, at best, incomplete. I don't see anything wrong with saying so.
I loved hearing your experience and I thank you for sharing. There is a difference between saying "your experience is wrong" and saying, as you did, "your experience is incomplete." You have evidence that her experience is incomplete: your own experience contradicts it.
We should care about your experience. Any theory of the world that fails to entertain it as possible is, at best, incomplete. I don't see anything wrong with saying so.
Laura eventually made it clear that she wasn’t claiming there is no problem, but she did it so poorly that a huge number of people who read her post didn’t get that from it.
Similarly, I (original Primer author) did a poor job making it clear that I never meant to suggest that every woman has this problem. The goal was to inform people that this is happening and this is a problem, even though you _probably were not seeing it_. Kathy’s experience and post are a very personal revelation of the painful journey of discovery (of this fact) that she went through.
Similarly, I (original Primer author) did a poor job making it clear that I never meant to suggest that every woman has this problem. The goal was to inform people that this is happening and this is a problem, even though you _probably were not seeing it_. Kathy’s experience and post are a very personal revelation of the painful journey of discovery (of this fact) that she went through.
I think Laura's piece made it absolutely clear that she was speaking from personal experience and that her experience may have been different to others.
She also made it clear that she had experienced sexism (in some form) at a previous role.
She also made it clear that she had experienced sexism (in some form) at a previous role.
|"You are wrong because of things you cannot know" - impossible to argue with, not very useful.
This is not debate team. The point is not to frame the discussion so you can "win".
Whether you want to admit it, there are things you can never know. That's incontrovertible. You have two choices: you can throw your hands in the air and say "oh well I'll never know" or you can start to learn how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you, and use their knowledge to help you act in the world.
Many very bright people are constitutionally incapable of working this way. Unless they can reduce a concept down to first principles that are grounded in their personal experience, the concept is wrong to them.
To me, that's a huge epistemological limitation, and I think it will hamper your ability to grow intellectually. I have found that with certain things I had to first accept them and live with them, after someone I trust and respect, with different experience than I have, suggested they were true. Only later, after living with and applying the ideas, was I able to rationalize them.
This realization is the greatest gift Feminist theory has given me, as a thinker.
This is not debate team. The point is not to frame the discussion so you can "win".
Whether you want to admit it, there are things you can never know. That's incontrovertible. You have two choices: you can throw your hands in the air and say "oh well I'll never know" or you can start to learn how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you, and use their knowledge to help you act in the world.
Many very bright people are constitutionally incapable of working this way. Unless they can reduce a concept down to first principles that are grounded in their personal experience, the concept is wrong to them.
To me, that's a huge epistemological limitation, and I think it will hamper your ability to grow intellectually. I have found that with certain things I had to first accept them and live with them, after someone I trust and respect, with different experience than I have, suggested they were true. Only later, after living with and applying the ideas, was I able to rationalize them.
This realization is the greatest gift Feminist theory has given me, as a thinker.
> Whether you want to admit it, there are things you can never know. That's incontrovertible. You have two choices: you can throw your hands in the air and say "oh well I'll never know" or you can start to learn how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you, and use their knowledge to help you act in the world.
That's the exact same argument my dad gave me once about why I should just trust Bush when he wanted to start a war with Iraq so badly. It was even credible, since Bush got classified intelligence reports every morning and I didn't. Needless to say, I no longer trust it.
> I have found that with certain things I had to first accept them and live with them, after someone I trust and respect, with different experience than I have, suggested they were true. Only later, after living with and applying the ideas, was I able to rationalize them.
I believe this tactic is traditionally known as "theology".
In both cases, it's reassuring to finally see a confession that feminism is an exercise in blind faith, and is hence of no use to rational people.
That's the exact same argument my dad gave me once about why I should just trust Bush when he wanted to start a war with Iraq so badly. It was even credible, since Bush got classified intelligence reports every morning and I didn't. Needless to say, I no longer trust it.
> I have found that with certain things I had to first accept them and live with them, after someone I trust and respect, with different experience than I have, suggested they were true. Only later, after living with and applying the ideas, was I able to rationalize them.
I believe this tactic is traditionally known as "theology".
In both cases, it's reassuring to finally see a confession that feminism is an exercise in blind faith, and is hence of no use to rational people.
You’re coming to the exact opposite, wrong conclusions here.
1) in the trust-Bush example, anyone who actually, properly learned “how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you” would have sensed that Bush was full of shit, didn’t know what he was doing, and was a terrible person to have in charge. Honing that skill is incredibly valuable in life, precisely because it protects you from having to blindly trust anyone based on a claim (accurate or not) that they know what they're doing.
2) This is not theology at all. Theology is about accepting a claim despite your inability to rationalize it, or accepting it precisely because your ability to rationalize it is broken or flawed—and both being in the realm of deities.
What erikpukinskis was describing is the process of cultivating empathy and trust, in face of the acknowledgement that your perceived reality is not necessarily accurate (which it isn’t for anyone on the planet). He's saying that there are a lot of smart people who simply cannot believe that “something” is truly happening if they have no personal experience with that “something”, and may, as a result, deny the reality that is that “something”.
And he’s saying that, for him at least, it was necessary to learn to accept these things as true, first, before being able to figure out and rationalize them on his own, later, without having to be personally exposed to the problem for it.
And that’s called empathy, not theology.
1) in the trust-Bush example, anyone who actually, properly learned “how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you” would have sensed that Bush was full of shit, didn’t know what he was doing, and was a terrible person to have in charge. Honing that skill is incredibly valuable in life, precisely because it protects you from having to blindly trust anyone based on a claim (accurate or not) that they know what they're doing.
2) This is not theology at all. Theology is about accepting a claim despite your inability to rationalize it, or accepting it precisely because your ability to rationalize it is broken or flawed—and both being in the realm of deities.
What erikpukinskis was describing is the process of cultivating empathy and trust, in face of the acknowledgement that your perceived reality is not necessarily accurate (which it isn’t for anyone on the planet). He's saying that there are a lot of smart people who simply cannot believe that “something” is truly happening if they have no personal experience with that “something”, and may, as a result, deny the reality that is that “something”.
And he’s saying that, for him at least, it was necessary to learn to accept these things as true, first, before being able to figure out and rationalize them on his own, later, without having to be personally exposed to the problem for it.
And that’s called empathy, not theology.
Theology is what happens when you accept a claim first and try to rationalize it second. Perhaps apologetics is a better term. In any case, I find it profoundly backwards. Being able to entertain a claim is important, vitally so, but just as long as you're able to hold off accepting it.
As for Bush, it's factually true that he did have a depth of knowledge that was unavailable to me. What was harder to tell was whether he was using it correctly. Perhaps you have a telepathic sense of whether or not people are correctly using the information they have access to; perhaps you don't, but confirmation bias gives you the persistent illusion that you do.
I'll just close by saying that I don't claim to know very much at all more than provisionally--I'm willing to have my understanding updated based on new information, and I'm comfortable with people coming to different conclusions from different sets of information. What I'm not willing to do is grant other people write access to my beliefs based upon my emotional estimate of their credibility.
As for Bush, it's factually true that he did have a depth of knowledge that was unavailable to me. What was harder to tell was whether he was using it correctly. Perhaps you have a telepathic sense of whether or not people are correctly using the information they have access to; perhaps you don't, but confirmation bias gives you the persistent illusion that you do.
I'll just close by saying that I don't claim to know very much at all more than provisionally--I'm willing to have my understanding updated based on new information, and I'm comfortable with people coming to different conclusions from different sets of information. What I'm not willing to do is grant other people write access to my beliefs based upon my emotional estimate of their credibility.
it's reassuring to finally see a confession that feminism is an exercise in blind faith, and is hence of no use to rational people.
There are volumes of feminism that I understand, and could explain to you, in purely rational terms. The vast, vast bulk of beliefs I have that are considered "feminist" fall into this category. So no, I don't think feminism is an exercise in blind faith.
Provisional reliance on the beliefs of trusted second parties is only one of my many ways of knowing.
I also object to calling it "blind faith" because it's not blind. I've vetted the source. It is a kind of faith. Maybe you can call it "provisional faith". If there is solid evidence I certainly use that first. But in many cases there is no evidence. For example, when someone says they were raped I will rarely ever see any conclusive "evidence" one way or the other, so any evidence-based approach to understanding will fail.
There are volumes of feminism that I understand, and could explain to you, in purely rational terms. The vast, vast bulk of beliefs I have that are considered "feminist" fall into this category. So no, I don't think feminism is an exercise in blind faith.
Provisional reliance on the beliefs of trusted second parties is only one of my many ways of knowing.
I also object to calling it "blind faith" because it's not blind. I've vetted the source. It is a kind of faith. Maybe you can call it "provisional faith". If there is solid evidence I certainly use that first. But in many cases there is no evidence. For example, when someone says they were raped I will rarely ever see any conclusive "evidence" one way or the other, so any evidence-based approach to understanding will fail.
I also want to throw in that your (apparent) belief that you don't take anyone's ideas on faith is utterly implausible. I think you're just blissfully unaware of where your ideas come from.
The arrogance in this post is stunning. Nobody has ever or ever will have more knowledge or experience than you on any topic at all. And to put any trust in another person is equivalent to theological 'faith'. Wow.
Firstly theology isn't a good comparison because god isn't a concept that can be 'experienced' or disproved. The issues that feminists talk about are generally not like this: if you really want to know how much more physically threatening the world seems as a woman, one could feasibly have a sex change operation or similar to allow you to experience the world as a woman. Or if you aren't so arrogant as to discount all knowledge that you didn't directly experience yourself, you could ask a large number of women and see what they have to say.
Secondly, you seem vastly ignorant about epistemology and how science works in general. Ultimately it very much is a system of trust in people and institutions. Your categorising of knowledge into "theology" and "real knowledge" based on one requiring faith is a false dichotomy.
I can only imagine how awful it must be to know you in real life if you never trust a single thing other people say to you without verifying it yourself (that is my way of saying you are a terrible human being).
Firstly theology isn't a good comparison because god isn't a concept that can be 'experienced' or disproved. The issues that feminists talk about are generally not like this: if you really want to know how much more physically threatening the world seems as a woman, one could feasibly have a sex change operation or similar to allow you to experience the world as a woman. Or if you aren't so arrogant as to discount all knowledge that you didn't directly experience yourself, you could ask a large number of women and see what they have to say.
Secondly, you seem vastly ignorant about epistemology and how science works in general. Ultimately it very much is a system of trust in people and institutions. Your categorising of knowledge into "theology" and "real knowledge" based on one requiring faith is a false dichotomy.
I can only imagine how awful it must be to know you in real life if you never trust a single thing other people say to you without verifying it yourself (that is my way of saying you are a terrible human being).
What feminists and theologians have in common--and how I differ from them, based on more familiarity with epistemology than you think--is that they never seem to entertain the possibility that they are wrong. I, on the other hand, don't actually claim to know anything about anything as mysterious as gods, or as complicated as human society. I just have working estimates.
I trust that other people have evidence that I don't and that they can't give to me. I can even accept it as some sort of indirect evidence, so that if other people unanimously tell me that Nevada exists and practically no one disagrees, I accept the claim. What I can't do is accept a seemingly dogmatic ideology like feminism based solely upon trusting some, but clearly not all women. I can be influenced by it, and when presented with direct and indirect evidence I can allow that evidence to upgrade my estimate, but in my experience feminists are unaccepting of anything short of full, dogmatic agreement. That--the attitude of any ideologue--is as good a marker as I've ever found that someone isn't using their evidence correctly.
My working estimate so far includes a pretty reliable heuristic--it's always more complicated. Feminism, like any ideology, is actually pretty enlightening from a certain perspective, since it raises a lot of issues that can complicate our understanding of the world. But the problem is, the world is even more complicated than the feminists themselves think.
So yes, I listen to indirect evidence, but I don't buy other people's conclusions wholesale. And far from being arrogant--I'm often more willing to throw my hands in the air and admit I really don't and can't know the answer to the question. I struggle with things like voting a lot because of this.
I trust that other people have evidence that I don't and that they can't give to me. I can even accept it as some sort of indirect evidence, so that if other people unanimously tell me that Nevada exists and practically no one disagrees, I accept the claim. What I can't do is accept a seemingly dogmatic ideology like feminism based solely upon trusting some, but clearly not all women. I can be influenced by it, and when presented with direct and indirect evidence I can allow that evidence to upgrade my estimate, but in my experience feminists are unaccepting of anything short of full, dogmatic agreement. That--the attitude of any ideologue--is as good a marker as I've ever found that someone isn't using their evidence correctly.
My working estimate so far includes a pretty reliable heuristic--it's always more complicated. Feminism, like any ideology, is actually pretty enlightening from a certain perspective, since it raises a lot of issues that can complicate our understanding of the world. But the problem is, the world is even more complicated than the feminists themselves think.
So yes, I listen to indirect evidence, but I don't buy other people's conclusions wholesale. And far from being arrogant--I'm often more willing to throw my hands in the air and admit I really don't and can't know the answer to the question. I struggle with things like voting a lot because of this.
I think you don't have to believe theory x to experience it first, though. You can also just try it out - "assume that x is true, what are the consequences".
I think a person's own experience should always form the bottom line of their world view, though. Otherwise you simply get completely lost. How do you know whom to believe? There will always be people claiming contradicting things. Ultimately you have to at least trust yourself. At least I have drawn that line for myself at some point. I still take into account that I could be wrong, but to sway me, more is required than a mere "believe me, I have more experience than you".
Of course there are also things where it doesn't really matter. Not every decision questions my whole world view. If I work together with somebody more experiences and they say "let's stick to Postgres instead of using MongoDB" or whatever, I have no problems following their advice (I would then perhaps try MongoDB on another, less risky occasion).
I think a person's own experience should always form the bottom line of their world view, though. Otherwise you simply get completely lost. How do you know whom to believe? There will always be people claiming contradicting things. Ultimately you have to at least trust yourself. At least I have drawn that line for myself at some point. I still take into account that I could be wrong, but to sway me, more is required than a mere "believe me, I have more experience than you".
Of course there are also things where it doesn't really matter. Not every decision questions my whole world view. If I work together with somebody more experiences and they say "let's stick to Postgres instead of using MongoDB" or whatever, I have no problems following their advice (I would then perhaps try MongoDB on another, less risky occasion).
Wow. This just crystallised a bunch of thoughts bumping around in my head, on why this argument goes around and around all the time.
Thank you! This was a great comment.
Thank you! This was a great comment.
The problem with life, or at least my life, is that I go through it wrong because of things I can not know.
I can't argue with it, I can't know when I'm wrong and when I'm not, and I can't know when I know enough to make any particular decision. (Particularly the last - the number of times I've thought, this is a trivial problem, with a trivial solution, and been proven completely wrong is just huge).
I just assume: "I know as much as I do at this moment", and I make decisions as best as I can. And then I keep learning, and deciding.
This argument ("You are wrong because of things you cannot know") is not one which should make you feel bad about your decisions (or change them), it's one that should encourage you to go elsewhere to learn more about the subject - if you care, and you believe the speaker.
I can't argue with it, I can't know when I'm wrong and when I'm not, and I can't know when I know enough to make any particular decision. (Particularly the last - the number of times I've thought, this is a trivial problem, with a trivial solution, and been proven completely wrong is just huge).
I just assume: "I know as much as I do at this moment", and I make decisions as best as I can. And then I keep learning, and deciding.
This argument ("You are wrong because of things you cannot know") is not one which should make you feel bad about your decisions (or change them), it's one that should encourage you to go elsewhere to learn more about the subject - if you care, and you believe the speaker.
But actually, that argument is applied whenever someone disagrees with popular opinion, instantly silencing them even if they presented their ideas rationally. It's nothing more than an ad hominem argument.
I don't think "You are wrong because of things you cannot know" encourages people to seek knowledge, but rather the opposite. If I cannot know something, why should I waste my time on it?
Try listening?
If you are wrong because of things you cannot know from personal experience, as long as your opinions are formed from personal experience they will be incorrect. So, seek out other people's experiences even if, especially if, they conflict with your own.
Though now I'm starting to sound like a stoner. "Broaden your mind, dude..."
If you are wrong because of things you cannot know from personal experience, as long as your opinions are formed from personal experience they will be incorrect. So, seek out other people's experiences even if, especially if, they conflict with your own.
Though now I'm starting to sound like a stoner. "Broaden your mind, dude..."
Why do you need to "argue" with it?
I read it as more of a precautionary tale: don't immediately dismiss something because you haven't seen it happen first hand, or it's not an issue within your immediate circle.
I read it as more of a precautionary tale: don't immediately dismiss something because you haven't seen it happen first hand, or it's not an issue within your immediate circle.
I don't think Laura dismissed anything, she just pointed out that the problem is not as universal as some make it out to be. The response by KS to me boiled down to "just wait, it'll happen to you, too", essentially claiming that it does effect everyone after all.
I intend in no way to diminish KS' personal experience, it just seemed odd as a response (to me anyway).
To put it into an extreme example: I think it must be possible to say "I have never been raped" without being accused of claiming that nobody has ever been raped.
I intend in no way to diminish KS' personal experience, it just seemed odd as a response (to me anyway).
To put it into an extreme example: I think it must be possible to say "I have never been raped" without being accused of claiming that nobody has ever been raped.
Considering Kathy's history, I think she probably has a bit more experience with harassment than either you or Laura. Given that, isn't it a bit strange that you're dismissing her opinion out of hand?
> To put it into an extreme example
Please don't.
> To put it into an extreme example
Please don't.
I am not dismissing her experience, just the notion that because she has more experience, other, "lesser" opinions are invalid.
Also, I suppose Laura has more experience with not being harassed, so why dismiss her opinion out of hand?
Anyway, this one is not going to be resolved by logic...
Do you really believe that every woman will experience harassment eventually?
Also, I suppose Laura has more experience with not being harassed, so why dismiss her opinion out of hand?
Anyway, this one is not going to be resolved by logic...
Do you really believe that every woman will experience harassment eventually?
It's statistically very likely.
Then show the statistics, please? I agree that most women will be hit on by unpleasant people now and then, but I mean serious stuff (career changing stuff).
Note: I've decided to log out of HN now, as discussions are generally a waste of time. In case you respond to my above comment, we'll probably start the whole useless circle again. Discussing what is and what is not sexism and so on. Instead, just read Laura's article again, she put it much better than I can. Apart from that, the topic is too complex for deeply nested HN comments...
[deleted](1)
I think it's even more fun to think about the premise that I should forget about all the times I've been passed over for a job or education because of my gender just because some people I would never work with are jerks.
I have missed that bit, where did she write that?
I am going to say this knowing that I am venturing into "downvote" territory...but...for every woman that really experiences sexism, there are two that exaggerate their circumstances (and to be fair, this is not at all exclusive to women, it applies to other "isms" as well). I remember one woman at a place I worked at filed a complaint about sexism because a coworker (kindly) asked her out. Maybe its not appropriate to ask a coworker out, but it certainly is not sexist (read the definition of sexism if you disagree with me). A good deal of it actually winds down to the fact that people do not understand the definition of sexism. Being hit on is not sexism. Even being sexually harassed does not qualify as sexism -- although it is clearly another type of bad thing. Sexism is the act of favoring one sex over another. There are women who do experience sexism, but I would say tech has more "reverse discrimination" than anything else. Objectively, I have seen some very average women programmers get hired into high positions just to fill diversity quotas (and yes, I do know of a few very smart female programmers as well).
Oh jesus. Before anyone considers responding to Gavan, take a look at his comment history. He has a habit of posting completely unsubstantiated opinions, presented in the most odious manner he can manage. He relates to his confabulations as if they were fact and expects you to do the same.
Edit: I am only talking about your history on social issue threads. You appear to be quite talented otherwise, apparently you wrote Genesis 3D which was pretty awesome. Still, you present yourself on social questions in a way that is pretty much indistinguishable from trolling.
Edit: I am only talking about your history on social issue threads. You appear to be quite talented otherwise, apparently you wrote Genesis 3D which was pretty awesome. Still, you present yourself on social questions in a way that is pretty much indistinguishable from trolling.
Troll Level: Master ;) Yes, I am definitely political-correctness-challenged (to put it in politically correct terms). I intend no harm, but I do like to challenge social norms. I used to think identically to those who think the opposite of me, so I understand where everyone else is coming from.
Challenging social norms just for the sake of challenging them is not something to be lauded.
You would be taken more seriously if you provided a well-reasoned response based on facts rather than throwing out opinions like "for every woman that really experiences sexism, there are two that exaggerate their circumstances".
You are setting up a simplistic straw man and arguing that because you believe you have "seen some very average women programmers get hired into high positions just to fill diversity quotas" (how do you KNOW this, btw?) that reverse-sexism is rampant. You do not acknowledge that your understanding of their promotions could be limited, that they might have other skills besides simply programming, or what the position actually required.
Because of these things it's very hard to take you seriously, and if you have a habit of doing these things, I understand why someone would dismiss you as a troll.
It would be more interesting if you argued in a reasoned matter acknowledging the variety of experiences in the real world, instead of drawing generalizations from a few things you have seen.
You would be taken more seriously if you provided a well-reasoned response based on facts rather than throwing out opinions like "for every woman that really experiences sexism, there are two that exaggerate their circumstances".
You are setting up a simplistic straw man and arguing that because you believe you have "seen some very average women programmers get hired into high positions just to fill diversity quotas" (how do you KNOW this, btw?) that reverse-sexism is rampant. You do not acknowledge that your understanding of their promotions could be limited, that they might have other skills besides simply programming, or what the position actually required.
Because of these things it's very hard to take you seriously, and if you have a habit of doing these things, I understand why someone would dismiss you as a troll.
It would be more interesting if you argued in a reasoned matter acknowledging the variety of experiences in the real world, instead of drawing generalizations from a few things you have seen.
I can only argue from what I have seen, heard of, etc; The glass I look through might not represent the world. Needless to say, I have acknowledged that sexism does exist, it is only my perception that many people tend to complain about trivial cases, whereas serious cases are usually handled with silence (could be wrong here as well). I personally know recruiters at Microsoft, AOL, and Google, so they have provided me with some of my insight (note that each of these companies has very different hiring policies though), other things I get from news stories, comments (like or unlike my own!), so like any propaganda take it with a grain of salt. From the instances I have seen, women are not only treated fairly (doing otherwise would be grounds for a lawsuit), but they are given special attention (I have seen more women greeted into tech with open arms than otherwise...males tend to want females in their male-dominated workplaces). Again, just pointing out what I observe, not claiming to be the Oracle of Truth. And actually, challenging social norms is a good thing. We tend to think like sheep, which is a good reason we only have two significant political parties in the US. It took somebody challenging my views for them to change (I hope for the better).
Classic ad hominem...
Actually, a classic ad hominem would be "you shouldn't listen to gavanwoolery because he is a terrible human being." "You shouldn't listen to gavanwoolery because he is not engaging in good faith. His commenting history demonstrates a pattern of unsubstantiated opinions posted with the apparent intention of provoking a reaction and add no value" isn't ad hominem at all. It is a substantiated opinion based solely on the work presented and makes no judgements of his character.
What tiresome bullshit. Just because you wrap it into elaborate sentences doesn't change the fact that you (or who ever started this) called for a dismissal of his arguments not because of the contents of the arguments, but because of his alleged bad personality.
Seconded.
A number of these sorts of comments pop up every time something about sexism or racism in tech hits the front page, and all they do is prove the original article's point.
A number of these sorts of comments pop up every time something about sexism or racism in tech hits the front page, and all they do is prove the original article's point.
In common usage, "sexism" doesn't mean what you say it means. You're technically correct, sure. But "sexism" is commonly used as a label for any socially unacceptable behavior related to gender.
Also, a word of advice: claiming something like "a third (EDIT: actually two thirds) of sexism complaints are exaggerations" should always be backed up by some sort of data if you don't want to look unreasonable.
Also, a word of advice: claiming something like "a third (EDIT: actually two thirds) of sexism complaints are exaggerations" should always be backed up by some sort of data if you don't want to look unreasonable.
"a third of sexism complaints are exaggerations"
Was not how he phrased it. It said there were multiple people experiencing similar activity. So that could be read as not everyone considers XYZ to be sexism. While anecdotal, the comment that this "should always be backed up by some sort of data if you don't want to look unreasonable" doesn't make any sense. The data quality, by definition, are what is being questioned. You don't solve such a problem by quoting similar data, and you most likely won't find "proper" data given the nature of the observation.
Was not how he phrased it. It said there were multiple people experiencing similar activity. So that could be read as not everyone considers XYZ to be sexism. While anecdotal, the comment that this "should always be backed up by some sort of data if you don't want to look unreasonable" doesn't make any sense. The data quality, by definition, are what is being questioned. You don't solve such a problem by quoting similar data, and you most likely won't find "proper" data given the nature of the observation.
Your analysis of his comment is overly charitable. He did not question anything. He stated his opinions without backing them up with facts.
I'm sure there are plenty of studies about the rates at which gender-related behaviors are considered inappropriate. Sexism isn't a new issue. Universities have entire departments dedicated to this sort of thing.
I'm sure there are plenty of studies about the rates at which gender-related behaviors are considered inappropriate. Sexism isn't a new issue. Universities have entire departments dedicated to this sort of thing.
True - when I say for every x there are two y's, I mean it more in colloquial terms (understandably that is not necessarily clear here), not hard statistics: that is, it is only my perception that there is more complaining about sexism than actual sexism occurring. It seems that the most vocal sexism victims actually experience the least amount of "real" sexism (like the girl who complained about being hit on at DEF CON). Again, these are just my perceptions/opinions, and I could easily be wrong. However, one thing I am certain of is that we focus too much of our effort on trivial cases of sexism, when we should be battling more important cases like countries that do not allow women equal rights.
"we focus too much of our effort on trivial cases of sexism, when we should be battling more important cases like countries that do not allow women equal rights."
This is ridiculous. I can't affect Saudi Arabia's cultural norms. I can affect the tech industry's cultural norms, and it's my responsibility to do so when those norms are harmful.
This is ridiculous. I can't affect Saudi Arabia's cultural norms. I can affect the tech industry's cultural norms, and it's my responsibility to do so when those norms are harmful.
This DEFCON incident? http://singlevoice.net/2012/07/12/sexism-redyellow-cards-at-...
It was more about sexual assault, and it was more about behavior at parties than at DEFCON. I know the line blurs, but once alcohol is served, it is hard to say the event is a professional and reputable one.
It was more about sexual assault, and it was more about behavior at parties than at DEFCON. I know the line blurs, but once alcohol is served, it is hard to say the event is a professional and reputable one.
There is always one of these replies in every discussion on this topic, isn't there? Some guy comes in and tries to define 'sexism' for the rest of us with a greatly simplified version and then gives us an anecdote about how some nice guy (he kindly asked her out) gets accused of harassment by a women, and uses this to segue into 'reverse-discrimination' as though that could ever be an actual thing (let alone suggest that it is more prevalent than the discussed sexism) when the oppression only occurs in one direction.
Oh hey, my sexism bingo card is full and I didn't even need the free space.
Oh hey, my sexism bingo card is full and I didn't even need the free space.
Which companies have these diversity quotas? I want to avoid them, as their work environments (and perhaps products as well) are rather unpleasant.
ThoughtWorks is the only place I've seen go on record as having one. It doesn't seem to have hurt them, though: http://www.cio.com.au/article/437603/creating_more_gender_ba...
It's not entirely clear to me what prompted the “Mack truck’s worth of vile, misogynistic, sexist comments and pictures” that caused Sierra to change her point of view (after twenty years of positive experience!) and how exactly it relates to the Tech industry?
I can appreciate the argument that just because you haven't personally experienced sexism that doesn't mean it doesn't occur, but the logical equivalent of that is that you can't point to a few people's (subjective interpretation of their) experiences to conclude that sexism is prevalent in the tech industry.
I can appreciate the argument that just because you haven't personally experienced sexism that doesn't mean it doesn't occur, but the logical equivalent of that is that you can't point to a few people's (subjective interpretation of their) experiences to conclude that sexism is prevalent in the tech industry.
Coding Horror has a write up on what happened, why it matters, and why you should be mad as hell that an incredible voice like Kathy's was silenced:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/03/death-threats-intim...
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/03/death-threats-intim...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6499095.stm is one article on what happened to her. It was pretty awful.
That sounds as if it was several people attacking her? I would have thought it was just a disturbed individual? Also how come "prominent bloggers" were hosting the attacks - presumably she means comments on blogs that were not removed in a timely manner?
[deleted]
As I recall a couple of the bloggers themselves were attacking her, not just commenters.
Wow, that's pretty extreme. I'll look into that. But I don't think the bloggers were doing stuff like the picture with the noose? I can imagine some gave stupid comments to the situation, though. Anyway, this actually makes me curious.
All I know is Kathy Sierra's book on Java was pretty much my first intro into programming (SCJP Sun Certified Programmer for Java 5 Study Guide). I've gone on to become a software engineer for 7-8 years now. But I still swear by that seemingly simple book because it was so well-written.
And as Jeff Atwood and many others have written, I know whatever she writes about on this or any other subject is a lot more correct than people realize. Just thought I'd register that.
And as Jeff Atwood and many others have written, I know whatever she writes about on this or any other subject is a lot more correct than people realize. Just thought I'd register that.
After she stopped blogging, I wrote a program to scrap her TypePad site and then hand edited down all of her posts into a single, massive book. I printed a single copy on Lulu for myself which I've marked up with highligher and pen calling out all of her incredible points.
I don't want to earn any money from her work, so here's a link to download a free PDF copy of the best of her blog:
http://www.kevinmconroy.com/pdf/creating_passionate_users.pd...
It's print-ready for you to upload to your favorite self publishing book website (e.g. lulu.com) and print your own copy.
Thank you for continuing to inspiring me Kathy.