
Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013) - traverseda
https://medium.com/@maradydd/okay-feminism-its-time-we-had-a-talk-about-empathy-bd6321c66b37
======
vonklaus
This was awesome. Not because it dispels a meme that is negative in the
industry, not because it is some sort of proof a woman can succeed in tech, or
any other of this tropic nonsense. It was such an amazing message that was
totally gender neutral:

"I like building things because I am curious and I pursue knowledge for its
own sake"

With all the confirmation bias and name calling (which I am certainly guilty
of from time to time) it is refreshing to hear someone talking about how they
just want[0] to focus on building something exciting and not focusing on
politics.

[0]this originally said _" both sides to shut up to they can get back to
building and hacking."_, which was not meant literally, but to convey the
sentiment the edited section now reflects.

edit: If you strongly disagree with me, and I am being sincere here, I can
promise your energy will be much better spent building/doing/creating/enjoying
something than engaging in a debate with me. If you are up to the challenge,
go out and do. If you take some time to go out and do something awesome and
you still feel like you would like to converse, I would like to talk about
your projects/etc and my email is listed.

Cheers.

[final edit:] I have been doing a lot of thinking about cultural problems. I
have began a change in perspective that has lead to personal growth, asking
not why something matters but when/contextually something matters. Maybe
whatever is being argued down thread is the single biggest issue you find
fault with in our society or maybe it is the 5th, 10th issue, etc. I can only
reiterate that "creating" will better your cause but this is not the context
or the "when". Go start a scholarship, teach people to code, work on a
product, call your senator, etc. Doing something is much better than talking
about something and if there was a place to reasonably have meaningful
discourse, I assure you this is not that place.

~~~
rayiner
The "shut up and build things" position embodies the tacit assumption that the
world naturally pushes itself to an equillibrium that is fair and just. The
assumption that racism and sexism result in elastic deformation of society
that will go away as soon as you remove whatever force is warping it.

I don't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If you
bend it, it'll stay bent. You have to hammer it back into straightness.
Talking (and browbeating and prosecuting when necessary) is how you do that.

PS: I don't disagree with the author that not everyone needs to be on the
front line of every culture war. But I think someone needs to be.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_The assumption that racism and sexism result in elastic deformation of
society that will go away as soon as you remove whatever force is warping it._

Yes, this is the economic assumption - folks are greedy and will exploit
undervalued resources.

 _I don 't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If
you bend it, it'll stay bent._

This ignores the history of various oppressed groups who unbent themselves
(east Asians, south Asians, Jews, Irish). It also ignores the fact that women
have unbent themselves in most fields, just not math heavy STEM fields.

~~~
jarcane
Those oppressed groups mostly came "unbent" because they stopped putting up
with their oppressors and started _killing them._

Are you even at all aware of the history of any of the examples you just
cited?

~~~
cousin_it
Jewish folks and South Asian folks overcame discrimination from Americans by
killing them? Are you from Earth-2?

Read Steven Dutch's essay "The world's most toxic value system" [1] before you
recommend violence as a solution to any group's problems. It's a comfortably
direct approach, but it backfires. It creates a class of violent people who
will push others down, so the group as a whole stays down.

[1]
[http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/toxicval.htm](http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/toxicval.htm)

~~~
jarcane
I didn't recommend anything.

I just suggested one become a little more familiar with history before making
absurd claims and value judgements against whole races of people. Every single
one of the cited examples had to fight bloody wars of independence against
occupation before their refugees were even seen as human. We enslaved the
Chinese. We used the Irish in proxy wars between street gangs that _still_ are
going on today in parts of the Northeast. The Jews spend hundreds of years
trying to assimilate into European society, and then the Germans _killed 6
million of them._ We gave them back their own country. Out of guilt.

Spouting a bunch of stereotypes about the local immigrant population is a
pretty fucking ignorant view of that history.

~~~
cousin_it
I just tried to educate myself about the Chinese getting enslaved and fighting
a war for independence, but unfortunately I failed. Which events are you
referring to?

------
justuk
To work in technology, especially programming, you have to put a heck of a lot
of effort into the subject. If it's not some legacy technology then that also
means learning constantly (on your own initiative). That's what I like about
programming, it rewards knowledge and ability - whereas other careers reward
other attributes.

I look at the Twttier-style feminists (I don't mean the traditional equality
types, but the extremists) and can only think that they are doing it for their
own gain. If they really wanted to participate in their targets of anger, they
could just do what everyone else does: work hard at a hobby for years, even
decades, and maybe, just maybe they too could dominate the field.

~~~
onion2k
There are many examples of girls being actively refused entry in to technology
classes[1] based on their gender. When the education system itself is
prejudiced against women it's unreasonable to suggest women aren't getting
tech jobs because they're unwilling to put in the effort - they can't because
they're blocked from doing so.

[1] A recent example [http://jezebel.com/girl-fights-library-s-boys-only-
robotics-...](http://jezebel.com/girl-fights-library-s-boys-only-robotics-
program-1715777611)

~~~
jazzyk
I would say this a sample of 1 - and from a biased source, too.

My daughter graduated form high-school last year. Not only had I not heard a
single case of girls being refused entry to anything - most of the times it
seemed like my daughter and her female friends (most of them straight "A"
students in a very competitive high-school in the Boston, MA area) were almost
harassed to join the math club, the robotics club, etc.

None of them had any interest - they all found it "boring". The reasons are
complex and a another topic, but in short, part of it is biology, part of it
pop-culture where "nerd"/"geek" is not something you want to be.

~~~
jazzyk
Please do not downvote just because you disagree - it is against the rules.

I was questioning the statement "many examples of girls being actively
refused...", because the poster provided an example of ONE incident. I
provided valid observations from my own experience, providing contrary
evidence, just to make a point that we cannot form an opinion based on one
event.

~~~
justuk
Your comments are fine in my book. They reflect an uncomfortable reality that
many don't want to accept. And yes, the link isn't the best of sources, their
owner courts controversy and has made some terrible mistakes recently.

------
gmarx
If you want to join an existing group with an existing culture, you don't get
to say "here I am; now change your culture to suit me". As an older
gentleman(?) it's bizarre to see how traditional nerd hideaways such as
programming and comic books have evolved into cool things that the cool people
now feel entitled to participate in...you know, if we could just get these
spergy nerds to act like cool, or at least normal people.

~~~
forgottenpass
If you look at this author's medium page, she has another post on exactly
that.

[https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-
collide-31895b01e68c](https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-
collide-31895b01e68c)

My favorite bit:

 _The mainstream tech industry offers us money, status, and a stable (if weak)
position in its idealised social hierarchy. The voices clamouring for change
offer us no money, a social role reversal back to “disempowered outsider,” and
a status demotion to “likely sexual predator.” (The polite euphemism for this
is “creepy,” a pejorative applied indiscriminately both to those who actively
transgress other people’s boundaries and to those with the unmitigated gall to
be attracted to someone else while being funny-looking.) Given a choice
between these two, which would you side with? It’s true that the one is
confining, essentialist, and a far cry from the best of all possible worlds,
but the other is all these things and a step backward for people who finally
got to take a step forward for once when the internet took off._

~~~
gmarx
She's a good writer

------
geofft
This is from 2013. It seems like a response to something, possibly one of
Shanley's essays that's now no longer on Medium; I can't help but feel that
I'm missing context as I get towards the end.

This also seems like a straightforward example of how mainstream feminism is
bad at intersectionality. Arguably both sides in this discussion are not great
at it: I feel like there's probably a good answer that involves neither
belittling people for having different reads of social interactions nor
asserting that everyone else should read social interactions the way you do.

I wonder what the people in this disagreement would say today. I think tech
feminism has been getting more aware of intersectionality of late, so I'm
curious if the problems the author identified about have gotten better.

~~~
psycr
I don't know what this means:

> This also seems like a straightforward example of how mainstream feminism is
> bad at intersectionality.

Can you explain? What are they bad at?

~~~
geofft
I'm not sure I'll do it justice, but briefly, intersectionality is the
viewpoint that systems of oppression affect people qualitatively differently
when they're on the wrong side of two systems instead of one. From Wikipedia's
lede: "An example is black feminism, which argues that the experience of being
a black woman cannot be understood in terms of being black, and of being a
woman, considered independently, but must include the interactions, which
frequently reinforce each other."

In particular, it seems to me like the author is part of a group of people for
whom certain social cues fall on dry ground, and her critics are part of a
group of people for whom those social cues take root and flower like a weed.
By themselves, there are advantages and disadvantages to participating in tech
communities as a member of either of these communities. But they also
influence how the experience of other systems of oppression affect them --
like the sexist reviewer mentioned in the article -- and it's not very helpful
to think of a one-size-fits-all "feminism".

For instance, I don't think it's the author's intention and certainly not her
fault if she reinforces a belief that certain behaviors are okay, simply
because those behaviors don't register to her. But yet people use her as
evidence that the behaviors are fine, and there ought to be room for
identifying that as a problem -- not as criticism of _her_ , but as awareness
of a problem with a system. At the same time, any solution to that problem
must not shut people like her out by weaving subtle social cues into the
fabric of the system, or else one system of oppression is just replaced with
another one.

------
krstck
I'm a big fan of Meredith. She's one of the few "women in tech" (yuck) that I
feel like actually speaks _my_ point of view and articulates how I feel about
all of this. My impression is that most of the people that spend their time
pontificating about women's issues in this industry are doing so from the
outside, and I kinda resent that.

This article by Susan Sons is also good:
[http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-
software](http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-software)

~~~
hellodevnull
That article by Susan kept coming to mind while reading this one.

I think that most women that actually work in technology have feelings closer
to the ones expressed here than the stuff that a vocal minority spreads all
over the internet.

------
kohanz
> _There had been interest, but one of the committers had dismissed the idea
> out of hand because a woman had proposed it._

It blows my mind that this stuff still happens. In the OSS world of all
places. I can't even compute how someone can apply such "logic".

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

~~~
mrits
It is not a sign of low intelligence. Just like being religious is not a sign
of low intelligence. What we need to realize is extremely bright people choose
to identify with ideas that are not true. Personally I think it comes social
evolution and the need to belong to a group. It would be impossible to get
along with everyone unless we were willing to compromise our personal beliefs
and values to some extent.

~~~
morgante
> Just like being religious is not a sign of low intelligence.

It's not a 100% accurate sign, but it's certainly a pretty good signal:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_IQ)

------
et1337
The only problem I have with feminism is that it's often a movement _against_
men, and not _for_ women. I think they would be a lot more successful doing
things to encourage women rather than disparage men. Meredith would not have
had to write this article.

Of course, it's a lot harder to be positive rather than negative.

~~~
lukeasrodgers
I am a man, and feminist, and have spoken with many other feminists over the
years, and read a lot of feminist literature, philosophy, cultural criticism,
etc. In my experience I'd say less than 1% of feminism/feminists have anything
to do with being _against_ men. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything,
actually, I could reasonably describe as promoting this view. Maybe some
radical stuff from the 70s, like Firestone, but I'm hard-pressed to come up
with any other serious examples.

~~~
new_corp_dev
Men are rapists and sexual offenders by default.

Men are violent.

If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.

Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.

Men should not have any reproductive rights.

Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.

Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it, even
though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very heart of
sexism.

Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are
dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed to
have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.

Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound
heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a
"male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-
image issues.

Men cannot discuss their issues in a public forum without feminist protestors
shutting down discussions.

If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man
chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own
sexuality.

If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is
harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men
cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also
receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living room
window.

Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the same
crimes.

~~~
antihero
Oh my word. Not saying I agree with all of them 100%, but you have utterly
misconstrued the arguments.

> Men are rapists and sexual offenders by default.

Nope, the argument is that there is a societal pattern that devalues the
severity of rape through humour and other cultural tropes.

> Men are violent.

The patriarchal "masculinity" foisted upon men is one that is competitive and
aggressive.

> If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.

If you see a woman only existing as to please your sexual appetite, you are
objecting.

> Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.

Women _should_ be paid according to the merits of their work and ability,
along with men.

> Men should not have any reproductive rights.

A woman's body is hers to do with as she should wish. Nobody should have
operations forced upon them.

> Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.

Due to the fact that often a carer role is taken by a woman in a patriarchal
society, this means that her earning potential and career is sacrificed.

> Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it,
> even though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very
> heart of sexism.

There are advantages that men get because of their sex/gender, and these
should be recognised.

> Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are
> dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed
> to have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.

Due to many women having suffered terrible experiences at the hands of men,
and the tendency for men to dominate discussions, there needs to be a place
away from that where people can talk without fear and interruption.

> Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound
> heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a
> "male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-
> image issues.

Not sure about that one, I think the argument drastically varies, but men are
more often portrayed in a powerful, dominant role.

> If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man
> chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own
> sexuality.

Characters are often designed by men, for men.

> If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is
> harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men
> cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also
> receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living
> room window.

Yes because receiving some flame or smack is the same as constant rape
threats.

> Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the
> same crimes.

This is bullshit, obviously.

~~~
new_corp_dev
>> Men are rapists and sexual offenders by default.

> Nope, the argument is that there is a societal pattern that devalues the
> severity of rape through humour and other cultural tropes.

"Teach men not to rape."

"Teach your sons to respect women."

>> Men are violent.

> The patriarchal "masculinity" foisted upon men is one that is competitive
> and aggressive.

Framing masculinity as a negative is anti-male. "Patriarchy" as a concept,
regarding men as responsible for all the ills of the world, is also anti-male.

>> If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.

> If you see a woman only existing as to please your sexual appetite, you are
> objecting.

Physical attraction alone does not disregard a person's humanity or personal
agency.

>> Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.

> Women should be paid according to the merits of their work and ability,
> along with men.

No arguments there. Unfortunately "positive discrimination" (an oxymoron I see
as often as "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism") says otherwise.

>> Men should not have any reproductive rights.

> A woman's body is hers to do with as she should wish. Nobody should have
> operations forced upon them.

I never said anything about forcing or denying abortions, only that a woman
has the right to cede responsibility for reproduction whereas a man has none.
If a woman chooses to abort or put a child up for adoption, she is well within
her rights to do so. If a man suggests the same thing, he is a "deadbeat".

>> Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.

> Due to the fact that often a carer role is taken by a woman in a patriarchal
> society, this means that her earning potential and career is sacrificed.

Again, "patriarchy" as a concept is farcical, and you're completely ignoring a
woman's own personal responsibilities. You can either argue that women should
be treated as equals, or that they should be treated like children in need of
constant care, not both.

Also, men are not your personal ATM machines. If you see a man as only
existing to please your handbag appetite, you are objectifying them.

>> Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it,
even though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very
heart of sexism.

> There are advantages that men get because of their sex/gender, and these
> should be recognised.

You've basically repeated what I said, except you seem to think sexism a good
thing as long as it targets someone you perceive as "advantaged".

>> Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are
dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed to
have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.

> Due to many women having suffered terrible experiences at the hands of men,
> and the tendency for men to dominate discussions, there needs to be a place
> away from that where people can talk without fear and interruption.

Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can
be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.

>> Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound
heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a
"male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-
image issues.

> Not sure about that one, I think the argument drastically varies, but men
> are more often portrayed in a powerful, dominant role.

So as long as an exaggerated body image is accompanied by power and dominance,
it shouldn't place unfair expectations on impressionable viewers?

>> If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man
chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own
sexuality.

> Characters are often designed by men, for men.

Bayonetta was developed by a woman. Women are allowed to be sexual if they
please, and even if the character is designed by a man, ignoring the potential
for sexuality in a woman's personality would result in one-dimensional and
frankly unrelatable characters.

The idea of sexuality as being negative is also unhealthy, for both genders.

>> If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is
harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men
cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also
receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living room
window.

> Yes because receiving some flame or smack is the same as constant rape
> threats.

You must have missed the part where I mentioned men also get serious threats
to their person, and that there are documented cases where those threats have
been acted upon.

>> Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the
same crimes.

> This is bullshit, obviously.

Yes, obviously.

[http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender...](http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp)

~~~
electronvolt
This is perhaps a little late, since this fell off the front page, but I
figured I'd respond to you because you seem to have your heart in the right
place, but have a kind of twisted view of what most feminists actually
believe. It also feels like you're mixing up the views of one political/social
movement with the current state of the world as a whole, which is a poor
argument against feminism. I would point out that most feminists are primarily
interested in fixing women's issues at the moment, but that there are not, as
far as I am aware, any men's groups that seem actually interested in
addressing the (definitely less immediate or serious, to be honest...) issues
that the patriarchy (as a social/hegemonic system) causes for men: which you
seem to be particularly interested in.

> "Teach men not to rape."

Many (most?) rapists are men. Many men are not rapists. These quotes aren't
claiming that all men are rapists, and you've pulled them out of their
social/political context in order to claim that they are. You're taking those
quotes a bit out of context: they are responding to the cultural
expectations/norms/memes of teaching women to avoid rape (and blaming them if
they do not) instead of teaching men to not rape (and not really blaming them
if they do). The studies (not feeling up for going and fetching them ATM, but
let me know if you want me to) have generally shown that rape prevention
teaching aimed at women reduces the chance that any particular woman will get
raped, but does not reduce the overall incidence of male on female rape--while
rape prevention teaching aimed at men does reduce the overall incidence of
rape. (Note: female on male rape/sexual assault is generally thought to be
much less common, but that may be due to serious stigmatization of reporting
by men and poor metrics for measuring it--which is a separate issue than what
is trying to be addressed by these sorts of slogans/philosophies. TBH, I think
the best option may be universal "don't rape each other" training given to
everyone, rather than classes aimed at preventing yourself from getting raped
or preventing only men from raping.)

> Framing masculinity as a negative is anti-male. "Patriarchy" as a concept,
> regarding men as responsible for all the ills of the world, is also anti-
> male.

Patriarchy, as a sociological concept, is not about blaming men for the ills
of the world. It refers to a hegemonic system which shoehorns both men and
women into specific roles, values the male roles more, and punishes both men
and women for stepping outside of them. It can (and is) bad for men as well as
women--look up the research on what emotions are acceptable for men to show,
how many preventable deaths occur because men didn't go to a doctor when they
should have, etc. It is also tied to the devaluation of certain activities men
might want to take part in (homosexuality, acting 'feminine' in any way,
wearing dresses, whatever) and the potential for assault if people who were
identified as male at birth don't go along with it (look up murder rates for
MTF women, for instance). Framing some parts of masculinity as
'toxic'\--inability to express emotions other than anger without being
socially sanctioned, masculinity being tied up in punishing those who deviate
(attacking homosexuals, crossdressers, etc.) is perfectly reasonable, too, and
not an attack on men or masculinity as a whole--just the parts of it that
involve hurting people. I will agree, however, that some folks don't seem to
understand the nuance of what was is a formal academic term and misuse it.
('patriarchy'; this observation also applies to many other terms with formal
academic contexts which were adopted by people without the background.)

> You've basically repeated what I said, except you seem to think sexism a
> good thing as long as it targets someone you perceive as "advantaged".

This is a subtle point, but: acknowledging that you are, in some ways, given
huge advantages by society as a whole doesn't require you to feel terrible
because of it. This is something I think a lot of people miss: privilege isn't
something you can do something about in the present, aside from acknowledging
that it benefits you and that you may not experience the same struggles and
hardships, or may not experience struggles/hardship in the same way as someone
without those benefits. The difference is subtle, but pretty important. The
things you can do to address that, though, are listening to the experiences of
those who don't have the systematic benefits you do, call out when you may be
getting what seems to be an unfair advantage, and when possible, using your
advantages to benefit those who do not have them. (A super simplistic example
of the last would have been, as a man, voting for women's suffrage when they
did not have the right to vote. A more subtle and modern example might be
speaking up if you notice that a female colleague's ideas are often restated
by and then credited to men, as you're likely to be perceived as a neutral
party in a case like that.)

~~~
new_corp_dev
> "Teach men not to rape."

That is word-for-word the way I hear it phrased, and no context can make it
right. It implies that men are rapists who don't know any better, and need
educated on what rape is and how not to do it. It implies that all men are
sociopaths, and need to be taught basic human empathy.

Saying that all/many/most men are rapists is an unsupportable claim, as in
much of the Western world rape has been (and still is) defined specifically as
unwanted male-on-female penetration. Until statistics can be presented that
have substantiated backing, this is an unfair assessment.

"Teach X not to Y" is an ineffective method for preventing Y. You can put
everyone in the world in a class telling them not to mug, murder, rape,
pillage, stab, shoot, or use the Oxford Comma. People will still act according
to their own personal motivations and (presence or lack of) morals. If I want
to prevent myself from being mugged, I will learn to recognize the sort of
dangerous situations that could lead to that eventuality. I will take personal
responsibility for my safety. I will also understand that there will be times
that there was nothing I could have reasonably done to prevent it from
happening, if it should.

~~~
electronvolt
See, I really don't get that from "Teach men not to rape". All I see it
implying is that there are men who rape--this is indisputable, with most
reported rapes being male on male or male on female, and almost all of my
female friends in the past either having experienced either a rape or a sexual
assault by a man. That doesn't make me a rapist any more than it makes you a
rapist: but it makes some men out there rapists. Consider the studies cited
here:
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/05/01/campus_sexua...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/05/01/campus_sexual_assault_statistics_so_many_victims_but_not_as_many_predators.html)

If the numbers agreed with you, then I'd say that "teach X not to Y" being
ineffective was true.

However, the numbers really don't agree with you, given the repeated case of
things like this being effective:
[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/dont-
be...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/dont-be-that-guy-
ad-campaign-cuts-vancouver-sex-assaults-by-10-per-cent-
in-2011/article1359241/)

And even for things like muggings/theft, a lot of the time the crime is an
impulsive act, and there's also evidence that you can teach people to avoid
making that impulsive jump to mugging/etc. It's a bit more complicated than
just telling people "Don't mug", but something pretty much resembling "Teach X
not to Y" is used by the US Govt. to reduce recidivism in criminal offenders:
[https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=242](https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=242)
and there's a large body of research that shows that it's effective. (There
are other studies of similar CBT based programs in inner city schools with
similarly good effects on people who aren't yet criminals but are likely to
become criminal.)

~~~
new_corp_dev
You don't get that it's offensive to men to say "teach men not to rape"?

What about "teach black people not to murder"? Does that not sound incredibly
racist to you? If it does, and I really hope it does, what is the effective
difference? After all, there is ample data that the majority of murders are by
blacks.

[https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-
the-u.s/2013/...](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-
the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-
enforcement/expanded-
homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls)

Regardless of the effectiveness of "Don't Be That Guy", the ends do not
justify the means. It would also be effective to immediately throw into prison
the people most "at risk" to commit a crime, but that does not make it morally
right. After all, how well do you think a "Don't Be That Black Guy" campaign
would go over in Detroit?

~~~
electronvolt
> What about "teach black people not to murder"? Does that not sound
> incredibly racist to you? If it does, and I really hope it does, what is the
> effective difference? After all, there is ample data that the majority of
> murders are by blacks.

Phrased like that, yes, it does sound a little racist. However, your point is
slightly facetious: I think you and I are both aware that the statistical link
between murder and blackness is poverty (i.e. control for poverty/neighborhood
and the link between murder and blackness goes away), which is exacerbated in
the US by a lot of structural racism/etc. that black people face.

However, from a practical standpoint, I believe that I actually advocated for
exactly that, and I stand by my arguments: my point about CBT-based crime
prevention (teaching people to not X)? Perhaps obviously, those programs are
most effective at reducing criminal behavior from those who are most likely to
commit crimes in the future. In the US, the places where they've been shown to
be effective are for youth from high crime, poor urban neighborhoods and
current prison inmates... both of which are populations that are predominantly
black. I'd totally advocate for the expansion of programs like the ones I
mentioned if they continue to show statistically significant results RE:
reducing criminal behavior, and I think most people would. Teaching people who
are most likely to commit criminal acts to instead not commit criminal acts is
a net benefit to society and to those people. I'm not, I hope obviously,
claiming that being black makes you criminal (or more likely to be a criminal)
or that black people alone should be targeted with programs like the ones I
mentioned regardless of location, risk, etc. at the expense of similarly high
risk white people, in the same way that I'm not claiming that being a man
makes you inherently a rapist.

RE: "Don't be that guy" and the ends do not justify the means: It's possible
to come up with all kinds of exaggerated scenarios to argue this. I would
agree that, say, killing all men to prevent male on female rape would be both
very effective and completely unjust.

So let's keep in mind the comparison you're making here: we are talking about,
variously, (a) a public advertising campaign about how it's bad to rape people
versus actual rape, (b) a course that lasts a few days at the start of college
or a week in middle or high school on the importance of consent (tbh, I'd
claim it'd be good for it to be aimed at men and women) versus actual rape or
(c) a month or semester long course on self control and healthy behaviors in
middle/high school/prison versus actual mugging/assault/murder. The "means"
we're talking about are not exactly things with a particularly high human
cost, especially when compared to the "ends".

~~~
new_corp_dev
My example is not contrived at all, and equally relevant. You can take any
feminist argument and search/replace "men" with "black people" and the
underlying hate speech becomes readily apparent. The specific group of people
does not particularly matter, it only highlights the very apparent cumulative
effect this sort of feminism has had on convincing society as a whole that men
are disposable enough to be talked about in such a manner.

If your "means" involve teaching young men that they are considered
sociopathic abusive rapists by society and that they need extensive education
to learn otherwise, and you do not consider that a "particularly high human
cost" then I think we should leave this conversation as it is. Neither of us
will be able to convince the other of our position, and we'll only talk in
circles trying.

~~~
electronvolt
I don't think any sensible solution to rape or to crime involves "teaching
young men that they are considered sociopathic abusive rapists by society" or
even "teaching young black men that they are expected to be criminals." That
really is only likely to increase crime/rape.

Rape prevention education is generally along the lines of "This is what
consent is. It's important! If you don't get consent and have sex with
someone, that's rape, and that's bad! These are situations where someone
really isn't capable of consent: when they're incapacitated, if you're
blackmailing them, if you're holding them down and they're verbally objecting,
or really if you haven't gotten a clear and enthusiastic "Wow I want to bone
you" from them. You may see someone try to have sex with someone else under
those circumstances: that would make you a bystander! If you are a bystander,
here are some things you can do to keep that person from raping someone: (a),
(b), (c). Etc." Similarly, the crime prevention things I linked and referred
to take a different tack of "These are ways to control your emotions and think
through the consequences of your actions".

Your portrayal of it as anything else leads me to believe that you haven't
ever gone through a rape prevention course and have done absolutely no
research on what they usually entail. The reason I'd advise them for everyone
is because they're valuable courses for women, too: both because if there's a
explicit culture of "nobody is getting laid without an explicit 'yes'", it's
shocking how quickly people will start actually getting explicit 'yes'es (See
Antioch College), and because I've known of at least one woman who got a man
extremely drunk, well beyond where he could remember or consent, and then had
sex with him. (Spoiler alert: The guy there was me. I remembered none of it
and only found out we'd done anything a few weeks later. I never pressed
charges, sought help, or reported it, because like in many situations these
things are complicated and she was a friend. When we discussed it later/I'd
found out it happened, she didn't think she'd done anything wrong, and that
was probably the most messed up part of it. Let's just say universal consent
training is something I have personal reasons to feel strongly is important.)

------
emodendroket
I don't know how much sense it makes to argue with "feminism" since it's an
umbrella that covers a bunch of different schools of thought that have pretty
serious disagreements among each other.

~~~
myderpyaccount
Yea, but then it doesn't really make sense to argue about anything, because
everything can be statically defined in terms of the environment it exists in.
The part can be described in terms of the the discrete whole of which it
belongs to, minus the part.

I like to complain a lot, about many things, for like an hour, and then I get
frustrated without observable resolution. It's all thinking noise, patterns, I
prefer to stay at home, I like sleeping, so tired of arguing on the internet.

~~~
detcader
You can talk about different groups of actual physical women who have
different types of thought about sex, sexuality, and men, because waves and
groups of feminisms actually do exist. I recommend "Gender Inequality" by
Judith Lorber as a starting point

~~~
emodendroket
Right, this is what I meant to say. Arguing with "feminism" is a bit like
arguing with "politics" or "ethics" or "philosophy" given how disparate the
different strains of it really are. I suppose most people who are arguing
against feminism have a specific kind in mind but it doesn't do any good to
the reader if you don't explain.

------
fndrplayer13
Her experience is certainly very interesting and unique. There's a bit of
intersectionalism going on here, though. The experiences of a non-autistic
woman in technology, I would imagine, are dramatically different from an
autistic woman. Just by the very nature of social intelligence.

------
cpncrunch
Is this just an issue in the USA, or perhaps just radical San Francisco? In
other countries men and women tend to work together quite happily in SW
development jobs without all of this nonsense.

~~~
ajdlinux
Obviously it's going to be different in different places, but gender issues
definitely come up here in Australia.

~~~
Khaine
But that is usually driven through it being brought up in the US. Sort of like
it culturally seeps through

------
phinkle
I agree that overwhelmingly the experience for most "women in tech" is
positive because we also love technology and building things, but its the
small things that really make a difference. I think (although I can't speak
for her) the author also experiences these small differences, like when her
idea wasn't taken seriously because of her gender. Sometimes these things are
easy to miss, but once you are on the lookout its a slippery slope to thinking
that almost everything happening to you is because of your gender and its good
to call people out on that. I have certainly misjudged actions, but there have
also been times when people were discriminating against me because of my
gender and those are the thing that we really need to have a conversation
about. Sometimes these ideas or comments are minor and we can get past them
like the in the author's case, but sometimes they have an impact. For example
when I was taking APCS in high school, my programming partner (Asian male) was
asked to join the UIL team and I was not, even though we were at the same
skill level. There could have been other reasons that I wasn't asked, but
since we both turned in the same assignments and had similar interactions with
our old, southern teacher, I doubt it.

~~~
throwaway999666
> Sometimes these things are easy to miss, but once you are on the lookout its
> a slippery slope to thinking that almost everything happening to you is
> because of your gender and its good to call people out on that.

Yes, probably. Both if you're a man or a woman.

------
stcredzero
The author is a friend of mine. What I say below is something I've discussed
with her.

I think the last great frontier for humanity's "waking up from history" is
awareness of group psychology, particularly the psychology of the "other."
Ironically, as noted by GCP Grey, widespread access to the Internet has
actually made such group psychology _worse_.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc)

One of the big problems with an awareness of what Noam Chomsky called
"irrational jingoism," is that currently _society is made out of it_. Our
organizations and social norms and structures actually use the natural
jingoism built into _Homo sapiens_ in order to increase group solidarity.

The cognitive distortions that come out of such group psychology are a big
problem online. It's been noted that if you go far enough in either direction
of the political spectrum, things start to look the same. Historically, both
extremes become militaristic and convinced of a duty to righteous aggression.
I would invite hardy and curious souls to plumb both more militant feminist
and more militant Men's Rights groups online, and witness firsthand the degree
to which both sides can be eerily reminiscent of each other in tone and self-
righteous attitude. (For example: Intolerant "you're with us or against us"
attitudes.)

As 21st century citizens, we should already be aware of "bait and switch"
tactics. We should also be savvy about the psychology of online groups, and be
able to read when a group has started to cross a threshold and becomes driven
by positive feedback cycles of outrage to garner more attention. We should
recognize when the ideology of whatever movement has been thus hijacked to
become _hateivism_. (EDIT: To clarify, what I refer to as "groups" are small-
granularity, as in a few person's social networks, not everyone who identifies
with a particular label!)

To clarify: my issue is not with either side of any debate. There are a few
ideas on both sides of the issue I would agree with. My chief concern is
whether the groups in question are self-aware concerning their own group
dynamics. Such an organizational awareness was perhaps the chief
accomplishment of Martin Luther King Jr. and his compatriots, though there
seems to be no awareness of this particular accomplishment in the culture at
large.

EDIT: I should clarify what I meant by saying "made such group psychology
worse." Creating virtual meeting spaces and virtual online groups is far
easier and far cheaper than organizing face to face groups, and the same
communication resources also make it easier to facilitate such meetings in
person. Much good has come of this. However, it has also created far more
opportunities for the incubation of distorted mob psychologies. Often these
take the name of some cause or ideology but are distorted in a jingoistic
direction.

As 21st century online citizens, we should be as aware of such "bait and
switch" with the labels of ideologies as we are aware of the same tactics with
regards to name brands. We should be as savvy about the intellectual
provenance of an online group's teachings and its actual practices as we are
savvy about online shopping or choosing which Kickstarter campaigns to
support. If just about anyone can set up shop online as an "activist," doesn't
this create the same situation that arises when just about anyone can set up a
web store? (Isn't this the same economic situation as with travelling medicine
shows?)

From what I have seen online, people are often remarkably unsophisticated
about evaluating distortions in their particular group's interpretation of
ideologies or activist programs, and largely blind to their own group
dynamics. This is especially true when "othering," stereotyping, and group
hatreds have taken hold. Most importantly: It is just as true online as it is
in-person.

~~~
Balgair
I agree with the initial thesis and would go so far as to say two of the top
functions of 'education' are to create empathy for others and to create self-
respect. However, I don't believe that the internet has made things worse;
rather it has just uncovered what was already there. Also, trying to argue
that our species reverts to the base programming is specious. If that were
true, polygamy and murder would be the rule of law, if there were laws at all
besides that of the fist. More citations are needed to justify that.

I do believe that the internet, like fire, can burn or heat our species. We
learn, slowly, how to use this medium. I think that we are slowly bending
towards justice, to borrow from MLK, but that it will take a long long time.
Also, something that is always lost is the inherent entropy in the system, the
chaos that comes to any complex network. Some amount of 'bad' will always be
here, if only by the random chance of life. Most 'hatevists' have logical
arguments, it's just that the lemmas and starting points are off or they have
taken one wrong step that sent them spinning into hate and terror. Fixing
those steps is arduous and energy intense, but necessary.

Hopefully, the tech will help us here. The massive amount of data that Google
and the NSA collects could be put forth in an effort to study the mechanics of
ethics and personalities. That, again, is fire, and in the wrong hands, it'll
burn. But discovery is like that, and you have to see through the flames of
chemical weapons and siege towers to get to fertilizers and the Hagia Sophia.

~~~
chippy
> rather it has just uncovered what was already there

I would disagree a little on this part (agree with the rest), by giving the
example of "The Left". The Left Wing was primarily socialist and communalist.
It emphasized the similarity between people, races, countries, sexes. What we
have in common is more important than what separates us.

The Internet and the stcredzero's thesis says is that the Internet shows what
defines groups as being different, as being the other. The Left has, along
with the Internet and along with many of us here who may see ourselves as
supporting social justice, focused on the differences between people. The
group of persons is more and more defined, the individuals within a society is
more and more defined. The differences between people and groups are more and
more emphasized with the Internet.

The Internet has not led to an increase in communality, it has not led to an
increase on people feeling like they are more similar to others. The Left used
to and socialist used to work against a trend of group psychology to bring
together peoples into a whole, to reduce differences. The successful
politicians recognize the important of group thinking. In the recent UK
election, the party who ran with the ideology of "all in it together" and "the
party of the working people" was the right wing Conservatives! (They won)

Social justice cannot happen if we focus our energies as to what divides us.

~~~
Balgair
What is social justice anyways? I only ever hear it in a negative way, that of
Social Justice Warriors.

Here in the states, the republican right has historically been the people's
party too. Part of their appeal is being the 'party of Lincoln'. Really, both
of our parties have made good appeals to being a 'people's party' in their
history. But trying to say that the international left was historically a
party for all peoples is tough too. Russian reds started as an all inclusive
bunch, but became quickly co-oped by anti-Semites, racists, and nationalists.
Still, I think you can very well categorize them as Left through and through.

I still really believe that the internet has cemented our commonality. White
folk in America are now seeing the daily interactions of black folk with the
cops, and how unjust that is. And they are going out and protesting with them
now. Cries of 'we are the 99%' are being made by all of us now. The treatment
of women in Tech and elsewhere is at the very least, known to be a problem
now. Say what you will for solving these issues, but the Internet has incited
just communal outrage in it's short time in our lives. I say give the internet
time to work itself out. There are still congresscritters that boast about not
using email and we are just now raising an internet-always generation in many
countries. This, like all things human, takes time.

------
icanhackit
Meredith makes some interesting points. What I think is missing on both sides
of the conversation is that guys will attack whoever they can - male or female
- and the things they'll do or say tend to be what will make you feel the
smallest. People are hierarchical and like to probe where they sit on the
imaginary ladder of life by having a dig at those in their proximity. Meredith
alluded to an interesting point towards the end of the post - not to confuse
the motivations behind sexual assault/rape with the culture of insulting
people for the purpose of securing a place on the social ladder. When a guy
makes fun of another's dick-length or orders a female to _get back in the
kitchen_ the same thing is happening: making them feel small or ineffectual so
that they'll consensually walk down a few rungs of that horseshit ladder.

~~~
toolz
It's interesting to me that you only point out males that do that as if it's a
gender specific quality. Where do you live that you haven't noticed women's
infatuation with social pecking order?

~~~
icanhackit
I agree it applies both ways. My point was male-centric to align with the
argument being made in the article. Probing the local social order applies to
both genders and how they go about it can be slightly different but no less
vicious.

------
geon
Interesting that she is autistic. Autism is apparently more common among boys
than girls. Could this be one reason why tech attracts more men than women?

Arguably, a slightly autistic personality is helpful for a programmer.
Possibly it could also be a big reason for many future programmers to turn to
tech in the first place, where you deal with strict, deterministic rules
instead of emotions.

This would obviously not excuse misogyny in tech, but could help explain the
gender imbalance.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Arguably, a slightly autistic personality is helpful for a programmer.

This sounds a bit like people who go "haha, I'm so OCD, I like my pencils all
pointing the wrong way" \- incorrect self-diagnosis. "Slightly autistic
personality" unfortunately seems to be fairly frequently used as an excuse to
be an asshole.

~~~
hodwik
Asperger's is a real diagnosis.

~~~
ceejayoz
Certainly, when diagnosed by a doctor.

I'm talking about the "I've never been formally diagnosed but..." and "I think
I'm a little on the spectrum" sort of comments that often wind up in threads
about programmers being socially awkward.

Side note: having Aspergers doesn't make you an asshole.

~~~
hodwik
> " having Aspergers doesn't make you an asshole."

My experience of people (medically diagnosed) with Asperger's does not support
that statement.

~~~
ceejayoz
Having difficulty with social interaction due to a medical condition, IMO,
doesn't make one an "asshole", any more than a cancer patient who lies in bed
all day is "lazy".

It's the people who are aware of and _excuse_ being an asshole by a self-
diagnosed "oh I'm probably on the spectrum" statement I've issues with.

------
unoti
Groundless discrimination based on race, gender, religion, age, and all kinds
of other factors happens all the time, and it's a real bummer. The simple fact
is that people take all kinds of shortcuts in making decisions, and very
little of the workplace is an actual meritocracy.

When I first entered the workplace as a programmer, I was not taken as
seriously as I might have been because I was so young. I got my first
programming job at 16, and even when I started doing major consulting gigs
across the country at 19, I looked really young for my age. One client
remarked, upon meeting me, "You don't look old enough to operate a car, much
less our computer." It was always a challenge for me to get people to evaluate
my ideas based on their merit rather than their source, and to evaluate me
based on my work product, rather than where they were at in their career when
they were my age.

I have worked for myself for many years now, but if I sought employment
elsewhere, I'd probably face some difficulties because I'm much older than the
average developer, and people would assume that I'm stuck in old technologies
as many professional developers my age are.

But the truth is that unfounded discrimination happens all the time in the
workplace, for all kinds of reasons. Almost nowhere is a true meritocracy. At
one place I worked, even when I was at the perfect average age for software
developers, and white, and male, even then I was cut out of the circle of the
key developers. It was because the developers, owner, and key management liked
to stop working many days around 10:30am and start drinking heavily, maybe
stopping back by the office briefly some time in the afternoon, then go back
to drinking steadily the rest of the day until 6 or 7 pm. I didn't really do
that with the same kind of endless enthusiasm that they did. I didn't fit in
very well.

If you find a group of people that accept you the way you are, and evaluate
you based on the work you do, you've found gold. If mere excellence is the
currency of the realm, and all they want from you is to be the best you can
be, then that's a glorious place to be. But finding such a place is very rare.
It's hard to find that in a workplace, a church, a group of friends, or
anywhere. And if you're struggling to find that, it's not entirely because of
race, gender, age, or sexual orientation-- it's mostly because of people's
basic nature.

------
lsy
I understand the author has strong feelings about her innate tactics for
avoiding misery, but the ultimate thrust of her "amelioration patterns" are
variants on "toughen up" or "don't feed the trolls", both of which assign
responsibility for the problem to victims of misogyny, not perpetrators.

The author got lucky and doesn't, or can't, feel bad about misogyny. This
isn't true for everyone, nor should it be. I agree with the "feminists" that
it's counterproductive to say that if more women were like you, misogyny
wouldn't matter so much. Talking about "good" experiences as models is only
productive when the difference between your experience and others' is the
behavior of potential _perpetrators_ , not the behavior of potential
_victims_.

~~~
chazu
The thrust of the article seemed to me to be that the author feels her
experiences are being erased by prominent views on women in tech - that folks
like Kane are labelling her experiences as invalid.

~~~
lsy
I agree that's how she feels. What I'm trying to say is that the problem isn't
with her experiences, which are totally valid, but the extrapolation of those
experiences into suggestions that place responsibility with victims rather
than perpetrators.

------
osahal
At the risk of over simplifying matters, what do you expect from people who
see the world in black and white. Many of the feminists who say this (the
third generation feminists with a cacophony of radical ideologies) read very
specific material, mostly of the blogs variety, and live in their own bubble
where their own reading material and friends reflect only their views. Add to
this that difference of opinion and reflection are not entertained, this would
imply that you have less than total belief in articles of faith and leaves you
open to labels that are often applied to heathens. All that can be done with
these people is to not get offended by them and let them work out for them
selves why things are not always so black and white.

------
daveloyall
NB I haven't read all the comments on this page and I apologize if somebody
already said this...

NB I don't have the correct language to express this idea. I'm even concerned
that I might be flat out misunderstood. Consult my own comment history to know
where I stand.

NB I haven't heard of the author before nor read the apparent criticism.

\---

The author is a hardcore coder on the autism spectrum and thus fits in well
with the "nobody cares about your gender, race, nor creed--show me the code!"
meme.

The author asks her critics to cease putting her down to push their own
agendas. Okay.

But uh... Back to that meme. Is there any chance that the author is perhaps...
A coder first and a person with a gender second? That's what the meme is
about, right? In text mode, we're all just text generating entities, idea
makers. (It really is beautiful--I grew up on IRC myself.)

But look, the internet isn't just textmode anymore, and it doesn't exist just
in cyberspace anymore. Decisions coders make affect the--blah blah you all
know this, software is eating.

So, maybe, just maybe, the hardcore-on-the-spectrum-practically-deterministic-
themselves folks shouldn't be the only ones with commit-bits, hm?

I'm tired of writing this. To sum up: I'm glad for the author's successful
life as a coder and yes folks should stop attacking her, but no, the existence
of the author nor a hundred thousand more of her does not solve the "tech
needs women" problem. Because--back to the meme--it's not really women we
need. It's heart.

Because software is eating the world, "Made with love" needs to more than a
marketing slogan. We need more coders that are emotionally brilliant! There is
a large technical debt around "how software will alter the course of human
history" and frankly it terrifies me that so many emotionally stunted devs are
the primary authors.

Annnnnd there go my points. ;P

~~~
forgottenpass
_But look, the internet isn 't just textmode anymore, and it doesn't exist
just in cyberspace anymore. Decisions coders make affect the--blah blah you
all know this, software is eating._

 _So, maybe, just maybe, the hardcore-on-the-spectrum-practically-
deterministic-themselves folks shouldn 't be the only ones with commit-bits,
hm? [...] Because software is eating the world, "Made with love" needs to more
than a marketing slogan._

If that is the way you want to frame this, I think your goals are tangential
if not orthogonal to the conversation this blog speaks to. You're talking
about products, most of the social topics rolling through social media and the
tech news are about social interaction in and around development.

Obviously the developers are in a place to put their mark on a product, but
that's quite different. They're generally not the decision makers on the
product goals and feature set. And to the extent that they can influence the
product, that topic has gone entirely unaddressed. Conversation has focused
around about software team interaction.

But I don't see how that adds up to building a product "with heart." Some of
the grossest software business models and anti-consumer practices come out of
NorCal, the epicenter of the brand of progressive politics popular in these
discussions.

A comically apt anecdote is of a Facebook employee. The name Facebook let a
transgender individual use as their workplace ID was not good enough for
Facebook's real name policy for end users. Of course Facebook fell all over
themselves to fix it when they got bad press. But if any of the political
movements in tech were even tangentially about the products getting built, it
would have never been an issue. The business rule that developers were tasked
with implementing would have never been commited, or never thought up in the
first place.

~~~
daveloyall
> _tangential if not orthogonal to the conversation_

Er, sorry. My train of thought was: products need to be less harmful --> the
aggregate character of the the industry needs to change --> putting more
emotionally competent people in the industry --> overcoming the gender-related
conflict in the industry. Which, I think is the conversation.

As to developers cf. management... What sort of developer fails to think about
the possible consequences a given product might have on the lives of people
they will never meet? #cough#

~~~
forgottenpass
_What sort of developer fails to think about the possible consequences a given
product might have on the lives of people they will never meet?_

Any developer on a project that doesn't have a formal analysis system for
feeding thoughts about the lives of users into the product spec. And I mean
beyond the "will it sell" sorts of analysis. So to answer your question: most.

I have worked on safety-critical systems, my train of thought goes: products
need to be less harmful --> FMEA.

I actually look at it a bit like the way computer security can go overlooked.
You can actively employ as many netsec hobbyists that spend their evenings
hunting vulnerabilities, reading research and messing with security software
as you want. And they might marginally increase the security of the software
and systems, but the business has to decide to invest in security before
they're allowed to focus on securing the system. Once the business has bought
in, then you really don't need a huge cultural change towards security, just
get enough guys to set up the quality systems, and then keep up with security
analysis and reviews.

Edit: From a purely reductive standpoint, developers can tailor product to
overseas markets with different cultures. As long as the business cares, and
spends the effort to determining how to target a culture, the developers don't
really matter.

------
empressplay
needs (2013) added to the title

~~~
geon
Does it, though?

~~~
hoopd
Yes, it helps demonstrate our current inability to have important
conversations is nothing new.

edit: Downvotes again. I'm tired of trying to bring different viewpoints to
these conversations. When you look around and find that everybody agrees with
you don't assume it's because you've found the truth, it's simply because
you've driven away everybody who disagrees with you.

------
xtx23
the author is just too sensitive in online discussions. One could simply
dismiss your idea for being a nerd, gay, or sounds like a woman even if you
are a guy. There is nothing that excludes a guy from the same snub behavior
thrown by trolls. It is a community issue, not a man vs. woman issue. In fact,
on the internet, you can't even be sure that it is a guy trolling a girl, but
thinking makes it so.

Empathy is about seeing it both sides. It's not about everyone else making you
feel welcome and comfortable.

~~~
yenda
You always know it's a guy, because of Rule 16

------
mcguire
So, let's see here; Meredith Patterson has:

* "...posted an idea for a new feature to the developers’ mailing list for an open-source project...[but on list she had no access to, it was] dismissed the idea out of hand because a woman had proposed it." The feature only became available because she had the opportunity to implement it in such a way that it became a "rousing success". (I should stop right here because that's about as damning an incident as I can come up with.)

* "...called the police in a foreign country to report an attempted rape at a conference, and argued with them when they told my friend that nobody would consider it assault since they’d both been drinking."

* "...thwarted a wannabe PUA at a conference completely by accident" by "a blazingly single-minded focus on whatever topic I happen to be perseverating on at the moment".

Now, I don't want to seem to be saying that she's wrong to feel as she does,
or that her experiences are somehow invalid, or that she's in "denial" as some
idiot put it. I'm not. Really. It works for her and others, and I think she
would admit it doesn't work for everyone.

On the other hand, I don't think her suggestion of, "What I’ve got, and what I
wish the rest of the 'women in tech' community who rage against the misogyny
they see everywhere they look could also have, is a blazingly single-minded
focus on whatever topic I happen to be perseverating on at the moment," is a
workable approach.

Most of the people I know can't _ignore_ those sorts of things and can't be
satisfied "...literally [doubling] over laughing at how nonplussed he must
have been to see it not only implemented, but implemented to rousing success."
Most of the people I know _don 't want to_.

(Ok, here's an internet-reasoning hypothetical for you: I know a lot of geeks
who use the term "sportsball"; I believe many of them have this sort of
antipathy because they faced some kind of abuse from the sportsball players of
the world. Would you, assuming you're one of such, be willing to ignore that
abuse because you were passionately interested in baseball or (American)
football---both of which have fascinating statistical stories to tell, by the
way?)

Now, me, I'm a right cranky, misanthropic rat-bastard and I can certainly
single-mindedly focus on whatever interests me at the moment (early
Mesopotamian and Near Eastern history, abstract algebra and programming
languages, and natural language processing at the moment, fwiw), but I don't
want to hang around a community that is casually abusive to anyone, even if it
isn't me. And, damn it, maybe I want the goddamn feature that didn't get
implemented because the idea was dismissed because of who suggested it.

I notice from some of the other comments that there are those who believe that
the single-minded focus is the royal road to success in tech. It's not. How
many people do you know who have the focus but aren't successful? (This isn't
really an example because he is successful enough that you know his name, but
has anyone read Chuck Moore's blog lately?) And how many people do you know
who are successful but aren't especially focused---maybe because they didn't
have to swim upstream against incidents like Patterson's? (Anyone remember the
old Ruby community?) Further, by the way for those of you in the startup
community, you probably don't want total focus on tech to be the ultimate.
People like that are _very_ easy to take advantage of.

~~~
debacle
Part of her point is that the current activities of feminism in tech are not
productive, might actually be negative, and if everyone just shut up and did
what they loved the misogyny or perceived misogyny would disappear a lot
faster.

I don't necessarily agree, but she may not be wrong.

~~~
mcguire
Well, certainly, if everyone who decided they didn't want to put up with the
horseshit moved on, they wouldn't be in a position to perceive it, and the
horses wouldn't have the opportunity to inflict their excrement on anyone who
would mind, publicly.

But that hardly seems optimal.

------
killface
The old rule is still in effect: Nobody hates women more than other women.

Her and I could be friends.

------
Kenji
_There had been interest, but one of the committers had dismissed the idea out
of hand because a woman had proposed it. It was the funniest thing I’d heard
in months — I literally doubled over laughing at how nonplussed he must have
been to see it not only implemented, but implemented to rousing success._

Now that's a woman I respect. Instead of whining around, she just implements
it. Suckerpunched the misogynist.

You will see how much easier your life becomes if you stop complaining and
start doing. That's also how you earn respect.

~~~
KingMob
So... more perceptive women, who see from the outset that they will have to
work twice as hard to be only equally respected in the industry, should shut
up and get to work instead of pointing out the unfairness? They should toil
for a decade or two in order to have the requisite cred before complaining
about injustice?

You don't even know your "stop complaining and start doing" solution will
work. Since the anti-female bias isn't rationally based on women's ideas/work
to begin with, what makes you think it will be any more rational when she
produces better ideas/work? Some men may accept her, but grudgingly. Others
may find their ego threatened and react even worse.

~~~
Kenji
Any company that arbitrarily discriminates against talented women cuts into
their own flesh: The competition will be able to hire this talent. If I were
an employer, I wouldn't give two cents about gender as long as the work is
done well. As a consequence, female-friendly workplaces have a larger pool of
talent to hire from, therefore, they would thrive against the misogynistic
competition.

~~~
forgetsusername
This was a standard argument in economics: any business or culture that
systematically discriminates against women (or other races, or other "types")
is going to be at a huge disadvantage in identifying talent. And if you
believe talent is everywhere, it's hard to argue with.

~~~
mcguire
And yet, prior to World War II, that economic disadvantage had absolutely no
effect. Even decades later, systematic discrimination was an open policy, in
direct violation of economic logic.

Weird.

~~~
mcguire
No, really. It took WWII for the United States to collectively realize that
systematically excluding nigh-half of the population from the economy was a
bad idea, economically speaking. And much longer for the damage caused by
doing so in specific instances to have much lasting effect---indeed, without
government intervention I suspect we would still be waiting.

------
michaelochurch
If we want to have a meaningful discussion about sexism in tech, it's time to
talk about what we're up against, and it involves all of us: not just women
and minorities. If it doesn't involve us now, it will in 20 years when we're
two decades older, because ageism is just as much of a problem in the tech
industry as the other "isms".

There isn't an above-baseline sexism among long-term professional programmers.
Sure, there are bad apples, but the culture that you'll find at a gray-haired
research lab or even a more traditional, supposedly conservative, enterprise
shop is not nearly as exclusionary as the supposedly progressive and new
Silicon Valley culture.

By stereotype, you'd expect 60-year-old men writing elevator controllers in
Indiana to be far more sexist and exclusionary than 25-year-olds in
California. It ain't true. First of all, someone who's 60 now was born in 1955
and has no meaningful memories of the bad old days; by the time he or she was
starting a career, women were already in the workforce and it was accepted by
many as a good thing. Second, if you control for education, the age vs.
exclusionary behavior correlation goes away. Third, most people actually get
more mature with age, and while there are some who mature at a lesser rate
than society advances and become the "racist grandparent" trope, I don't think
that it's the norm. (Also, American society's rate of advancement has slowed
in the past 30 years compared to the 30 before that, but that's another
topic.) Fourth, anyone who thinks the dominant Silicon Valley culture is still
liberal has been asleep for 20 years.

That's not to say that private sector tech doesn't have a sexist, exclusionary
culture. It does. It doesn't come _from the programmers_ (although there are
individual programmers who are assholes and keep it going). Rather, it comes
from _the mainstream business culture_ (MBA culture) that colonized us. In
fact, the sexism of the Damasos (see:
[https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/vc-
istan-8-t...](https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/vc-istan-8-the-
damaso-effect/) ) who are sent West to boss nerds around is a lot more severe
than that of the mainstream MBA culture. Banks might make it harder for women
to advance; venture capitalists, on the other hand, will outright hit on them
and threaten to "pick up a phone" and make them unfundable if they don't
acquiesce.

You know how when a criminal gang kicks out some of its underperforming
members and they form a new gang, the upstart young gang is typically more
violent than the one it splintered off from? The sexism of the VC bros and the
Spiegel types they fund is analogous. The demigods of the Valley are people
who got kicked out of mainstream business culture because they weren't smart
enough to do statistical arbitrage at hedge funds, so they were sent West to
man this colonial outpost (from the MBA-culture perspective) called Silicon
Valley. As MBA-culture failures, it's not surprising that they amplify some of
that culture's worst traits, and that they've created a dominant culture in
Silicon Valley that is (a) very negative and (b) far worse than the more
superficially conservative (no sandals at work) but generally professional
culture you see in more traditional companies, including the ones doing (say)
hardware work and low-level programming, the latter of which seems to be the
OP's interest.

She had a positive experience because she was hanging around Real
Technologists, who aren't nearly as sexist as the Silicon Valley wunderkinder.
The Shanleys of the world aren't complaining about 55-year-old men who still
say "Oriental" (meaning no harm, and not holding racist views) but are
generally professional and not very sexist (many are married and have
daughters). They're complaining about 22-year-olds who get funded to the gills
because they were in the same rape frat as a leading VC, and who go on to
create horrible work cultures.

~~~
forgottenpass
As an east-cost embedded systems programmer working at a sole proprietorship,
you've changed my perspective of programming culture in SF more than anything
else that I've ever read.

Sad that you're downvoted. I don't have much perspective to judge the veracity
of your interpretation, but it seems perfectly plausible. I wonder which
invisible boundaries of narrative you've been punished for crossing.

~~~
michaelochurch
I was actually enjoying the streak of quality comments that were downvoted.
Until this one went to +2, I had a 6-long streak.

------
debacle
The victim mentality is the basis of all of the problems in modern -isms.
People who (perhaps rightly) feel maligned by the world congregate, become an
echo chamber, and then build in intensity. In effect, their altered perception
of reality becomes their coping mechanism for something painful or traumatic
that may have happened in their lives. Throw in a few drama addicts or
discordians, and you have a recipe for zero discussion, and zero progress.

Is there sexism in tech? Yes. Is it condoned by the majority? No. Is it
generally called out when it happens? Yes.

These people don't need to be derided, ignored, or educated. It wont work.
They need healing.

------
detcader
Once again we see demonstrated the simple dynamics of economics in that the
stories that are on the HN front page is a function of demand from an
overwhelmingly male base of regular users.

------
CoreSet
It seems like she's trying to gain credibility as someone who's been "exposed"
to the travails of most women in tech, but then her solution isn't to fight
the physical violence, intellectual marginalization, or boys-club dynamic in
the c-suite - all of which she alludes to and confirms with her personal
experiences - it's to just bury yourself in work to the point that non of that
(your career, professional life, emotional health, your entire life) matters.
What a fucked up apology for the even more fucked up status quo.

------
marijn
The complicated thing about an article like this is that her experiences are
definitely valid, it isn't hard to see where she is coming from, and I'm
actually glad to read a piece from this perspective. Yet I can't help but
already hear the ugly gloating and coopting of the MRAs before I even got to
the predictable comments at the bottom. Can we separate intent from effect, of
should we expect every blogger to be politically savvy enough to preempt such
coopting by explicitly distancing herself from the MRA/gamergate toads?

~~~
traverseda
From another article of hers, [when nerds
collide]([https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-
collide-31895b01e68c](https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-
collide-31895b01e68c))

>[ ... ] much of the backlash from weird nerds against “brogrammers” and “geek
feminists” alike. (If you thought the conflict was only between those two
groups, or that someone who criticises one group must necessarily be a member
of the other, then you haven’t been paying close enough attention.) Both
groups are latecomers barging in on a cultural space that was once a respite
for us, and we don’t appreciate either group bringing its cultural conflicts
into our space in a way that demands we choose one side or the other. That’s a
false dichotomy, and false dichotomies make us want to tear our hair out.

Also, I'm not sure I'm seeing the "predictable comments" that you are.

~~~
marijn
The single comment below is exactly the self-indulgent whining against
feminism in general I was expecting (as are some of the comments on here on
HN)

~~~
dvdcxn
To be fair, your posts read like self indulgent whining about those who you
profess to self indulgently whine.

