
BBC Admits Its Famous ‘Women Write Better Code’ Story Was Fake News - walterclifford
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/bbc-finally-admits-its-famous-women-write-better-code-story-was-fake-news/
======
rokosbasilisk
discussion of original article
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11074587](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11074587)

------
Latty
This seems like a classic 'counter SJW' article - i.e: an angry counter at the
supposed 'feminist oppressors'.

The BBC overhyped a bit of research - this happens _constantly_ with research.
They take a study, misrepresent it's findings a little and make it sound
bigger than it is. Doesn't make it right, but it's hardly 'fake news'. The
story was reporting on a study that happened, and the content was - if a
little quick to jump to conclusions - based on reality.

The article has been corrected to "Github coding study suggests gender bias"
\- while different, clearly it's the same underlying story.

Meanwhile, this article casually claims that the original title is wrong - not
just an unsubstantiated claim:

> While this is a possible conclusion, it is far from being the only, or in
> this case, the most accurate one.

They claim there is a more accurate conclusion, which is...

> In fact, the study authors themselves later admitted that they had left out
> a pretty crucial point from their analysis: their data also revealed that
> women coders are in fact “harder on other women than they are on men.”

This is a point that doesn't refute the core idea, nor is it a conclusion to
replace the given one, it's just another bit of data which the article appears
keen to promote as though it is particularly important. Presumably because the
author thinks this is some kind of 'men vs women' war and that 'women do it
too' makes anything OK.

Don't get me wrong, the original study has issues - without knowing how many
pull requests 'should' have been approved (which is probably impossible to
judge well), it's hard to say the meaning of increased rejections - maybe more
rejections show better code because it is structure so that flaws are more
obvious to a reader?

Clearly, the original reporting of it has issues too - but this article seems
drummed up to create anger. Unless you are getting equally angry at the other
exaggerated research articles in equal measure, it seems targeted.

Edit:

Also on this website "Feminist Mother Rejects Infant Son Because of His
Gender". This article talks about the piece "Having a son went from a dilemma
to being the most valuable lesson of my life" \- which talks about a mother
who imagined having a daughter, found out she was having a son, and talks
about the fear she had realising she was going to have to explain about
feminism and women's issues, which she didn't know how to do. She then goes on
to explain she got past this fear (before he was born) and resolved on how to
teach him. The article from this site, however, talks about rejection and
child abuse, makes her out to be a crazy woman that hates men - totally
unfounded.

I suggest reading both to see how much they twist that one:

[https://heatst.com/culture-wars/feminist-mother-rejects-
infa...](https://heatst.com/culture-wars/feminist-mother-rejects-infant-son-
because-of-his-gender/)

vs

[http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-
views/opinion/havin...](http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-
views/opinion/having-a-son-has-gone-from-being-a-dilemma-to-teaching-me-the-
most-valuable-lesson-of-my-life-20161220-gtex2e.html)

It's another example, to me, of a "counter SJW" movement that only ever seems
to invent enemies. The only place I have ever seen or heard these 'crazy
extremist feminists' they claim are everywhere is in the odd forum thread,
hardly a real issue. Instead, it's mostly crazy interpretations of normal
pieces dressed up to install a fear in men that women are somehow out to get
them - not unlike the Daily Mail straight-white-christian-man fear that seems
to have driven brexit/trump.

~~~
SamUK96
I think though that if an equivalent study found opposite results and the BBC
wrote "Men write better code", there would be even far greatee uproar at how
deliberately misleading that is.

You invent an enemy (the linked article, "anti-SJW"), and then attempt to
"brush off" what is _clearly_ a misleading and likely agenda-fueled article,
which as per the MSM definition _is_ "fake news.

Also be aware that your "brush-off" and "oh it's not that bad" argument is
identical to "sexists" claiming the "wage gap" doesn't exist...the very people
you clearly are opposed to by the sounds if it.

~~~
Latty
I never said that the BBC was right with what they posted - clearly it has
issues.

My issue is that they examine this one case in isolation in a way that is
clearly meant to be misleading. I am not 'inventing an enemy' \- please go
look at the other posts on that site - there is a continual drip of articles
about feminism, making feminists out to be crazy and aggressive, all of them
highly misleading.

This is just another example. Instead of 'oh look, another story where a
journalist finds a bit of research and publishes with a massively overstated
headline' it's 'those feminists are at it again, trying to trick us!'. They
could have picked out a ton of these stories, or focused on the issue of
research in general, but instead they pick this one because it suits their
message.

You can ignore the context completely, but it's clear what this is in context.
If a paper constantly put on giant pictures of convicted black people (and
only black people) on the front page with gory descriptions of what they did,
we would call that out, because while technically true, it's clearly
misleading.

Likewise, this site constantly pumping out articles that imply that feminists
are some kind of boogeyman out to get you is attempting to push an agenda, and
that context matters when judging this article.

I'm not saying "it's not that bad" \- it's a real issue. I'm saying that it's
not as bad as the article portrays, because it portrays it without the wider
context that this happens all the time with all sorts of research.

Fake news is a term I hate because it's so easy to throw around. I don't
really like it being used by any 'side', because it doesn't help. Just as with
the 'fake news' itself, calls of 'fake news' just get brushed off with "mine
can't possibly be, I trust this source".

The solution, as always, should be making the damn point about why it's wrong.
Yes, getting people to listen is a problem, but falling back on screaming a
catch-phrase doesn't seem like it'll help more.

~~~
Chris2048
> while technically true, it's clearly misleading

What's misleading here? Are you saying there are as many poor articles that
are "anti-feminist" than "pro-feminist"?

I'd argue that a publication like the BBC would be a _lot_ more careful about
offending feminists, but I admit this is speculative.

Now here's the thing - the feminist concept of "patriarchy" is _literally_ the
demon-haunted world of enemies (wrt men/non-allies) that you are claiming this
article invokes (wrt feminists).

"constantly pumping out articles that imply that feminists are some kind of
boogeyman" \- Do you apply the same criteria of critique to various feminist
blogs and publications (e.g jezebel)? Because I'd like to hear the difference.

In fact, I hear "What about the menz!1!" is offensive now - isn't that exactly
"the wider context" you feel is missing here?

~~~
Latty
What is misleading is the framing of this being purely about the quality of
the story and 'fake news', when in reality it's cherry picking this article to
try and decry feminism.

> Now here's the thing - the feminist concept of "patriarchy" is literally the
> demon-haunted world of enemies (wrt men/non-allies) that you are claiming
> this article invokes (wrt feminists).

No, it's not, because we know there is a real cultural hangover from a time
when women were fundamentally treated as lesser than men. That's not exactly
news, we know that's the case, just as we know that minorities still suffer
from a time we had racism built into our laws and culture. There are _real_
problems there.

> Do you apply the same criteria of critique to various feminist blogs and
> publications (e.g jezebel)? Because I'd like to hear the difference.

Yes, and I'm sure there are a few crazies out there who truly hate men, or
want crazy shit that doesn't make sense - but they are few and far between,
and don't represent mainstream feminism. This site is clearly attempting to
paint normal, mainstream feminism as that crazy kind to get people to reject
it.

> In fact, I hear "What about the menz!1!" is offensive now - isn't that
> exactly "the wider context" you feel is missing here?

It's not - the issue is that a much higher percentage of the people who "want
to talk about men's issues" are using it as an excuse to try and stop talking
about women's issues. I have absolutely no problem with talking about men's
issues - they are real, are a problem, and affect me personally, as I'm a man.
That said, whenever feminists bring up issues, you get the counter cry of
"what about men", which sounds reasonable in the way that the "all lives
matter" counter does - sure, we care about gender equality, not just women.

The issue is that there are more issues that more deeply affect just women,
like there are for minorities in the race issue. The people claiming they want
to shift the focus to "everyone" are often just trying to deny that we need to
focus on these issues of great injustices.

Yes, it's hard, because some of the people saying "I care about men's rights"
have no intention of doing so to 'counter' feminism, but it's hard to tell and
you get kneejerk responses on both sides. It's unfortunate that the "MRA"
label has been most heavily used and is associated with misogynists, not
people who actually care about the issue without other agendas.

Yes, there are unreasonable people on all sides of this, as with pretty much
everything. However, the reality is that discrimination and disadvantage is
still more widespread for women in our culture, and working to fix that is
going to require more effort. This site is clearly trying to push the idea
that isn't the case, and that mainstream feminism is instead trying to
disadvantage and discriminate against men - an accusation that simply doesn't
reflect reality.

Just as the average white person is being barraged with the idea that the
rights of minorities come at their expense, now sites like this are barraging
men with the idea that the rights of women come at their expense. That is a
lie designed to pit people against each other, and make us willing to reject
the causes fighting for us all to get our basic rights.

~~~
Chris2048
> That's not exactly news, we know that's the case

No we don't. Much like the interpretation of the pay gap, there's more
context. In this case:

"we know there is a real cultural hangover from a time when women were
fundamentally treated as lesser than men"

Are we talking about how women were treated in the past, or how they are
treated now?

Assuming the latter, we don't know this at all. Any law or behavior seen as
sexist is now challenged, we have a well funded movement making sure this is
so.

> a much higher percentage of the people who "want to talk about men's issues"
> are using it as an excuse to try and stop talking about women's issues

Says who?

> there are more issues that more deeply affect just women

Not that many - rape and abortion for example, do _not_ just affect women.

> The people claiming they want to shift the focus to "everyone" are often
> just trying to deny that we need to focus on these issues of great
> injustices.

again, prove it. This is just a convenient characterization to shut alternate
discourse. Tell me why _you_ control the intent of the opposition better than
they do?

> It's unfortunate that the "MRA" label has been most heavily used and is
> associated with misogynists

The reason people stay away from this label is that it's demonized, leaving
only true misogynists who care to use it (I'd liken this to the initial uptake
of alternative currencies by criminals).

What do you call a real MRA? The movement was hobbled from the beginning by
claims that feminism was all that was needed, so that an new movement must be
suspect from the beginning - if we allow men to have their own movement it
will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause
under the sun. Men are well represented by their feminists sisters...

> This site is clearly trying to push the idea that isn't the case

By providing evidence for it? What's the difference between having a focus,
and having an agenda? What, for example, is your opinion of "Geek Feminism
Wiki"? I'd assume the same?

Or is you opinion different because it "simply doesn't reflect reality" \- if
your conclusion is that therefore the site go away, aren't you biasing you own
sources based on the conclusion not being the one you want?

> the idea that the rights of women come at their expense

This is sometimes the case. There is a difference between "always"and
"sometimes". Are you saying this site is pushing the hyperbole that womens'
rights are always at the expense of men?

~~~
Latty
> Are we talking about how women were treated in the past, or how they are
> treated now? > Assuming the latter, we don't know this at all. Any law or
> behavior seen as sexist is now challenged, we have a well funded movement
> making sure this is so.

Both, clearly it being normal in the past is part of what drives it now -
culture was formed around it.

Yes, clearly it has gotten better, but it's not a solved problem, and our
understanding of what is a problem gets better over time. Saying sexism is a
solved issue is like saying racism is a solved issue - just because it's far
better than it used to be and we have general acceptance it's a bad thing
doesn't mean it's gone.

> Says who?

Me.

> Not that many - rape and abortion for example, do not just affect women.

I never said they did - you are doing exactly what I discuss - straw-manning
my argument to make me sound more extreme, then claiming I'm wrong. Of course
rape and abortion affect men, but clearly they have a disproportionate affect
on women. In an ideal world we could focus on equality in general and work it
all out, in the real world we have limited time and resources, and focusing on
the biggest disparities is the best way to get closer to the ideal scenario,
which has benefits in terms of culture and expectation, inspiring future
changes and understanding.

> again, prove it. This is just a convenient characterization to shut
> alternate discourse. Tell me why you control the intent of the opposition
> better than they do?

You literally just did it. I don't control it, but it's clear that it's
happening - you can deny that intent all you want, and maybe you truly just
don't see the problem, but you are doing it. By making out that feminists are
crazy people pushing 'anti-men' agendas you are going to reduce the change
that can happen.

> What do you call a real MRA? The movement was hobbled from the beginning by
> claims that feminism was all that was needed, so that an new movement must
> be suspect from the beginning - if we allow men to have their own movement
> it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal
> cause under the sun. Men are well represented by their feminists sisters...

I would say that a 'true' MRA (that is, someone who cares about men's rights,
not someone using it to try and push down women's rights) is someone who tries
to fix social issues that disproportionately affect men (which do exist),
without trying to push down feminism.

I would consider myself someone who cares about men's rights as much as I'm a
feminist. I don't think the two are at all at odds.

> By providing evidence for it? What's the difference between having a focus,
> and having an agenda? What, for example, is your opinion of "Geek Feminism
> Wiki"? I'd assume the same?

I am using 'agenda' to mean a dishonest or ill-informed focus. I have never
seen the "Geek Feminism Wiki" \- it may or may not be reasonable. A quick
glance at the main page doesn't look unreasonable, but who knows. They weren't
the article being highlighted here.

> Or is you opinion different because it "simply doesn't reflect reality" \-
> if your conclusion is that therefore the site go away, aren't you biasing
> you own sources based on the conclusion not being the one you want?

I am saying I looked at this source and found it to be biased. In my comment I
linked an example of an article that is obviously and intentionally
misleading. It's nothing to do with the conclusion I want. If a site claiming
to be 'feminist' had a truly anti-male agenda I would be just as happy to
dismiss that.

> This is sometimes the case. There is a difference between "always"and
> "sometimes". Are you saying this site is pushing the hyperbole that womens'
> rights are always at the expense of men?

Assuming our aim is true gender equality, then the only time that women's
rights will come at the expense of men's is when men's rights are unequal.
Just as the right of the ex-slave's freedom come at the cost of the rights of
the slave-owner to own them.

This site is clearly trying to create a fear of social change which benefits
women. The articles are hyperbolic and focus on the issue at a rate that
exaggerates the issue to readers. We are not at a point of gender equality
yet, so to imply that feminism is wrong when it tries to push for more rights
for women is misleading.

~~~
Chris2048
> clearly it being normal in the past is part of what drives it now

It's not clear, it's just a theory.

I don't know what criteria you have for "solved", but mine, in the context of
equality, is "the problem is no worse for men than women", on average - Though
definitions of 'sexism' and 'equality' also change, making this a complicated
issue (see [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2016/10/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2016/10/17/can-an-algorithm-be-racist-our-analysis-is-more-cautious-
than-propublicas/?utm_term=.6b533e713607) )

> Saying sexism is a solved issue

I didn't say this, I'd at least define "solved". You claimed various things,
the burden of proof is on you.

> is like saying racism is a solved

not really, they are different.

> just because it's far better than it used to be and we have general
> acceptance it's a bad thing doesn't mean it's gone.

It doesn't mean it isn't gone either; and thus we establish that we cannot
infer the current state of society from the historical state of society (
unless you're a fan of Marx ;-> ).

> I never said they did - you are doing exactly what I discuss

No I didn't, i just gave examples illustrating _my_ point. There's little else
for me to do since you didn't give any examples yourself. Again, you made a
claim (issues affecting women more), why not back it up? Or clarify _which_
issues.

> disproportionate affect on women

Ok, let's focus on rape. How does rape _law_ disproportionately affect women?

> You literally just did it

I just did what? I thought I was arguing with you - do you see yourself as
representative of feminism?

> I don't think the two are at all at odds.

What if some feminist ideologies propagate ideas harmful to men?

> I have never seen the "Geek Feminism Wiki"

fair enough.

> the only time that women's rights will come at the expense of men's is when
> men's rights are unequal

This isn't always the case. law regarding reproductive rights will never be
"equal" because the sexes have different relationships to the issue. You have
to assume some definition of equality first.

In any case, I find you slave/master analogy to be more than a little
loaded...

> We are not at a point of gender equality yet

Which definition of equality? The "wage gap" demonstrates inequality for some,
not so for others (equality of consequence vs opportunity).

> We are not at a point of gender equality yet

This is over simplistic. There is no linear 'equality' meter justifying
specific cases of feminist indifference. Give me examples.

If your father punched me in the face yesterday, can I punch you in the face
today? On average, our families are equal.

\--

this thread is getting a bit unweildy, is there a way to break it up a bit
maybe? I wonder if there is a better forum. I seem to remember a while ago
someone mentioned a forum they'd made for discussions like this...

~~~
Latty
You begin by implying that discrimination and disadvantage for women is
equivalent to men. That's just not true, quite clearly. There are a ton of
studies showing material differences and known social issues that affect women
more than men (higher rates of attack/abuse, different expectations in terms
of sexual activity, abortion legislation, expectations of marriage &
childbirth, etc...). If you move beyond the most developed countries, it
quickly falls to horrific levels with things like FGM (yes, I also think
circumcision is a problem that affects men and shouldn't be done, but it's
clearly not equivalent to FGM).

Even if it was equivalent, that doesn't make focusing on women's issues wrong
any more than the Prevent Cancer Foundation is evil for not tackling
Alzheimer's.

> Ok, let's focus on rape. How does rape law disproportionately affect women?

I mean, why is it suddenly limited to law? Rape clearly disproportionately
affects women (more women are raped). Again, this isn't to say there are not
men's rights issues (under-reporting of rape, etc...) there too, but that
doesn't somehow make the women's issues unimportant. It also has outcomes that
can't happen to men (pregnancy). It is viewed differently by society (she
asked for it). In some places the law is burdensome on the victim to nearly
impossible levels. If you truly think that women are not seriously affected by
this issue, you clearly are not looking.

> I just did what? I thought I was arguing with you - do you see yourself as
> representative of feminism?

The thing I said after that statement - dismissing feminism as unnecessary and
making out that it's sexist in reverse to be a feminist.

> What if some feminist ideologies propagate ideas harmful to men?

If they do, they are wrong to do so. However, sites like the one this article
was on propegate the idea that all feminism (or at least a large part of it)
are doing that, when they aren't. The article about the woman's son is an
example - they make a reasonable article sound like man-hating nonsense. This
is to instil fear and make people reject feminism in a knee-jerk response.

> This isn't always the case. law regarding reproductive rights will never be
> "equal" because the sexes have different relationships to the issue. You
> have to assume some definition of equality first.

Equality means people should not be defined by their gender (or anything else
like race, etc...), but rather by who they are. Of course reality has
differences between genders. If most women are shorter and there is a
necessary height requirement to do a job then you will have less women doing
the job - but you shouldn't be rejected _because_ you are a woman. It's simple
in concept - not in execution of the law, obviously, but that's besides the
point - complexity in enforcement doesn't justify villainizing those trying to
improve the situation.

> In any case, I find you slave/master analogy to be more than a little
> loaded...

Of course it's loaded, the issue is loaded. There was a time when women were
literally property, just like slavery. Just as racism is better, but not
solved, the same is true for women's rights.

> Which definition of equality? The "wage gap" demonstrates inequality for
> some, not so for others (equality of consequence vs opportunity).

Again - it's not simple in execution. Clearly the wage gap is caused by
multiple factors that are hard to split (not to mention the potential for the
causes being indirectly the result of sexism themselves). That's just one
issue however. It being complicated doesn't mean we should just give up on
equality.

> If your father punched me in the face yesterday, can I punch you in the face
> today? On average, our families are equal.

A nonsense example against a strawman argument. I'm not claiming equality
means we should just average all wages or something dumb.

~~~
Chris2048
> You begin by implying that discrimination and disadvantage for women is
> equivalent to men

The reason you say 'imply' is because I didn't actually say this.

You said they _aren 't_ equivalent, and I asked for qualification. The
difference is the burden is on you, not me; You can't flip it around and say
"Well, prove it _isn 't_".

Demonstrating anything is hard, especially something this broadly stated,
which is why I never made any such claims in the first place, and if I had I'd
make it a less broad.

But yes, I strongly suspect men and women are equal in many places, but not
world wide, or even in all localities, which is again why I don't want to have
to prove _your_ generalisation; If I feel I can demonstrate something, I'll
narrow down the claim as appropriate.

> There are a ton of studies showing

If you gave a citation, I might be able to get some context from it, e.g
country, culture etc. I'm not keen on assuming a universal form of feminism,
nor do I assume you need to be a feminist to fight gender inequality (much
like you don't need to be religious to be good - "Without [religion], you'd
have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for
good people to do evil things, it takes religion").

Tell me social calculus you are using to determine that "abortion legislation
affects women more than men". Seems to me you need to decide on a very
specific definition of "affect".

> If you move beyond the most developed countries

There is little feminism. It's nice to chalk all women's' rights progress up
to feminism, more "feminism by the dictionary"; but that's not the same as
"feminism the ideology" \- that feminism is a very specific culture of beliefs
and discourse that isn't necessary or sufficient for the improvement of
women's rights. The lack of distinction is on purpose, to make it seem like
there is only only set of beliefs compatible with the development of women's
rights.

> that doesn't make focusing on women's issues wrong any more than the Prevent
> Cancer Foundation is evil for not tackling Alzheimer's

That's true, unless "focusing on women's issue" also involves promoting
ideologies.

In cases where that ideology is harmful to men, it's more akin to a christian
organisation refusing funding for men with HIV.

> why is it suddenly limited to law

The context here is when people say "what about men". in the context of any
subject, this is not done to _change_ the topic, but the change the focus of
the topic. "what about men" in the context of rape, is in the context of rape
law, and how it also affects men.

However, it could also be in the context of prison rape. Maybe that is a
worthy topic, but I'd also argue that it is a _different_ topic (prisoners
rights/care, and the disproportionate number of men in prison).

> that doesn't somehow make the women's issues unimportant.

Agreed, but I didn't say this. _you_ brought up disproportionate effect.

> It is viewed differently by society (she asked for it).

which society? Can you demonstrate this is a common opinion in modern western
countries. I hear this all the time, but have met few people that don't
aggressively disagree, or at least have a more nuanced opinion.

> In some places the law is burdensome on the victim to nearly impossible
> levels.

Which places, in relative to burden on 'perpetrator'. There are other places
where an accusation of rape can be devastating without _any_ burden of proof.
Maybe we should be talking specifics?

> making out that it's sexist in reverse to be a feminist.

Can you quote me on that? I have a broad view of what constitutes "feminism"
(pretty much anything), and a different view on how feminist discourse is
often practiced.

> If they do, they are wrong to do so.

No one will yank their feminist credentials though, and people will still
equate feminism with good; "it _can 't_ be bad, it's feminist". If no one
denies harmful groups the feminist label, it can no longer be assumed that
feminist groups aren't harmful.

> but you shouldn't be rejected because you are a woman

Can I be a surrogate then? Or the legal mother of my child? (I'm male, obv)

> There was a time when women were literally property

Not anymore, and not during my lifetime - so what has this got to do with
anything?

"there must be some subconscious influence from the past" \- or something like
that?

> Just as racism is better, but not solved

again, tell me what you mean by "solved".

> Clearly the wage gap is caused by multiple factors that are hard to split

yet the soundbite is repeated, again and again, by respected feminists without
any nuance. other feminists do not call out this behavior. It took a lot of
effort, by many risking reputation and ridicule, to establish that it _was_
more complicated. Maybe we see different sides of the feminist sphere?

> A nonsense example

Maybe I misinterpreted the following:

> We are not at a point of gender equality yet, so to imply that feminism is
> wrong when it tries to push for more rights for women is misleading.

\--

When I have the time, I think I might break some of this down. The linear
nature of HN isn't ideal for long threads...

~~~
Latty
Your post is essentially a giant attempt to redefine things until you are
right.

Anything good feminism does isn't really feminism. Anything bad anyone does
is. Talking about feminism is therefore bad because it's bad.

Not to mention the circular logic - feminism is bad because she's written an
article about encouraging her kids to be feminists which is bad because
feminism is bad.

You are picking out little bits of my post and arguing against them, but
ignoring the actual points I made.

I'm not going to argue back on each little point because it's irrelevant to
the point I'm trying to make - just noise leading off.

I made a post saying the site was bad because it is portraying feminism
incorrectly - this article, and moreso the article linked are designed to make
men feel persecuted by extremists feminists when that doesn't reflect the
situation.

You argue that the article/site are reasonable, because feminism is now
largely an extremist movement now, and it is anti-men enough to be a problem,
not simply pro-women.

That, I argue, is complete rubbish. Discrimination against women still
happens. The article I linked is not anti-man at all, and your arguments that
it is don't hold water, and are essentially circular reasoning and 'that's how
I see it'.

Please, don't dissect my post and cherry-pick bits to strawman. Stay on topic
to the core point.

~~~
Chris2048
> giant attempt to redefine things until you are right.

That would be the no true scotsman I guess, but actually you invoked this with
your "crazy" feminism. _I 'm_ the one that said there isn't really any such
thing as a singular feminism.

> Not to mention the circular logic

No, the circular logic is in your poor interpretation.

> which is bad because feminism is bad.

This is a consistent argument, about which I say more. It's only circular in
the strict way you stated it, which is a purposeful misrepresentation in order
to portray it as circular.

> ignoring the actual points I made

which are the important ones I ignored? You say a lot that doesn't follow
strictly from the points I made, and don't expand on them. If I responded to
_everything_ you write I'd be doing a lot of the work; for example, you throw
out a load of ungrounded accusations, which I generally ignore.

> made a post saying the site was bad because it is portraying feminism
> incorrectly

> Stay on topic to the core point.

If you want the thread to stay on topic, then stay on topic yourself. I've
generally just responded.

> You argue that the article/site are reasonable, because feminism is now
> largely an extremist movement now, and it is anti-men enough to be a
> problem, not simply pro-women.

Some feminism. And if you can't see the distinction, then probably your
feminism.

> Discrimination against women still happens

This is a low bar. What does it mean? I've stated enough times a need for
specific standards for what constitutes "unequal", so what exactly do you mean
by this?

> cherry-pick bits to strawman

I can only "cherry-pick to strawman" if I misrepresent your arguments (as a
strawman), which did I misrepresent?

~~~
Latty
> That would be the no true scotsman I guess, but actually you invoked this
> with your "crazy" feminism. I'm the one that said there isn't really any
> such thing as a singular feminism.

And yet you are willing to say anyone teaching what they call feminism to
their child is doing wrong because of it.

> This is a consistent argument, about which I say more. It's only circular in
> the strict way you stated it, which is a purposeful misrepresentation in
> order to portray it as circular.

Then why is feminism bad?

~~~
Chris2048
> And yet you are

No, try reading what I've written (multiple times now).

> Then why is feminism bad?

certain forms are bad, for whatever makes them bad. At this point, I'm not
sure you know the difference between a generalization and an absolute
statement.

~~~
Latty
Then how can you possibly defend that site, which is clearly misrepresenting a
feminist with a reasonable viewpoint?

~~~
Chris2048
If there's a misrepresentation going on, that's one thing,

But that the viewpoint here is 'reasonable' is _your_ opinion, not fact.

~~~
Latty
And if I say 'slavery is wrong' \- that's an opinion. I'm going to go ahead
and call someone reasonable when they pen an anti-slavery piece.

You disagree with me about the viewpoint being reasonable - sure. I think you
are horribly wrong. The viewpoint makes sense, and I have explained why I
think that. She is explaining her struggle in dealing with explaining feminism
and dealing with sexism to her future son, given she was never a young boy and
doesn't know it. You haven't explained how you got to that being unreasonable
except implying (but then denying) you think feminism is inherently bad.

~~~
Chris2048
slavery is not an ideology, so it's not a good analogy.

> implying (but then denying) you think feminism is inherently bad.

Then maybe your interpretation is wrong. It seems you ignore specific things I
write, and just respond to you own assumptions.

~~~
Latty
Descriminating against women isn't an ideology - but feminism is. Slavery
isn't an ideology, but anti-slavery is. Again, you are trying to counter the
definitions of what I'm saying, not the actual idea I'm talking about. Your
point was that just because it's my opinion, I can't expect others to share
that opinion. My point is that's bullshit - I can expect people to share my
opinion that killing is wrong, say. I expect people to share my opinion that
descrimination against women is wrong. Trying to nit-pick my analogy is
irrelevant and shows you have no real argument against my point, you just want
to continue the argument and make it sound like you are 'scoring points' by
'proving me wrong'.

You deny my interpretation of the article, but give no reason for that. I have
tried to work it out (the only way I can make sense of your position is if you
think feminism is inherently bad) - and you claim that's not it. If you have a
real reason then tell me. Why is my interpretation wrong? How does the other
article's read make any sense after reading the original article?

~~~
Chris2048
> Slavery isn't an ideology, but anti-slavery is

No it isn't. An ideology is a specific thing.

belief in god is common among (specific) religions, but theism isn't a
religion

> Descriminating against women isn't an ideology - but feminism is

Is the implication that feminism == anti-(female)-discrimination? sounds a lot
like argument by dictionary definition.

If this is what feminism is, or "discrimination" was strictly, and
uncontroversially defined; a lot less would be able to bear that label.

> Your point was that just because it's my opinion, I can't expect others to
> share that opinion

This is correct, To make others share that opinion you need to convince them

> My point is that's bullshit - I can expect people to share my opinion that
> killing is wrong, say

And if you argued that, and people are convinced, then they would share your
opinion. But there would be a lot of assumptions that are _also_ your opinion
that you would need to convince them of along the way - that "feminism" is the
same as _some_ definition of discrimination/unfairness, say.

> Trying to nit-pick my analogy is irrelevant

It's not a "nit", you analogy is totally misapplied. It only applied correctly
according to a personal, unshared definition of "feminism", so what use is it
if it depends upon another assumption? You must first convince someone of the
assumption, before they'll accept another premise based on it.

> you just want to continue the argument and make it sound like you are
> 'scoring points' by 'proving me wrong'.

I doubt anyone but us two are still reading at this point. And I get less and
less out of this.

The more it continues, the more you throw out vague claims, premises and
accusations, without further clarification of previous points; the accusation
that I am motivated by 'point-scoring' for example, without any illustrative
examples, or explanation.

> You deny my interpretation of the article, but give no reason for that

The author assumes a demon-haunted world. At the beginning of this thread we
discussed that, and it seems we disagree on the facts. That's why.

That said, it's not useful to assume my position in the way you describe, or
at least be more diligent in doing so: "feminism is inherently bad" is a
position directly contradicted by things I've said.

