
Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again - decklin
https://medium.com/about-work/82978662b2d6
======
potatolicious
I feel like author went off the rails in a few places, and there were more
digs at White Men than I thought was justified (note: I'm a non-white male).
It's become somewhat vogue to use "White" as a pejorative and synonym with
"bigot", and I'm not okay with that.

If we want people to stop seeing us as our collective racial/gender/cultural
stereotypes, then we can't engage in the same shenanigans ourselves.

 _That being said_ , this post struck a chord with me. As a pretty vanilla
straight male, I can't identify with much of the gender issues she posed, but
her blog post reminds me heavily of trying to discuss race on HN.

I frequently see some _incredibly racist things_ being posted around here in
the comments, and I've basically stopped calling them out. You see a lot of
the same reactions in this community as what she describes - a lot of "why are
you so angry", a lot of trivialization of the issue, a lot of unexamined
privilege, and _lots_ of people reacting very defensively as if simply by
pointing out inequities I'm painting a giant bullseye on your racial-majority
forehead.

These problems exist. They are real. If you are not part of a racial minority
you probably won't fully comprehend what it's really like. But that's okay, no
one expects you to fully grok it, and no one is calling _you_ out just because
you're [insert majority race in whatever locale]. What we _do_ want is some
modicum of understanding, some modicum of respect, and less middle-brow
dismissals of things that millions upon millions of people are experiencing.

So yeah, I think the general thesis of this post is sound. I just wish she
were less vitriolic about it - but honestly, having gone through similar
things (in a racial, rather than gender, context) I can see why she is.

~~~
polemic
Going "off the rails" is, I believe, a fair response. It's easy to call out
anger when it's a response the relentless passive oppression. But anger is the
correct response. Often it's the only way to break through the heavy
repressive blanket of faux-politeness.

Otherwise, I agree with you =D

~~~
potatolicious
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with the angry tone of the piece. That part is
fine - IMO the opportunity for sober, quiet debate about sexism in IT has
sailed.

We work in an industry where blatant sexism can be seen around every corner,
and yet every time it is (politely, respectfully, intelligently) brought up
the overwhelming community response has been deplorable.

We work in an industry where a large portion of the population does not
believe sexism is a real, substantial problem. I think getting angry is about
all anyone's got left.

That said, that's not the "off the rails" part I was referring to.
Discrimination is, despite the common lay narrative, not frequently about
_hating_ anyone, it's about treating individuals by the (alleged)
characteristics of some class they belong to. It's about treating someone
based on Asian stereotypes if they're Asian, or female stereotypes if they're
women, etc etc.

It is an incredibly suffocating environment to be in, where every corner you
turn you must first prove "I am more than your mental construct of my class"
before you can be treated like an individual.

So it would be doubly hypocritical for those of us fighting these injustices
to engage in the same. "White male" is stereotyped with "bigot", but we need
not engage in persisting these stereotypes, and we need not paint individuals
with large brushes based on the alleged transgressions of their (involuntarily
chosen!) groups. This is, after all, exactly what is frequently done to us.
The off the rails part is the repeated use of "White male" as a synonym for
bigotry and intolerance.

------
lutusp
Quote: "I am less and less interested in engaging with the white male
establishment, even though it’s been hard to resist with the deluge of stupid
racist, misogynist bullshit they’ve been spewing lately."

Translation: because sexism is a problem limited to men, any rhetorical excess
is justified by the victim class.

I wonder if there's an irony gene, and whether it may sometimes be completely
deactivated in some individuals.

~~~
readme
Agreed. The only person I see stereotyping or blaming any biological group is
the author of the article.

Not a single example or well articulated point, just diatribe.

~~~
eevee
You need examples?

Are we on the same website?

------
glenra
"derailing" is a very strange concept.

In a conversation, you generally don't get to declare all your premises off-
limits, nor do you get to determine unilaterally what the other participants
will find most interesting to talk about. Sometimes people will consistently
disagree with one or more assumptions you make. If they do, it might be
because your assumption is _wrong_ or because you _did a poor job of
explaining it_. In which case it's worth spending some time on that area of
contention. And sometimes what you find most interesting about a subject won't
be the same thing other people find most interesting - and that's _okay_.

As near as I can tell, complaints about "derailing" translate into "I wanted
to _make a speech_ , but the other guy kept insisting on wanting to _have a
conversation_." Is that all there is to it?

~~~
theorique
_As near as I can tell, complaints about "derailing" translate into "I wanted
to make a speech, but the other guy kept insisting on wanting to have a
conversation." Is that all there is to it?_

Pretty much, yeah. Derailing implies that there exist "rails" on which the
conversation needs to go (i.e. the 'agenda' of the person making the speech).
If you don't engage his or her central point, then you risk being accused of
derailing.

Now, if you really, really don't want to hear what they have to say, that's
one thing - you should probably just tell them so rather than passive-
aggressively shift the subject of conversation.

But if a shift in the subject of conversation happens naturally, it's not
derailing, it's just the natural flow of conversation.

~~~
glenra
Is there a name for _having that sort of agenda_? If not, can we call it
"railing"?

Does the person with the agenda explicitly SAY "I have this agenda and want to
only talk about X and want you to say Y about it", or is the listener expected
to magically intuit the intent?

If the listener "really really doesn't want to hear", doesn't that imply they
already know what's going to be said, and hence that it's not worth saying it?
And doesn't that in turn suggest that shifting the subject is more likely to
be informative and productive than staying on the original topic?

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why railing would be considered LESS
rude than derailing. Does railing exist in some sort of additional explanatory
context I'm missing, like as part of a roleplaying game or as a form of
therapy?

~~~
theorique
I've never heard it described in those terms. It seems to crop up fairly
frequently in areas such as feminism, "social justice", or atheism - topics
which are frequently discussed online, which have vocal opponents that repeat
certain arguments, and where the opponents tend to use certain rhetorical
techniques in arguing.

See, for example, "Derailing for Dummies":
[http://www.derailingfordummies.com/](http://www.derailingfordummies.com/)

As well as a counterargument:
[https://feministrag.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/derailing-
for-d...](https://feministrag.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/derailing-for-dummies-
some-debunks/)

"Railing" is necessarily context dependent. Using this particular article as
an example, the "agenda" is women's issues in the tech industry in the USA
(and, presumably, other developed countries). I suspect it would be
interpreted as derailing, for example, to remark that women in the USA are
(speaking in a worldwide context) relatively very privileged over many people
in the third world, both men and women.

Ultimately, a conversation requires two parties. If someone is speaking over
you and doesn't want to hear what you have to say because of their agenda, or
their anger, or whatever, that's not a conversation, it's a lecture. They
might be speaking on an important topic, or transmitting important
information, but no one should pretend it's a dialogue.

If it's twitter, or blogs, or similar, you might as well just withdraw. In
fact, you see people do this all the time - back away from conversations when
they realize that the other party does not consider it a dialogue but only a
means for them to transmit their own 'perfect' opinions to other people.

------
lutusp
Quote: "At the same time, literally thousands of white men have engaged me
solely to derail, discredit and co-opt conversation about systemic
inequalities and the lived experiences of marginalized and oppressed people in
our industry."

The solution is so obvious that I am astonished that people like the author
haven't thought of it -- stop whining, stop listening to haters of both
genders, and start schools and companies with the express aim of teaching
women technology, and then employing women. Women helping women.

There's no rational basis for the idea that women have any deficits that would
prevent this idea from working, indeed all evidence points in the opposite
direction: when motivated, women easily produce first-rate technology and
personally enriching experiences as well.

There's just one tiny, little, trivial, detail -- women must stop playing the
victim and blaming men for their problems. This is simultaneously necessary
and fair, because the problems women face in 2013 aren't caused by men,
they're caused by women.

Women have the right to vote, the right to self-determination, the right to an
education, and 60% of the money:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-
the...](http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-
america-2012-2)

Quote: "More women are taking the reins on their finances, holding 60 percent
of all personal wealth and 51 percent of all stocks in the U.S. ..."

Want to keep feminism from becoming a mildly amusing historical footnote?
_Stop whining, start networking_. Anyone who thinks men are the networking
experts haven't watched women communicate information they consider important.

The single biggest obstacle to gender equality are women who undermine other
women by trying to blame men for problems women can easily solve for
themselves.

~~~
eevee
This comment is written like a helpful suggestion, but the subtext—"stop
whining", "women helping women", "blame men"—reads as though you just don't
want it to be your problem. You don't disagree that women are marginalized,
but you still tell them to just go bootstrap themselves and accuse them of
playing the victim.

There are plenty of women running programs designed to help other women in the
tech sector, but you propose them as though you're unaware that they even
exist, which speaks volumes about how easy it is for them to make an impact.

Can men just stop being dicks to women? That seems way simpler than starting
schools and companies for teaching women how to overcome all the men who are
being dicks to them. It's so obvious, I'm astonished you haven't thought of
it.

~~~
lutusp
> ... reads as though you just don't want it to be your problem.

Actually, as a matter of fact, _it isn 't my problem_. Women have rights,
freedom, and 60% of the money in society. All they need to do is stop whining,
stop listening to negative voices from inside and outside their own community,
and choose another approach.

> Can men just stop being dicks to women?

Ah, yes, the default feminist agenda -- it's all the fault of men. That's why
I suggest setting up a cooperative economic and technological system, or
network if you will, and solve the man problem that way.

Imagine that you're an African-American slave in the U.S. about the time of
the Civil War. The problem is obviously slave owners, who will rationalize
their behavior as they continue to oppress you, while explaining that it's for
your own good.

What are your options? You can complain about the master some more, hope he
will eventually change his behavior, or you can enter the underground railroad
and change your environment and your prospects.

What's your choice? Complain about your mistreatment at the hands of a
congenital racist, risk worse treatment as the biggest change in U.S. history
unfolds around you, or move on?

> That seems way simpler than starting schools and companies for teaching
> women how to overcome all the men who are being dicks to them.

Yes -- the problem is men, so women don't have to do anything except complain
and pose as victims.

> It's so obvious, I'm astonished you haven't thought of it.

The problem here isn't what I haven't thought of, it's what you haven't
thought of.

During my around-the-world solo sail
([http://arachnoid.com/sailbook](http://arachnoid.com/sailbook)) I had many
adventures. One of the most memorable with respect to the present topic was in
a small Egyptian village, where as evening came on, people would gather around
the community TV set and watch American TV, which is very popular there.

One of the shows included scenes in which a woman would speak up for her
rights -- she might shout at a man who was mistreating her, or simply leave.
Normal and justified behavior in the West, but not part of the lives of
Egyptian women. I remember how those scenes were received by the village
women, and how they did what they could to keep from cheering when they saw a
woman speak up for herself.

But you know what? In that society, those women are far from being able to
exercise what we might regard as basic human rights. But women in this society
don't have that excuse -- women possess, and can exercise, political and
economic power, and they can vote with their feet. Or they can try to blame
all their problems on men.

The problem is not that women don't have power and rights. The problem is that
women won't exercise them. It's much easier to say, "if only men would be
nicer," and carry on posing as victims.

Sorry -- no sale.

~~~
abadidea
Thank Goddess you weren't around during the American Civil War so you could
make a huge show of NOT participating as a white member of the Underground
Railroad because the plight of black slaves just wasn't your fucking problem.

Allow me to use the power you think I have to say: fuck you, thanks for
nothing, jerk face. If it's "not your problem" then you are actively
increasing my problems.

All my educators were men. Everyone in my chain of command from manager to CEO
are men. About 90% of my industry peers are men. If they were all anti-woman
then WHAT GODDAM POWER WOULD I HAVE? But they're not. Some of them even go so
far as to acknowledge the general state of inequality might be within THEIR
power to influence. And so here I am: a woman with a computer science degree,
working information security, because not only did some men choose not to use
their power to block me from getting a foothold, THEY DECIDED TO BE ACTIVELY
FEMINIST and help me pull through when the misogynists were telling me to kill
myself because I was a worthless slut and actively trying to prevent my career
from ever starting with harassment, degradation, and slander.

Maybe I'm not your problem. But if you are just gonna kick back and relax and
let misogyny sort itself out then you. are. mine.

~~~
lutusp
> fuck you, thanks for nothing, jerk face.

Very constructive. The above is why this is your problem, not mine. Only one
of us lives in civilization.

> If it's "not your problem" then you are actively increasing my problems.

And you are a career victim. Every woman alive, along with her legitimate
burdens, has to bear the pointless weight of your infantile sexism and
ignorance.

> Maybe I'm not your problem. But if you are just gonna kick back and relax
> ...

For the record, I've contributed over a million dollars to feminist causes
over the years -- NARAL, Planned Parenthood, others. I singlehandedly started
and supported a women's health clinic in a rural location that desperately
needed it. As a result, I received regular death threats from the men in that
town, but every time I heard from women (the beneficiaries) about that
project, I got to hear how I wasn't doing enough, how they needed more from
their white male oppressors. Finally, after years of the same, I gave up. I
realized I was dealing with perpetual voluntary infants.

And I wonder if you even know what you sound like. Women asked for the vote
and got the vote. Women asked for civil rights and got civil rights. Women's
status has improved to the degree that they control the majority of public and
private financial resources. But instead of accepting personal responsibility
like grown-ups, they continue to act like petulant children -- "Fix it,
daddy!"

In 2013, the real sexists are women. Men can be retrained away from stone-age
attitudes, for the best possible reason -- it's in their interest. But some
women have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into a position of adult
personal responsibility. Unfortunately, in public fora like this one, those
particular women, even though the minority, tend to be heard out of all
proportion to their actual numbers, and they end up drowning out the voices of
those who would instead say, "I'm ready to deal with reality on its own
terms."

The problem is not that women won't that no for an answer, those days are
justly behind us. _The problem is women won 't take yes for an answer_. No
matter how many times women's demands are met in full, one quickly hears more
demands, all calculated to shift women's legitimate burdens onto men.

Women have the majority of the money, they have full civil rights, they enjoy
the fruits of a century of "yes, yes, whatever you say, yes!" It's time for
women to stop whining about how badly they're being treated and _accept
personal responsibility_.

~~~
eevee
It's mindboggling that you can simultaneously call women children _and_ assert
that men aren't causing any problems for women.

You're really focused on civil rights and the vote (like it should be
_impressive_ that those aren't restricted to white male landowners), but by
far the biggest grievances I hear from women are _cultural_. Being assumed to
be anything but engineers because girls are bad at math. Being hit on in
contexts that are wildly inappropriate or where turning someone down seems
like a bad idea. Being blamed for the actions of their male significant others
because everyone "knows" women control men. (I don't much appreciate that one,
either.) Having committees of men vote down the women's health budget in one
of the largest states. Being called children for still having to deal with a
barrage of "remember your place" subtext and not really appreciating it. You
know, little things.

Of course those women told you they needed more. _You were getting death
threats for helping them._ That pretty clearly screams that something is still
deeply wrong.

There are plenty of women working to help women—some of them the best way they
know how, by _talking about it_ —but when the main problem is with the
culture, the quick solution is to stop perpetuating it.

------
Fuzzwah
I'm a white male. I'm a husband. I'm about to become a father (we're avoiding
finding out the sex until birth, so there's a 50% chance I'm the father of a
daughter). I work in IT. I've worked with a few women. Some of been excellent,
some haven't. Just the same as the men I've worked with.

I tried to work out what Shanley never, ever wanted to hear again, and I
figure that it is the following 7 words.....

"I don’t know much about this, but"

However, my follow on from the but is; I'd like to get educated. The following
are the points I'm taking out of this article (please let me know if I missed
any, I am seriously not being sarcastic or a jerk).

\- do not try to defend the "white male establishment" which I apparently am
part of. (I do not feel part of it, but I guess I get lumped in it until I
prove I'm not part of it?)

\- do not attempt to tell a woman what she is feeling (luckily, I've learned
this lesson a long time ago)

\- do not talk about my experiences with women in IT (they are probably
outliers like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer)

\- be able to read vague complaints about general sexism with out thinking
they're targeted at me

They're fairly easy things for me to work on.

I would actually be interested in advice from Shanley on what book I should
pick up to educate myself with.

A wall of passionate words with out a good call to action for white males to
pick up on is frustrating to me. I want to try and help, but beyond being the
decent human I've been relying on, I'm at a loss.

~~~
theorique
_do not talk about my experiences with women in IT (they are probably outliers
like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer)_

Oddly, 99.99% of women in IT are not senior executives of large companies like
these two. I think what Shanley's article meant is, you aren't supposed to
point at these two and claim that everything's cool for women in IT, _because_
they are outliers.

Presumably, it's reasonable to employ anecdotes about the female CTO you
worked with, or the female developers on your team with whom you have personal
experience?

------
vukmir
Men: "Why Are You So Angry?

She: "I cannot even tell you how sick I am of men telling me how I feel."

I have to admit ... I'm not a native speaker of English, but asking a question
and "telling you how to feel" are two different things.

TIP #1: Don't call someone an asshole if you want his help. Just saying.

EDIT: Getting downvoted because I think that asking a question and telling
someone how she feels are two different things?! Interesting...

~~~
kevingadd
"Why are you so angry" in native English is not a question; it's a question
tied to an implication.

The question implies that the person being asked the question is angry. Most
answers involve accepting the implication as correct.

The stereotypical example used to demonstrate this in English is probably
'have you stopped beating your wife'. 'Yes' implies that you have a wife and
you used to beat her; 'No' implies that you have a wife and you _still_ beat
her.

Structuring questions this way is a bad idea because it puts the person you're
asking on edge. It's also just kind of a shady way to use the English
language. (Nothing against people who aren't familiar with this particular
nuance, of course)

~~~
vukmir
I'm aware of it being tied to an implication, but I don't agree with you that
"why are you so angry?" is in the same category as the example you gave ("have
you stopped beating your wife").

In my view, if I ask you "why are you so angry?" I perceive you as being
angry.

~~~
dragonwriter
> In my view, if I ask you "why are you so angry?" I perceive you as being
> angry.

If you want to ask a question about the reason for the facts on which you make
that inference without telling someone how they feel, you ask the question
about the reason for the facts, rather than asking them to explain a mental
state that you have inferred about them.

~~~
vukmir
Again, I'm not a native speaker of English, but the obvious way to ask you for
the reasons that make you angry is to ask you: "Why are you so angry?" I'm
still learning English and would appreciate if you would be kind and teach me
an alternative way to ask that question.

~~~
dragonwriter
The problem is not with the way of asking the question.

The problem is with the assumption about the other person's feelings
underlying the premise of the question.

------
ianstallings
That article is filled with racist vitriolic nonsense. Any real issues are
swept aside with the anger broom so she can make room for her profane fury.
Why would I ever engage a person that acts like that in debate, man or woman?

------
__--__
This reminds me of a child having a temper tantrum.

Do you want to know why men in general are having problems being feminist
allies? Because feminism, at its core, is hatred of men. Why would we want to
be part of a group that shows unfiltered contempt for us because we were born
male?

------
nsxwolf
Holy crap this is an unpleasant read.

~~~
prutschman
That's the point.

------
bonaldi
Woman: "Tone policing is destroying communication"

Hacker News: "Don't you dare use that tone with us!"

------
a3voices
I think more men are successful at tech because more enter the field. At my
university, which was actually 56% female (IIRC), my electrical engineering
classes almost entirely consisted of males.

~~~
prutschman
I think it's worth looking at why more men enter the field.

I think it's also worth looking at why the participation of women in computer
science in particular, as opposed to other technical fields, decreased on a
relative basis after initial increases.[1]

[1]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html?_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html?_r=0)

~~~
a3voices
I'd wager that it's a variety of factors that are mostly cultural.

~~~
cliveb
It is. Here’s the science of why by Heidi Grant Halvorson PhD citing research
by Carol Dweck PhD. [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-
success/2011...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-
success/201101/the-trouble-bright-girls)

