“People like her should kill themselves”: Discussing sexism in tech
leahweitz.com
leahweitz.com
Sexism is an important issue, but posting this article (as opposed to the previous one you posted) will likely attract more negative comments than the discussion you intended to start.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2939 may explain the vocalization of negativity on your blog post.
I'm sorry about what happened. No one deserves that. Pay no attention to the haters. Just write about your experiences and ignore those who keep you down.
They're either oblivious to what it's like to be a target of incessant cultural bullshit, or are aware that it's bad but say that because "it's better now than when women couldn't vote" it's pointless complaining about it. Then after that there's normally some examples of the author being called whiney/bitchy/SJW/some other personal attack.
Bonus points if it comes from a <3 day old account which still has twitter egg as its logo.
That and people are just angry, so very angry.
This is just what happens when you exist publicly on the Internet. It's sad, but it's reality. And it's not just men doing it. It's not just trolling.
I can only hope that she takes her audience's outpouring of positivity to heart.
People being sexist/racist online is reality in the same way that apartheid was reality, the way the Berlin Wall was reality. Sometimes we get to change shit.
It would certainly explain why there hasn't been a change yet. But that doesn't change the facts: there will always be assholes on the Internet looking to get a rise out of someone, or people who blindly follow others in order to feel like they're belonging. If you see someone who's a moron, just be the bigger person and leave them alone. If you feed them, they multiply.
That's why the literature on the Internet agrees almost unanimously: don't feed the trolls. Don't even give them the time of day. It's not worth your time.
(just make sure you're not discounting legitimate opinions in the process)
I'm not comparing issues; I'm criticising your "it's reality" argument that implies that it can't be changed. Those are examples of sucky things that were changed. If you're worried about comparing issues, fine, swap those examples for any in which group behaviour has changed.
> don't feed the trolls
Your responses seem to be based on a few assumptions, (1) that this abuse is primarily the act of 'trolls', (2) that 'trolls' are an unchangable reality, and (3) that it's a positive thing to do to tell victims of 'trolling' that it was their own behaviour that should be adjusted.
It may attract more trolling but pretending it isn't happening also doesn't generally deter the determined.
I disagree. I think this is a useful and thoughtful continuation of the previous article. The horrible responses to an article about horrible behaviour is salient.
Yes, it'll attract more trolls, but it'll also stimulate more useful discussion and provides more useful information. Good on her.
Face to face; on the phone; via e-mail and IM; you're interacting with an actual human being; an individual person you can choose to form a relationship with, or to simply not bother with any more. I think that most, if not all people do this. It's how you end up with friends, how you end up drifting away from other people.
To me, at least, comments on the Internet live in a bubble. They just don't work in the same way. It's a random snippet of information that doesn't really link to a personality. To spend time thinking about 'Internet trolls', to lambast them, it's a waste of time, a complete nonsense (unless perhaps you're a moderator of a forum or similar).
I think that focusing on that is likely to lead people down the wrong path.
In real life, there are probably places you don't go as a (white/black/gay/lesbian/male/female/software developer/whatever). At least perhaps you don't reveal those parts of yourself (obviously, some of those are harder than the others!) Because there are people out there, that don't want you. And that's... to me, that's fine. Go to a working man's pub, park your Ferrari outside and flash the links? It's just not the done thing.
edit 2: (Interestingly enough, I realised after posting this that most of the comments in the post above seem to be of this sort. They're not really directed at Leah; they read almost like a group chatting amongst themselves, like they're looking for someone else to agree...)
But the Internet is that place, everywhere. All walks of life, all people. And they're going to disagree with you; you're going to disagree with them; and perhaps you can't reason it out. I think that's perfectly healthy and it's good that we have that diversity in the human experience.
edit: I wanted to make clear that I do have... sympathy, for lack of a better term, with the issues here. Not that it matters ever so much, as Random Internet Commenter #3384492233 ;)
What I mean by that is simply that I often find that people can be incredibly unaware of the impact of their presence and/or actions; and I don't think this comes from a lack of empathy, because most people _are_ empathic, just not towards everyone.
I'm all for anonymous trolls having a bit a pun fun. But these commenters _aren't_ trolls. They seem to genuinely believe their inane comments and I think that's partly because they're just not aware of their own impact.
What's going on?
However, they are very well outnumbered by the indifferent and the good.
However, please consider that when something you post starts out by making a gender distinction (ie. "Things men have actually said..."), you are inviting everyone that has an investment in binary gender identity politics to either attack you (bitch) or support you (so brave).
I'd be interested in a post on what is "men" and why it is important to start out dividing everyone into only two groups (where, according to the premise of your argument, one will be wrong [and therefore, the other: right]).
What would be wrong with the title, "Things some people have actually said..."?
Edit: Wow, downmods with no rebuttal or comment. Typical HN.
Having said all of that, I still don't see the real value in calling out the gender of the people who made those comments. The comments are bad and they should be exposed for what they are. But, would they really be acceptable if a woman said them? Of what import is the gender of the people making the comments?
`define sexism`:
sex·ism
ˈsekˌsizəm
noun: sexism
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
The reason I believe you were down-voted is because you were originally trying to steer attention towards "binary gender roles" instead of "sexism in tech". You may not have intended that, but it comes off as derailing.
This topic is "racism in tech", not "let's discuss binary gender roles and what is 'men'".
How was my comment not on-topic? The first article started with a sexist title, all while declaiming sexism. It made statements about people with a perceived gender.
And your attempt to make that observation "sexism" seems to be ignoring a big part of the point. This isn't stuff that "people" say to her. It isn't stuff that might be said by transgender people. It's stuff that's said specifically by men.
Could it be said by women? Sure. It probably is, sometimes. Could it be said by a transgender person? Sure. But Leah perceives this stuff as being coming from men, not coming from people.
It's not sexism when it's an actual observation of specific actual events that are actually happening to someone...
And the topic is still sexism in what men say to women at trade shows, not the latent sexism inherent in the binary concept of gender.
My point is that the responses that were generated, both hate and faux support, are almost entirely predictable from the title of the article alone. We know that people tie their identities closely to a gender and like to group together along those identities. So, when you make a statement like "Things men have actually said...", you have set the stage for people to come down on the side of whatever group they identify with.
I think that is counter-productive. It seems to only be propagating the real (at least, what I perceive to be) problem, which is that people will find characteristics in specific instances and then begin projecting feelings on to people that they think have similar characteristics, even when those feelings are unwarranted. I'm not saying that Leah has done this, I'm saying that others will begin to do this when they come across an appropriate trigger.
+! for the argument for pushing "people shouldn't treat people that way" over "men shouldn't treat women that way" style messaging.
Can you please clarify this? I just went over the words in the highlighted quotes from the first article. 1 of the 8 statements had any reference to gender.
1
“People like him should kill themselves” - 6 Results on Google
Way to kill the gender equality Leah!
Also, what's your point?
My point was that the statement is not a gendered one, both sides deal with it, and it's especially rare given the lack of results for the phrase.
People don't bat an eye when they call a guy a neckbeard. An unattractive guy trying to flirt? He's a creeper (regardless if he crossed any societal "lines").
But feminism is a hot point and any criticism of it or any defense of man is labeled as a misogynist woman hater (redundancy needed to emphasis the point) and all around scum of the Earth. Anyone pointing out that "ignore verbal harassment and quit letting it control your life; because it isn't going anywhere" is harassed themselves.
I live in the real world. In the real world harassment, murder, and all other sorts of nasty unwanted terrible shit happens and has been happening for centuries. It will continue for centuries until humanity becomes a hive mind or starts to punish for wrongthink and thoughtcrimes.
What I find especially sad and pathetic is how many females get written off entirely if they don't buy into the groupthink and worship the theoretical feminist bible. Somehow those women aren't women or have been brainwashed by the patriarchy. Maybe, just maybe, but if the entire world is "the problem". Maybe the world isn't the problem?
The thing is that it appeared on a blog about sexism, therefore it is sexist. If it appeared on a blog about homophobia, it would be homophobic. If it appeared on a a blog about racism, it would be racist.
You just ignored the other comments and the context and tried to say: "This one comment isn't inherently gendered therefore..."
My question is: Therefore what?
>In my experience, 99% of men and women in the tech industry are decent and genuinely well-meaning people.
And 1% of people are terrible people. The end.
If I wrote an article about how awful a minority of women are in the tech community to LGBT I'd be harassed by a number of feminists and an even larger amount of trolls. But I'm a realist who knows terrible people won't be going away anytime soon and don't let the few vehement assholes ruin things for me.
She's shown that 1% of a population can cause her enough frustration to write an article. Queue the trolls. Give them attention and they'll come.