...offensively wrong...
Why wasn't 'wrong' enough? Why should any honestly-presented, based-on-experience opinion like Arrington's generate 'offense'? Why not assume good faith?
Why wasn't 'wrong' enough? Why should any honestly-presented, based-on-experience opinion like Arrington's generate 'offense'? Why not assume good faith?
Personally? I don't think this is something that needs to be fixed. If women want to get into tech, they'll get into tech, and that'll be that. Many already have, and many more will continue to do so. Forcing the issue just keeps people on edge, overreacting to try to keep their perceived latent bigotry under wraps.
Why not assume good faith?
He needs to put on a Crusader uniform and act like he thinks those people are supposed to act: offended. He can't just BE offended, he must explicitly tell you he's offended, and start swinging his sword around so you know what a noble Crusader he is.
If he were responding to a blog post offensive to men, would he have used that language? No, because being offended for yourself isn't noble, it's being offended for others. And telling everyone about it as much as you can. How else will people know what an altruist you are?
(Note to self: avoid pronouns in replies, so anaphor collisions are recognized asap.)