Hacker News Reader

Mmmmmm the problem I have found with feminist literature is that it often talks about the advantages of men and the disadvantages of women (which is all fair enough) but it doesn't really talk about the advantages of women and the disadvantages of men. To generalise, it doesn't attempt to critique its own model. I'm all for encouraging equality etc. and do my best to avoid identity politics discussions but at the back of my mind this is what I'm thinking when I over hear a woman/man complain about sexism. e.g. Are you really sure that this is true?

Yes things can be improved. But at some point will critical thinking and the benefit of the doubt be encouraged in society?

Or are we doomed to the media/twitter blowing up things out of proportion and people looking through prisms of victimhood.

Mmmmmm the problem I have found with feminist literature is that it often talks about the advantages of men and the disadvantages of women (which is all fair enough) but it doesn't really talk about the advantages of women and the disadvantages of men.

I don't self identify as a feminist. I never have. I generally agree with this criticism.

It’s an evolving identity. If you think about what women have been mostly doing just in America, it’s been fighting to get legal voting rights, and then fighting to get out of the house and into the workplace, and then fighting to legally get rights for contraception and abortions, and then fighting gender discrimination and harassment (and this is just in the last 120 years). This is their identity at the moment, and I try to be patient with that fact.

If all you’ve been doing is fighting for your damn life as a group, then this will define your character until new types of challenges balance out your origins. This is true for a lot of groups that have consistent struggle. I cannot fault them for being combative.

In contrast, it was first in expressly feminist academic literature that I first encountered the idea that men are disadvantaged in ways that are systemic and by design.

That's interesting. Do you have any recommendations on books/papers here?

Why was that flagged?

Here's a link to the website for The Red Pill, a documentary by a feminist who talked to men's rights activists. You may not agree with the subjects of the documentary, but the perspective is interesting, and was interesting to the feminist filmmaker who created it.

I guarantee whoever flagged me for recommending it did not watch it himself (yes, it was a dude)

http://theredpillmovie.com/

You might find the documentary The Red Pill illuminating

> One of the really good things for me about hanging on HN is hearing "X happens to me too as a man because (reasons) and has nothing to do with gender."

I was interested to note something in the hiring page for the company wiki where I worked once.

It said the biggest red flag, an automatic no-hire, was a candidate confidently "explaining" things he didn't actually know. This was a big enough problem to be called out in the hiring policy. Interviewers were on notice to watch out for candidates who claimed to know something, but whose explanations were pure bluffing. Happens all the time.

The feminist literature, of course, refers to this as "mansplaining", except that mansplaining by definition refers to an explanation delivered to a woman. How is it different from the ordinary behavior? Well, it isn't.

You aren't necessarily wrong per se that it's no different, but this is my view of what "mainsplaining" is:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613161

I don't think I ever accuse anyone of "mansplaining" because I don't think that's likely to be helpful in remedying the problem. But I do think the use case that men can be oblivious to the stuff women are dealing with and can kind of pick on women and can then act like she's just not trying hard enough or something if she doesn't jump on his suggestion as a brilliant solution is a common enough occurrence that it isn't unreasonable for there to be a word specifically for that pattern.

It's a word useful to kvetch to allies about it happening. It's not a word useful to build bridges, explain to the people doing it why their random unsolicited advice to a woman can be actively harmful, etc.

Edit: And I am not trying to pick a fight with you or something. I do realize the context here is you are probably agreeing with me in some fashion. (Turns out I'm still not perfect and I apologize if this reads as fighty. It's not intended to be.)

A difficulty of being a minority of any stripe must be the not knowing.

Was the architect dismissive of my ideas because I am a woman? Because he shoots down everyone’s ideas? Because he has a specific problem with me? Because my ideas are bad?

One of the greatest challenges I had to overcome in my career was not reading too much into the actions of others. When you do you can easily be offended by everything.

A difficulty of being a minority of any stripe must be the not knowing.

It's incredibly hard to keep having an open mind, keep trying to figure out "Is this actually constructive criticism or toxic bullshit?" and keep trying to engage in good faith in the face of certain patterns. It's just exhausting. It takes all your time and mental and emotional energy to try to sort it out, which detracts from putting energy into things that will actually advance your career.

You can spend hours and hours wondering "What did he mean by that?" in an exchange that lasted under a minute. And you may never figure it out.

It's vastly easier to just start erring on the side of "You're all just sexist pigs!" Though, unfortunately, that seems to make the problem more intractable and unresolvable, but it makes is a little easier on a day-to-day basis to cope in the face of a situation that is inherently excessively hard to parse and navigate.

> It's vastly easier to just start erring on the side of "You're all just sexist pigs!"

So if we lived in a world were the concept of sexism was not as well developed as it is now, at least here in the US, you wouldn't have this internal conflict? Is this not enough reason to not engage in discussion and encourage others (presumably women) not to engage in behavior that keeps sexism at the very forefront of thought?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

That reminds me of when I was very young, when I felt treated unfairly I often thought a lot about what I might have done wrong to deserve that kind of treatment. Naturally, in time I also learnt that sometimes people just have a bad day or pent-up aggressions or are simply dicks, and to be wary of projecting too much meaning into these negative interactions.

I strongly agree that there’s a language dimension to this. We don’t have good enough language for lots of passion-invoking social debates. Sexism and racism come top of mind.

For example, an enormous amount of misunderstanding, bad communication and fraught decision making has resulted from the social activist redefinition of “racism” that has gained prominence in the last decade or so. And there are still so many people talking past each other completely obliviously. A richer taxonomy of terms and ideas could help everyone reach understanding.

It seems like the same dynamic as you’re describing in these dialogues on sexism.

For quite a few in this space, reaching an understanding is the opposite of their goal. Intentionally obtuse word meanings that shift constantly to match whatever one party wants them to match is a staple of these discussions. The last thing such people want is a richer vocabulary where everything is clearly defined. Understanding isn't the goal, getting their way is the goal.

Intentionally misunderstanding is a tool for accomplishing that goal.

It's been enormously helpful for me, in contrast, to have female colleagues, and watch the things they go through that I don't. It's easy to say "I accept that this is true because the statistics say it", and another to discuss that no, "X thing", literally never happens to me.