Hacker News Reader

Comment by ddellacosta | Hacker News Reader

Not only was that comment (http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/ruins-of-forgot...) juvenile, it displays exactly the kind of privilege and ignorance which allows sexism to continue in the world of computer science and software engineering, and which dissuades women (and men who dislike this kind of behavior) from participating in the larger world of compsci/software engineering. In many cases, once you realize that these kinds of assholes rule the roost, it's easier just to go away and do your own thing, rather than disagreeing or speaking up. Especially when we get further support like your comment. "Oh, what a card he is!"

It's okay to disagree--I didn't find the "men use Apply(), not for" thing to be particularly offensive myself, honestly--but there are many ways to disagree without resorting to the kind of hateful, caustic language the author used. This is not how well-adjusted adults disagree when having a discussion.

View on HN

I very much doubt the response reflects his attitude to women in computer science, and your comment regarding "this is not how well-adjusted adults disagree when having a discussion" is somewhat moot, as it wasn't a discussion. This is where I believe his anger came from, and where my support of his response also stems. The cause of women in computer science (which as a student in a very male dominated CS department, I wholeheartedly support) is not helped by people derailing everything in the manner in which the commentator did. Like many political and ethical discussions, there is a time and a place. If he had said something outrightly and obviously sexist, yes, call him on it. But as it is, I think he had every right to get annoyed and want to nip that derailing in the bud.

as it wasn't a discussion

It never got the chance to be a discussion, as the author responded to the opening volley with a shotgun blast.

That's his prerogative, of course, as it is his blog, and he can take his ball and go home if he wants to.

The cause of women in computer science (which as student of a CS department, I wholeheartedly support) is not helped by people derailing everything in the manner in which the commentator did.

It's not a derail. It is a topic which came up because of language the author used, and which is an ongoing problem in the community of software developers. While you are free to believe in a platonic ideal of "pure ideas and discussion," it doesn't exist in this messy world of relationships and human language and politics. If you are still a student, I suggest you take a gender/sexual/racial politics course and try befriending some people with very much opposite viewpoints to your own. You may be surprised at your shift in thinking.

But leaving that aside for the moment, let's say the author's main intent was to "nip that derailing in the bud." What do you think the most effective, least hurtful way to approach that would have been?

1) Ignore the comment, 2) assuming he is the administrator of the WordPress blog he writes on, delete/hide the comment, or 3) lash out in a juvenile, sexist, hateful fashion.

I'm going to go with 1 or 2 being better than option 3 any day of the week.

How is

> Apply() is the right way for grown-assed men do things.

sexist?

Am I not reading enough into it or something? As far as I can tell somebody was making a fuss about some non issue and was shot down for it.

You have to take a Herstory class at a Gender Studies Department to understand the blatant privileged sexism dripping from this quote.

It implies that only men are the audience, who would be deciding whether to use Apply() or something else.

Or it implies than in real life men WILL be 95% of the audience, and doesn't artificially alter his language.

Or it implies that whoever reads the text, man or woman, will be wise enough not to give a fuck for such minutiae.

> men WILL be 95% of the audience

It has been postulated, I think plausibly, that the commonality of such language is one reason why this gender disparity continues to exist.

Personally, I agree with this argument. If you disagree, that is fine -- but please show a little bit more respect.

>It has been postulated, I think plausibly, that the commonality of such language is one reason why this gender disparity continues to exist.

The idea that "the commonality of such language" is the reason, is like the idea that video games and action movies create killers and criminals.

Okay, I agree. The ideas indeed have much in common.

My point stands here equally well, for the same reason. (This idea I happen to disagree with, but that's not relevant.) The idea you mentioned is not obviously stupid. I don't see what dismissing the idea without refuting it adds to the conversation.

If you are someone who is not a man, and you read this, how exactly are you supposed to take it? This article is written by a man and features exclusively discussion and pictures of men or languages invented by men. The whole article paints men == software developers/programmers. The only time it talks about a woman is when it tries to demean Lady Gaga for making money while extolling the virtues of male composers.

>This article is written by a man

So?

>features exclusively discussion and pictures of men or languages invented by men

You've got to be kidding me right? The majority of programming languages are made by men, it is statistically likely any discussion of programming languages involve those made by men. You might as well attribute any discussion of programming languages as sexist.

I'm not sure if this response should have a /sarcasm tag on the end because it's more sexist then the original comment.

"and try befriending some people with very much opposite viewpoints to your own." Thank you for your judgements on my friendship circles; those I have relationships with are of very diverse opinions on gender/sexual/racial/wider politicial issues.

His reaction may have been juvenile and extreme, but I certainly don't think it was sexist. What makes you say that?

I disagree. In contemporary professional and technical society, the politically incorrect occupy a disadvantaged position. The person being accused of political incorrectness is automatically assumed to be a person of the worst sort - sexist, unthinking, mean.

Scott Locklin is playing the game of taking proud ownership of his own labels. "I'm not a member of your cool modern hipster club, I'm just a geek who cares about fast computation." For comparison, see also "I'm a man hating dyke, meh, I get more pussy than you."

> In contemporary professional and technical society, the politically incorrect occupy a disadvantaged position.

This is not true in the least. The "politically incorrect", as you put it, get free license to say and do sexist and racist things and its up to the people affected by that to speak up. When those people do speak up, usually their attempt to bring up that point is the subject of criticism.

> The person being accused of political incorrectness is automatically assumed to be a person of the worst sort - sexist, unthinking, mean.

That someone's tears and fears of being called out on a being a sexist is considered more of a problem then their sexist words and behavior is a key part of having privilege.

> For comparison, see also "I'm a man hating dyke, meh, I get more pussy than you."

That statement drips with misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia. If someone wants to take ownership of those aspects of themselves, that's fine, but that person deserves to be ridiculed for it.

The "politically incorrect", as you put it, get free license

No they don't. If they phrase factually correct statements the wrong way, society condemns and penalizes them. Larry Summers is a perfect illustration of this.

That someone's tears and fears of being called out on a being a sexist is considered more of a problem then their sexist words and behavior is a key part of having privilege.

It's not considered "more of a problem" by pretty much anyone.

Accusing someone of sexism is just a rhetorical weapon used by the privileged to make dissenters stop speaking truth to power. A person who's beliefs align them with modern liberalism has an extraordinary privilege - they do not suffer the presumption that they are bad people with evil beliefs. They can make content-free assertions, make ad-hominem attacks against those who disagree, while in contrast those who disagree must present mountains of evidence for their position.

(Oh yes I am being the jerk who uses the language of political correctness against itself.)

As for the statement you describe as "drips with mysogyny, homophobia and transphobia", it's a statement I heard made by a lesbian who was taking ownership of the word "dyke". If you wish to ridicule lesbians who claim "dyke" for their own (or blacks who claim "nigger" for their own) be my guest.

Yep. I was enjoying the article until I read that comment, at which point I lost all respect for the author.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com