I don't know what this means:
> This also seems like a straightforward example of how mainstream feminism is bad at intersectionality.
Can you explain? What are they bad at?
> This also seems like a straightforward example of how mainstream feminism is bad at intersectionality.
Can you explain? What are they bad at?
In particular, it seems to me like the author is part of a group of people for whom certain social cues fall on dry ground, and her critics are part of a group of people for whom those social cues take root and flower like a weed. By themselves, there are advantages and disadvantages to participating in tech communities as a member of either of these communities. But they also influence how the experience of other systems of oppression affect them -- like the sexist reviewer mentioned in the article -- and it's not very helpful to think of a one-size-fits-all "feminism".
For instance, I don't think it's the author's intention and certainly not her fault if she reinforces a belief that certain behaviors are okay, simply because those behaviors don't register to her. But yet people use her as evidence that the behaviors are fine, and there ought to be room for identifying that as a problem -- not as criticism of her, but as awareness of a problem with a system. At the same time, any solution to that problem must not shut people like her out by weaving subtle social cues into the fabric of the system, or else one system of oppression is just replaced with another one.
I think parent is referring to the fact that the author of the article seems to feel as if her experiences as an autistic person are invalidated by the dominant feminist narrative in tech, and that she is supposed to apologize for her experiences:
...if they tried walking around in my shoes for once.
There’s a noticeable empathy vacuum in the room, and for once it’s not coming from the direction of the sperglord.