anaximander

I can't say that you're wrong, but I would also ask you to consider that your sane and reasonable state of mind that's saying this now, is not the same state of mind that believes these delusions. What may seem right now to be a very clear and easy decision may be the last thing you would even consider in another mental state.

It's a minor tragedy to set up the conflict this way. "Largely useless and hedonistic shops replacing stores that actually matter! How long can the city tolerate these too-wealthy, dandy scum?!"

Certainly, if the stores are being replaced, that's a function of property-owners' decisions to change tenants, is it not? Why are we blaming financially-successful technologists for actions taken by greedy land-owners? Don't you think these "gentrifiers" would be happy to pay the same amount that the "natives" have been paying for so long?

The property-owners are extracting as much from the world as they can, because they have a monopoly on the land/property and nobody except maybe the government can argue with them. They were taking as much as they could from you before, and now they're taking as much as they can from the wealthier people moving in. This is capitalism: they've earned their right to set the price for their property by buying it/building it/inheriting it before you did.

What options do we have, if we want this to change? Let's not pit the victims against each other.

I would much rather that the media focuses on the trials of the underrepresented many who are facing real gender discrimination in the workplace.

Grievance - Racial minorities (specifically, black people) are unfairly discriminated against by law enforcement.

Just because, in this case, this tragic situation was deemed a legally acceptable use of force, doesn't mean that racial minorities are not generally discriminated against by law enforcement.

Similarly, just because this case wasn't a clear-cut case of gender discrimination, doesn't mean it isn't still a valid problem in this industry.

Edit: I'm not necessarily defending their decision to discriminate based on gender. I'm only trying to suggest a motive for their bad behavior.

"Hitting on a woman" - Doing nice things and inviting her to be alone with you on a day dedicated to romance.

The invitation to have dinner may have happened anytime.

he gave Pao a volume of Leonard Cohen’s poems and drawings (entitled Book of Longing) on Valentine’s Day and asked her out to dinner on a night when his wife was out of town

These could very well be two completely separate occasions. I suspect the author created this juxtaposition to elicit your precise reaction.

I guess I am having trouble appreciating the relation of this article to gender, for two reasons.

1. The author is claiming that "men are aggressive" and then claiming that "aggression" is the problem, so the point of the article really seemed to be "men are the problem". I find this in some ways offensive, especially since I (a man) think that I don't do the things mentioned in the article. Maybe I'm overreacting to being accused of something based on my gender.

2. The author states "Crossing boundaries and using aggression to win an argument includes making personal remarks, interrupting, speaking much more loudly than an opponent, or entering someone's personal space." I completely agree that these behaviors are unacceptable. But, I think that these are all gender neutral behaviors, and it harms people of any gender when they are used against them. Is it really important to designate men as the ones who must follow these rules?

"An argument is the use of aggressive opposition to weed out weak logic, keeping the strongest ideas possible. The philosophy behind using arguments for problem-solving is that attacking the weak parts of an idea will leave the best solutions."

I'm with you so far. Being able to distinguish good from bad is the basis of critical thought.

"The metaphor for argument in our culture is war. We think of people we argue with as opponents ..."

I know a lot of people who do this, but I certainly don't, and I consider it a sign of maturity when somebody is able to separate ideas from egos. Remember, we started off by talking about the good and bad parts of ideas; not good and bad people. It's not a fight, it's a collaboration to share perspectives and discover new insight.

"... we attack their position and defend our own, we can gain or lose ground, and ultimately we can win or lose arguments—just like battles"

Whether you're focusing on the idea, or the person who generated it, there's really no use in considering them an opponent, and even less use in framing things in terms of winning or losing. Ideas don't "compete" with each other, any more than 1 and 2 compete to see which is the bigger number. There's only truth. If you're winning or losing, you've already missed the point and you're focusing on the wrong thing.

I think "aggression" is unfortunately not the real problem here, the real problem is that people often aren't mature enough to admit they're wrong, or to consider another person's perspective, or to say "I don't know".

I don't want to focus on this aspect of the article, but I find it really discouraging to continually see these articles which try to spin things in terms of gender. Developing this "men vs women" perspective is exactly the kind of "adversarial mind" the author denounces in the introduction.

A quick melody from a favorite song that I transcribed: "D4 A4 D5 F5 D5 A4 D4 A4 D5 E5 D5 A4 G3 G4 A#4 D#5 A#4 G4 G3 G4 A#4 D5 A#4 G4 A3 E4 A4 D5 A4 E4 A3 E4 A4 C#5 A4 E4"

I love to see the command line put to good use like this!

  The lack of girl characters implies that girls are not equal to boys and they don’t deserve characters that look like them.

I think the following scenario should be easy to understand (if not familiar) for most people: A person is walking down the street, when somebody approaches them and tells them to surrender their wallet. What would most people recommend in this situation? "Let them take your wallet, there's no point in risking your life"? What if the person being mugged revealed they were carrying a weapon capable of deadly force? Would you recommend that they use it to defend themselves?

Would your recommendation change if the threatening person in question had a position of default trust (e.g. a police officer), or a member of a powerful gang?

Now imagine a person in a scenario where, instead of just walking down the street, they are approached _in their office_ by somebody they trust, and instead of being asked for their wallet, they are asked for something incredibly more traumatic and unrecoverable, under the threat of complete financial destruction or possibly even physical harm.

I would never want to find out which way I would decide, in any of these situations. It's abominable that anyone should have to make that kind of choice, and it's worse still that it seems to be happening under our very noses and nobody can see it.

I think this article sets forth some very powerful, actionable ideas that are not only gender-neutral, but generally applicable in many other industries for many other classes of people who need options.