108 karma · joined November 14, 2013
> We talk to each other. We warn each other. If there aren’t any women pitching you, it’s not a pipeline problem.
Secret industry blacklist amongst women, causing them to actively avoid potential opportunities.
Blacklist prevents women from applying for VC funding, panels, etc.
Fire everyone. Point blank.
Everybody deals with tragedies, they're a part of life. Being an adult means facing those tragedies and accepting them. It's not easy, and some tragedies are just too much for someone to fully accept and move on from, but there should never be any reasonable expectation that the world should change to accommodate them.
If we're going to blame the employers, can someone show me that there's a disproportionately large number of unemployed minority engineers that are seeking work but not getting it?
Critical race theory is as effective at hiding that fact as a Klu Klux Klan white hood.
It would set the whole industry back by decades. Not because women got involved, but because they became token minorities instead of competent colleagues. For an entire generation, minority STEM students would face impostor syndrome in themselves, and have to work twice as hard to prove themselves because everyone would assume they got to where they are based on "positive discrimination" instead of merit and ability.
Men and women deserve the same opportunities and treatment in all industries, but any situations where those opportunities skew one way or the other does not mean that the solution is more discrimination.
If you want to put the conversation to rest, simply clarify that point.
Or even better, let's use industries in our own universe that already has those conditions: education and child care.
What sort of "special treatment" do men get in those industries? Well, in many day care services, the male employees are not allowed to be alone with children. In education, male teachers make it a deliberate point not to be alone with students, because a single false accusation would end their career permanently.
But are there cries for more "positive discrimination" from the men in those industries? Not that I've heard. Equal treatment would be just dandy, though.
The critical race theory definition is just a shield to hide behind while practicing racist or sexist behavior, and I will only acknowledge it as such.
I reiterate: if the industry sees a glut of women speakers who are there only because they are women, then the industry will have no choice but to acknowledge their token status.
In the very same article the author laments not knowing whether she is being offered more responsibility because she is a woman or if it's because she's seen as capable and competent. It's a completely valid assumption, because she's already been offered more responsibility because she is a woman.
> This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does.
I would not call it "reverse sexism", because it is is just plain sexism. Of course the author doesn't "see it that way", despite acknowledging it, because the author directly benefits from said sexism.
If the author is being encouraged to apply for and accepted to speak at conferences primarily based on their gender, then the industry's reaction will be to expect that women speakers are token speakers, and this will set back women in the industry.
Embrace differences, embrace diversity, but in the long run special treatment does not benefit anybody.
The Open Code of Conduct is a design-by-committee list of all the reasons you're a terrible person and you just don't know it yet, but don't worry as soon as you slip up we'll wage a campaign of harassment against you because you're "privileged" and you deserve it. And don't you dare criticize it, because "reverse"-isms don't exist.
If your "means" involve teaching young men that they are considered sociopathic abusive rapists by society and that they need extensive education to learn otherwise, and you do not consider that a "particularly high human cost" then I think we should leave this conversation as it is. Neither of us will be able to convince the other of our position, and we'll only talk in circles trying.
Saying I'm looking for an excuse to get offended in a conversation about feminism is a level of pot and kettle I haven't experienced before.
I can barely turn a corner anymore without being accused of objectifying women somehow. Every movie I want to watch, every video game I want to play, everything "objectifies" women somehow now, as long as it has any hint of sexuality and male demographic.
So you haven't come across and/or recognized that yet. Good for you, you're living in an ideal future and I someday hope to join you there.
> The thing is: is this a problem with feminism? I'd argue no. I think that you'd get a lot of pushback from more mainstream culture, and that push back would likely be very tied to patriarchal (as a hegemonic system) ideals about what men "should" be or do or how they "should" act.
"Patriarchy is not some claim that men are responsible for everything bad that happens."
"This isn't feminism, it's the patriarchy."
Sure, it's primarily feminists that fight those initiatives, but they're not acting in their capacity as a feminist. They took that hat off first.
> As a fictional character, Bayonetta has no will or desires beyond what her creators attribute to her. If we were talking about an actual woman here, I'd agree completely: but we're talking about a fictional character who uses magic. Critiquing characters and critiquing people are two very different things. As a counterpoint: I'd argue that characters like "He Man" (or many other male superheroes) or those in "Magic Mike" are a male equivalent and just as unrealistic.
Feminists say that fictional women (Barbie et. al) are representative of women as a whole, and should be treated as such.
If this is the case, then a fictional female character has the right to be represented as a complete character, sexuality and all.
If you're telling me it's otherwise, then why does a fictional female character's sexuality even merit discussion?
> I'm not aware of any feminist voices that have literally said "Male teachers who assault their students should go to jail for a longer period of time"
Well I'm aware of at least one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/...
> What was the context for this getting brought up and "immediately shut down"?
http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/1000093/protesters-shut-down...
What about "teach black people not to murder"? Does that not sound incredibly racist to you? If it does, and I really hope it does, what is the effective difference? After all, there is ample data that the majority of murders are by blacks.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...
Regardless of the effectiveness of "Don't Be That Guy", the ends do not justify the means. It would also be effective to immediately throw into prison the people most "at risk" to commit a crime, but that does not make it morally right. After all, how well do you think a "Don't Be That Black Guy" campaign would go over in Detroit?
The differences between First World Male and First World Female opportunities are also stark, unfortunate, and inarguably unfair:
https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarsh...
https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarsh...
But even putting educational and financial disparities aside, let's look at how the term used in the real world:
"I am a white male that has achieved moderate success in life, but still face financial difficulties due to the harsh economy that puts an undue burden on the middle class."
"Stop complaining and check your privilege."
http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/23/sexist-scientist-tim-h...
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-rosetta-...
Some small form of feminism may still be necessary in this day and age, but no meaningful progress can be made until the extremes of modern feminism are torn down.
Your argument is perfectly reasonable, it would be nice if other feminists understood the difference. In my experience, it is more often used as a spark for a larger confrontation or an excuse to bash males in general.
> I never said anything about forcing or denying abortions, only that a woman has the right to cede responsibility for reproduction whereas a man has none. If a woman chooses to abort or put a child up for adoption, she is well within her rights to do so. If a man suggests the same thing, he is a "deadbeat".
In an ideal world, a father would be told of the pregnancy immediately, and given the opportunity to absolve himself of responsibility for it. With this knowledge in hand, the mother would have the opportunity to decide to abort, give up for adoption, or keep the child with the understanding that there would be no (legally mandated) financial support from the father.
> So as long as an exaggerated body image is accompanied by power and dominance, it shouldn't place unfair expectations on impressionable viewers?
I most often see it as a corollary to arguments about the representation of women in movies/TV/video games. If the representation of a fictional woman is attacked for unrealistic standards, the rebuttal will be that the men are held to the same standards by male characters in the same space. Feminists then reply that it is a "male power fantasy" and does not count.
A perfect example, and most of the women's "before" representations aren't even unrealistic to begin with!
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/lara-croft-gets-a-realistic...
> The idea of sexuality as being negative is also unhealthy, for both genders.
A "sex positive" outlook would not care whether or not Bayonetta was designed by or for men. Bayonetta would have the inherent right to dress and behave as she pleases, with no care for the viewer's tastes.
> Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.
If you go to a college campus and attempt to set up a "mens center" in the same vein as the womens centers that are increasingly common, you will most likely be 1) called a misogynist, 2) not taken seriously, 3) not succeed.
You will also very likely be harassed and carry the "misogynist" label for the remainder of your tenure there. School newspapers will have carte blanche to drag your name through the mud in any way they can. An "example" will be made of you.
> You must have missed the part where I mentioned men also get serious threats to their person, and that there are documented cases where those threats have been acted upon.
https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/enough
Anyone, man or woman, that disagrees with feminist narratives, can be immediately and unquestionably be labelled a harasser and misogynist.
In case you don't care to listen to that SoundCloud, it involves a case where a man tries to remain a voice of reason in an online debate that has extremists on both sides, and because he adhered more strongly to ethical standards than "choosing a side" he was labeled the enemy. He has seen harassment and vitriol slung at him primarily from the "feminist" side, and even a great deal from people that could be considered celebrities. Those people will gladly attack him, and have absolutely no fear of reprisal for doing so.
The only time they face the consequences for their actions is when they upset their own compatriots. In those cases, they will not hesitate to turn on them like a pack of rabid dogs on an injured prey. But that is only the same hatred that is flung at men every day in that space.
> http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender....
http://gothamist.com/2013/04/29/male_teachers_get_longer_sen...
This is a small example, however every time it's brought up it's immediately shut down by popular feminist voices.
"Longer prison sentences for men" is not a stated goal of feminism, but maintaining that status quo which greatly benefits women and greatly disadvantages men, is time and again strongly implied by their words and actions.
That is word-for-word the way I hear it phrased, and no context can make it right. It implies that men are rapists who don't know any better, and need educated on what rape is and how not to do it. It implies that all men are sociopaths, and need to be taught basic human empathy.
Saying that all/many/most men are rapists is an unsupportable claim, as in much of the Western world rape has been (and still is) defined specifically as unwanted male-on-female penetration. Until statistics can be presented that have substantiated backing, this is an unfair assessment.
"Teach X not to Y" is an ineffective method for preventing Y. You can put everyone in the world in a class telling them not to mug, murder, rape, pillage, stab, shoot, or use the Oxford Comma. People will still act according to their own personal motivations and (presence or lack of) morals. If I want to prevent myself from being mugged, I will learn to recognize the sort of dangerous situations that could lead to that eventuality. I will take personal responsibility for my safety. I will also understand that there will be times that there was nothing I could have reasonably done to prevent it from happening, if it should.
I agree that there are competing definitions for the word patriarchy. The usage I see most often used in feminism tends to be the toxic version.
First World Male Privilege | First World Female Privilege | Third World Female Privilege
_ | |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ |
_ | _ | _
_ | _ | _
Should we go around devaluing the accomplishments of a person in the First World because they were born into the life they got? Do we tell them that everything they achieved was purely a result of the luck of the draw, and that their hard work and dedication means nothing?
> Nope, the argument is that there is a societal pattern that devalues the severity of rape through humour and other cultural tropes.
"Teach men not to rape."
"Teach your sons to respect women."
>> Men are violent.
> The patriarchal "masculinity" foisted upon men is one that is competitive and aggressive.
Framing masculinity as a negative is anti-male. "Patriarchy" as a concept, regarding men as responsible for all the ills of the world, is also anti-male.
>> If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.
> If you see a woman only existing as to please your sexual appetite, you are objecting.
Physical attraction alone does not disregard a person's humanity or personal agency.
>> Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.
> Women should be paid according to the merits of their work and ability, along with men.
No arguments there. Unfortunately "positive discrimination" (an oxymoron I see as often as "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism") says otherwise.
>> Men should not have any reproductive rights.
> A woman's body is hers to do with as she should wish. Nobody should have operations forced upon them.
I never said anything about forcing or denying abortions, only that a woman has the right to cede responsibility for reproduction whereas a man has none. If a woman chooses to abort or put a child up for adoption, she is well within her rights to do so. If a man suggests the same thing, he is a "deadbeat".
>> Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.
> Due to the fact that often a carer role is taken by a woman in a patriarchal society, this means that her earning potential and career is sacrificed.
Again, "patriarchy" as a concept is farcical, and you're completely ignoring a woman's own personal responsibilities. You can either argue that women should be treated as equals, or that they should be treated like children in need of constant care, not both.
Also, men are not your personal ATM machines. If you see a man as only existing to please your handbag appetite, you are objectifying them.
>> Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it, even though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very heart of sexism.
> There are advantages that men get because of their sex/gender, and these should be recognised.
You've basically repeated what I said, except you seem to think sexism a good thing as long as it targets someone you perceive as "advantaged".
>> Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed to have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.
> Due to many women having suffered terrible experiences at the hands of men, and the tendency for men to dominate discussions, there needs to be a place away from that where people can talk without fear and interruption.
Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.
>> Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a "male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-image issues.
> Not sure about that one, I think the argument drastically varies, but men are more often portrayed in a powerful, dominant role.
So as long as an exaggerated body image is accompanied by power and dominance, it shouldn't place unfair expectations on impressionable viewers?
>> If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own sexuality.
> Characters are often designed by men, for men.
Bayonetta was developed by a woman. Women are allowed to be sexual if they please, and even if the character is designed by a man, ignoring the potential for sexuality in a woman's personality would result in one-dimensional and frankly unrelatable characters.
The idea of sexuality as being negative is also unhealthy, for both genders.
>> If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living room window.
> Yes because receiving some flame or smack is the same as constant rape threats.
You must have missed the part where I mentioned men also get serious threats to their person, and that there are documented cases where those threats have been acted upon.
>> Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the same crimes.
> This is bullshit, obviously.
Yes, obviously.
http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender...
Men are violent.
If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.
Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.
Men should not have any reproductive rights.
Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.
Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it, even though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very heart of sexism.
Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed to have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.
Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a "male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-image issues.
Men cannot discuss their issues in a public forum without feminist protestors shutting down discussions.
If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own sexuality.
If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living room window.
Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the same crimes.
I have a good deal of confidence in Walmart Labs' technical abilities, but they do not have responsibility for the majority of the IT areas that pain the company as a whole.
Walmart has zero career paths for technical expertise. There are low-level technical positions (rarely entry-level) and they peak at "Technical Expert", and to get past that you have to switch to pure people management.
The IT division, internally called ISD, is so completely inept that the majority of the company still runs on Windows XP despite the fact that support will expire in about a month. They had a Windows 7 team at one point, but that team was dissolved and the rollout "suspended indefinitely".
ISD is so universally recognized as terrible that they were actually the only reason I had a job there. Individual departments and divisions have been forming their own "IT Teams" for years, because it's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay somebody $70,000/year to create a half a dozen new applications yearly than it is to pay ISD $2.8 million to do one of those applications poorly over the course of two years. And then completely dissolve the development team responsible and offer little to no ongoing support for the application.
Despite those exorbitant costs ISD is hemorrhaging money just trying desperately to keep the lights on, mostly because they're still running decades-old legacy applications and hardware. They only recently started drawing up plans to start sunsetting some of the hundreds of legacy systems over the course of the next decade or so.
This is really just scratching the surface of how terrible retail IT can be, and how little they value real technical expertise. Given what I've seen I wasn't so much surprised that the Target et al breach happened, only that it didn't also include Walmart or happen much sooner.