I'd like to suggest that "unpleasant" doesn't cut it. Rape threats, people posting your address online and encouraging others to visit you and do you harm, threats to your family, damaging your job prospects both directly and indirectly, causing you to live in a state of constant tension and fear (which is truly corrosive). These are real things that happen and they go beyond "unpleasant".
The reason Mz gave for choosing not to give examples of the "subtler pattern of behaviors" which she is lamenting was that this would lead to "all kinds of drama". To my mind, rape threats aren't "drama", they're crimes.
But I don't really want to quibble over terminology. If you like, you can consider "unpleasant" to be a deliberately ironic understatement. Fighting civil rights battles can exact a heavy price. Sometimes people actually get killed. I get it.
But let's not lose sight of the actual point here: at least part of the reason for the situation that Mz laments -- that people do not see the "subtler pattern of behaviors" that characterize sexism -- is that Mz refuses to point them out because she doesn't want to deal with the "drama". Again, I sympathize. It should not be the case that people have to suffer to advocate for just causes. It sucks. But alas, that is the world we live in. And Mz's unwillingness to take this fact on board tells me something about the content of her character, and also suggests an alternative explanation for her financial woes that I humbly submit she ought to at least consider.
All in all, your counterpoint is a combination of uncommon stuff that's easy to ignore and rare stuff that shouldn't dictate the rule. The most likely outcome is a heated discussion between two parties on the forum that ends on the forum or spills onto some later comments. Strange you left that one off.
I note that you turned the subject around and with a passive-aggressive overtone made it about me. No comment.
This is a huge derail from a discussion that should be about congratulating Sharon Pope and welcoming her. Largely for that reason, I don't plan to comment further here. If I have anything more to say about any of this, it will wind up on my blog instead.
That's true, and I'm sorry if I over-extrapolated. But here is what you said:
"...if I were male, I would be taken far more seriously and people would promote my work. I would have more traffic, and that would result in more income..."
Can you see how someone might conclude that you meant it the way I interpreted it?
> This is a huge derail from a discussion that should be about congratulating Sharon Pope and welcoming her.
That is a very good point.
As a courtesy to Sharon Pope, please do not continue the discussion here. Either leave comments on the blog or, if you just absolutely need to discuss it on HN, post the blog as a separate post and have the discussion there.
Thank you.
> I am not willing to give specific examples of things on HN.
This really makes it hard to be sympathetic. If you're going to fight this fight, then you have to fight it, and you have to make your peace with the fact that fighting the good fight can sometimes be very unpleasant. When you complain but then refuse to back up your assertions with facts, you sound more like a whiner than the defender of a righteous cause. Please note that I said sound more like, not are. I believe you are in fact the defender of a righteous cause. But you aren't helping your cause when you back away from the fight like that.