In a way, the comment you are replying to is at odds with article, and in a way the comment is in agreement with the article.
The comment you are replying to states that the physically demanding work that commenter is acquainted with is an alternative that makes software development seem like a good job choice. In that way, the commenter is disagreeing with the article author. However, the commenter also states that he is blessed by the ability to do software development style work. This is a sentiment that the article author shares, writing that she is blessed by the ability to build up enough money to safely try out other careers. In this way, both writers are in congruence.
I think you're reading sentiments that are not evident into the comment you are replying to. In my reading of that comment, there is nothing there that is attacking - just someone observing that they don't share the author's perspective, and explaining why. Bringing gender into the discussion also strikes me as an overreach. There is nothing about the subject that is related to gender - the article author is disenchanted with software development and wants a different career. The commenter, having had a less pleasant career first, prefers software development with it's flaws.
As a final note, I believe the word you are looking for is "affect" and not "effect" - if you mean that men are adopting a tone in order to make an impression on others.
But, once again, nice side ad hominem. Keep 'em coming.
-edit:
Here's the thing, I'm a dude, and I have worked construction and agricultural jobs. I'm not pissed because I personally feel attacked. I'm pissed because I consider HN one of the most intellectually-honest fora online, but whenever gender politics comes up, the pretense of intellectual honesty gets used as a weapon. I get pissed at what I truly perceive to be intellectual dishonesty, I really dislike it, because I love the truth.
One truth is that telling somebody to find a new job if they don't want to have to deal with neck strain or gender politics is clearly a dig at the woman's femininity.
Another truth is that intimidation is not meant to be felt by those exercising it (Pierre Bourdieu, in paraphrase). So of course men aren't going to naturally "feel" intimidated by a subtle implication that a woman is not up to the physicality of many jobs, or that she's being too sensitive. The dig wasn't aimed at them.
So, yeah, I'm bugged. But I'm bugged because I'm convinced that the HN community (as a whole) is just plain wrong on this point, and they continue to be, despite any new information that comes their way.
>1. To make or bring about; to implement.
>2. Misspelling of affect.
I believe the second one is the relevant definition here. Compare that to google's verb definition of affect:
>1. pretend to have or feel (something).
>2. use, wear, or assume (something) pretentiously or so as to make an impression on others.
Which seems a much more natural fit for your usage.
I don't intend this as an ad hominem. I'm not saying your argument is wrong because you misspelled a word. Spelling and grammar mistakes happen. In fact, another commenter has pointed out one of mine in this thread. I just know that the distinction between affect and effect is tricky, and wanted to point it out as I want my own mistakes pointed out so I can stop making them and become better.
>One truth is that telling somebody to find a new job if they don't want to have to deal with neck strain or gender politics is clearly a dig at the woman's femininity.
My reading of this line is that it is a repetition of the theme of the comment - software development has flaws, but these flaws, in the commenter's experience, are better than in other fields. For example, one might imagine a dentist strains his/her neck while staring down into the mouths of patients for long periods, or a pursuer of the culinary arts will be exposed to variations of gender discrimination less refined than the writings of James Damore.
>of course men aren't going to naturally "feel" intimidated by a subtle implication that a woman is not up to the physicality of many jobs, or that she's being too sensitive
The commenter is not suggesting that the article is not physically "up to" the demands of software development. The article author is saying so when she writes that:
>Over the past decade it has worn me down. I have regular painful migraines triggered by working long hours. I have the beginnings of arthritis in my neck. I’ve tried standing desks, balance board desks, treadmill desks, special diets, exercising more before and after work. Doctors, physical therapists, massage therapists of every stripe. I’ve spent thousands and thousands of dollars. I’ve hidden it because I was afraid it would make me unemployable. I’ve worked those long hours in intense pain
There is no shame or element of sexism in one individual being physically incapable or physically hurt by certain types of activities.
> As a final note, I believe the word you are looking for is "affect" and not "effect"
A nice example of Skitt's Law.
You are incorrect though regarding Skitt's Law - this sequence of posts is not an example of it. My comment is mainly about the subject under discussion, with a post script correction on a tricky spelling error. Your comment, which is purely a correction of a common spelling mistake, contains no errors so far as I can tell. Thus, you are the spelling pedant in this situation (even implying I should be embarrassed for making a spelling mistake) and yet, you have no spelling errors - exactly disproving Skitt's Law.