I am not interested in what should or shouldn't be, first and foremost. I am interested, sociologically, in understanding. I am interested to see what can happen with women in positions of power, embedded within a specific culture that tells them they are victims. I am equally interested in the corruption of men within positions of power.
Interestingly, women are expected to act in a certain way nowadays thanks to feminism. Culture says: "Women, you need to have a place in this corporations, independent of your abilities."
I think women should be free to act, independent of gender. Feminist culture reduces women to their gender, and associates it with helplessness. This attracts women who have been hurt by men, and unconsciously use it to fight back against men on an institutional/organizational level.
So I am not arguing for women to be constrained, I am argueing for a distorted view of women not to be used as a political weapon against men, which is what feminism is. Ideally women wouldn't be pushed into positions of power based on their gender, but based on their abilities.
Nah he just cares about ethics in open source software ;)
(In case you’re unaware, there are alt-right/whatever they call themselves nowadays websites that have an “open source software culture” section where they fume over stuff like this and rush comment sections together. This person isn’t arguing in good faith and if you want to get to the bottom of anything, ask him instead what ethnicities should be in charge of software orgs. He probably has a paragraph to copy paste you)
The fact that my comment got deleted will make me stop contributing in such a controversial way, as I respect the house rules.
But it leaves a bad aftertaste, even though the strong moderation on this site undoubtly keeps everything civil.
I think provocative theses are necessary, in line with the Socratic method, and even though my original comment wasn't directly aimed at the arguments in the article, the entire point of a provocative viewpoint is to question the entire narrative of something on a fundamental level.
I agree, especially since the original article was making a similar type of claim. When you go that for down a line politically, it's useful to look at things from the opposite perspective. People don't have to agree, but I don't think we should be flagging or banning comments like yours on topics like this.
Reducing people to gender is sexist, and reducing them to ethnics is racist.
It's not my fault that the meaning of words has been turned upside down by popular culture.
However, I think you need to consider what you're saying:
> It does not look good for a woman to give orders. She should try not to get into such positions if she wants to retain female qualities.
Are you saying that women should not be in positions of power?
That quote also talks about "female qualities". And I think you should consider that many women are not very feminine, and many men are not very masculine. And to my mind there is no reason why those people should be constrained to act in a certain way just because of their gender. If you think that they should, then I'd be interested to hear why...