I'm not sure what a "male space" is, but it isn't software engineering. It is not a gender specific role, both men and women can do it, men and women excel at it, and men and women should be encouraged to do it. When we think of programming as a "male space" or a "male activity" we are not moving the profession forward.

Now what is a "male space"? The military? No, women are on the front lines. Finance? No, a woman is about to become the first Chairman of the Fed. Politics? No, we have 20 female US Senators and a viable Presidential candidate. Professional sports? No, women have their own leagues, and several men's teams have female execs. Software Engineering???

No I'm pretty sure the guy just hates women.

https://www.facebook.com/aaron.a78/posts/635104079844426

It turns out he might be a bit of a jerk after all. Nonetheless that is not the post the GGP was responding to. And your tactic of discrediting the guy rather than looking at what he actually said in the current thread is reactive behavior.

What he said about women trying to make a progressive movement all about their vagina? What is that even supposed to mean? How is the ruby community a "progressive movement" (yes, he was just quoting someone, but it doesn't even make sense in that context).

This was in response to a man asking that people not act like assholes and name things immature sexual names.

There was no point here. He was just lashing out at something he's afraid of and frustrated by. Asking that people act nicer does not make something a "politically correct thought police 'safe space'". And claiming that asking that people act nicer is "co-opting of male spaces" is a pretty pathetic attempt to play the victim card while simultaneously trying to exclude and marginalize women who have contributed tons to the tech industry.

I don't defend the guy, but here's a hint: what are some of the basic differences between men and women?

The whole concept of 'male space' is a big troll

Yes, I'm familiar with basic anatomy.

Dismissing someone by comparing a man who is asking for there to be less sexualized and derogatory language in a community to "women who want to make it all about their vagina" is nonsense on several axes. For one, the person he was attacking is a man. For another, the whole point of the argument is for it to be less about vaginas, or other sexual differences. Bringing up sex (and especially in violent and derogatory terms, like rape-me and recursive_pimp_slap) can make an environment uncomfortable for people who already feel marginalized in a community.

>What he said about women trying to make a progressive movement all about their vagina?

It's an outburst. So what? Maybe it's humor, maybe he has some kind of pathological issue with women. It doesn't matter because there is a valid point being completely ignored so people can moan about how "women unfriendly" the post is.

>What is that even supposed to mean? How is the ruby community a "progressive movement"

Firstly, I don't think the Ruby movement is progressive, mostly because it's a shitty language. Secondly, the point is not whether Ruby is or is not progressive. Even if you accept that it's a retrogressive movement his point stands because it is a general one.

>There was no point here. He was just lashing out at something he's afraid of and frustrated by.

I beg to differ. There is a real trend of PC activism aiming to protect sensitive little flowers of various kinds against offense. Your attempt to psychologise the guy is just a cheap tactic to avoid this point.

>Asking that people act nicer does not make something a "politically correct thought police 'safe space'".

The hidden (and incorrect) assumption here is that this is unconnected to PC activism.

>And claiming that asking that people act nicer is "co-opting of male spaces" is a pretty pathetic attempt to play the victim card while simultaneously trying to exclude and marginalize women who have contributed tons to the tech industry.

"Pathetic", "margenalize", "afraid", "exclude", etc. And you say this is unconnected to PC activism? His post didn't marginalize anyone. It was making a fairly specific point that your defense mechanisms are preventing you from seeing.

I'm not attempting to "psychologize" the guy. He made a flat-out misogynistic comment. I don't know anything more about him than that (well, and the other comments which have been quoted on here). But it only takes a single comment of someone calling someone else a "nigger" in an attempt to demean and exclude them before you can call someone a racist. The same is true here; someone who claims that asking that people be a little more sensitive means that women want to make it all about their vagina is clearly lashing out in the same way.

  The hidden (and incorrect) assumption here is that 
  this is unconnected to PC activism.

I'm not even sure what "PC activism" is supposed to mean any more, or why people consider a lot of things they accuse as being "PC activism" to be negative. Most of the times I've seen it thrown around recently were when people were just asking that other people act more nicely. Apparently asking people to act nice is now "PC activism".

I will welcome debate about how much needs to be codified; I hate policies that say "you can't use these X words" as the next guy. But a lot of what people rail about as being "PC activism" is just like this; asking that people be a little more considerate in naming package they're putting into a public repository.

So, what's an appropriate reaction to this post? Maybe to say "OK, listing 'hoe' in there is overkill, that's just being used as a pun on 'rake'." Or maybe saying "hmm, I'm not sure how useful it is to ask people to be nicer while calling them assholes."

What's not an appropriate reaction? Talking about vaginas and male spaces and banning someone who just made a request to be nicer and listed a few examples of the kind of behavior they were talking about.

>I'm not attempting to "psychologize" the guy.

Yes, you speculated on his mental state quite extensively. Quoting you: "He was just lashing out at something he's afraid of and frustrated by."

>He made a flat-out misogynistic comment.

Sorry, he did nothing of the sort. He made the astute point that women tend to co-opt spaces established by men using activism. Do you deny this?

>Apparently asking people to act nice is now "PC activism".

Nope. Again, it's not just "asking people to be nice", it's a concerted, long-term effort to insert PC memes under the guide of being a nice person.

>But it only takes a single comment of someone calling someone else a "nigger" in an attempt to demean and exclude them before you can call someone a racist.

Nope. People say all sorts of things in anger, and this kind of thinking is exactly the kind of PC stupidity that is becoming a concern.

>Talking about vaginas and male spaces and banning someone who just made a request to be nicer and listed a few examples of the kind of behavior they were talking about.

What's your point here, exactly? That his ban was too harsh? Got anything to say about PC activism (you know, the thing that we were talking about)?

>So, what's an appropriate reaction to this post?

Oh, piss off you moist wanker. Did you stop to think that maybe it's not your job to tell other people how to communicate with others?

Do you really honestly think the way in which you communicate with people has no impact?

I completely agree, as a white dude having to worry about the way in which people receive my communication is just so unfair. I mean I call one guy a nigger and all of a sudden I'm racist. I'm not, I was just angry. Admittedly angry enough to call on centuries of historical context and language coached in violence to point out the lower social status of someone. But that's not racist.

It's not your job to tell people how to communicate with others. But it entirely your responsibility to communicate with people in the way they wish to be communicated with, if you want to be heard. This isn't about being PC, it's about not being exclusionary to 50% of the population. Women are not going to want to work with you if you're not willing to be inclusive.

Piss off you moist wanker. Did you stop to think that what you consider PC, other people might consider legitimately offensive? Did you ever stop to think it's not your job to tell women what they're allowed to be offended by? It's honestly pretty impressive that you consider someone expressing their discomfort with sexist language to be worse than the sexist language itself.

Pointing out his misogyny is not "ad hominem" as you seem to think and provides further context for understanding the other comment. Not that it's needed, he is pretty clear, I don't think anyone here is misunderstanding it.

For reference, ad hominem means "attempts to undermine an argument based on an irrelevant fact about the person making the argument" (Wikipedia). It doesn't seem unfair to use it to paraphrase the description "your tactic of discrediting the guy rather than looking at what he actually said".

Exactly. The guy hating women or not is not _irrelevant_, but it's not relevant in the way GP is trying to use it. That's why he tries to play the "ad hominem" card so he can throw up some moronic straw man about relevancy.

Actually I was pointing out that lucisferre's use of the term 'ad hominem' to characterise your comment was completely fair and not 'putting words in your mouth' just because you never used the explicit phrase.

Perhaps you're right. Let's chalk that up to misunderstanding, shall we?

I didn't bring up the term "ad hominem". Please stop putting words into my mouth. You are very determined to do anything but address anything anyone's actually saying. Your defense mechanisms are showing.

It is not my intention to misread. I'm not sure I understand how your interpretation differs from mine. Your interpretation seems to be saying "if you want a culture with a more inclusive atmosphere, start one yourself." How does this contradict my interpretation? Does this interpretation deny the female-unfriendly atmosphere of the existing culture? Does it show any more initiative/interest on his part to change this?

Well, since you are now no longer talking about "hostility" or even absolute inclusion (but rather the much less definite "more inclusive"), then I assume you retract your assertion that the post condones "hostility" toward women. Yes/no?

The poster may well be hostile toward women. But his post here contains a valid point about activism in the computing field.

The distinction between "female unfriendly" and "hostile to women" seems subtle to me, but sure, I'm fine changing that. Maybe "hostile" was a bit too strong.

I'm not sure I see the valid point though.

You're misrepresenting what he said. He's clearly trying to troll as hard as possible. So congratulations on agreeing with an intentionally inflammatory and sexist post I guess?

Really? How do you know that? You appear to be attributing intentions to him that are not actually demonstrated by his words. [edit for clarity: him = the facebook admin]

My interpretation is far closer to his words than the GP, and I am giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt. So please be consistent and reply to the GP pointing out his mistake. Oops, you just revealed your bias.

Yes. My bias is that when people say something horrifically bigoted, I believe that they mean it. If they didn't, then it's on them to prove that if they need to, I see no need to give the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that our different approaches here reflect a different base level of belief in the existence of real bigotry, and hence the likelihood of such statements reflecting real bigotry rather than being the ironic/trolling type.

Again, your whole deal is "what is he like"? This is the sort of dull thinking that leads people to become obsessed with rumors and celebrity gossip. The fact that he might hate women is relevant, just not in the way you desperately want it to be - the way in which you can ignore what he said. I grew up around racists and sexists, so you're utterly wrong in your speculations about my world view. And that's all your responses are - speculations about some psychological defect or another that you can use to ignore what's being said. That is called a 'defense mechanism'.

What? I'm not ignoring what he said. I am responding specifically to it. You are telling people to ignore the objectionable sections of his comment to talk about the bit you want to. Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was. Stop calling it a 'defense mechanism' for people to criticise someone for objectionable behaviour. If my manager stands up on the conference table peeing while presenting the annual sales figures, it is not a 'defense mechanism' for me to respond by objecting to his pee instead of talking about the sales figures.

I am curious, if my theory was wrong, why you tend to believe that people are joking about being bigoted when it is so likely that they are not.

>I'm not ignoring what he said. I am responding specifically to it. You are telling people to ignore the objectionable sections of his comment to talk about the bit you want to.

Obviously, you are not ignoring "what he said". That's a given, since you're talking about his post. But you're not addressing the point (that was the sense used, and I'm shocked you lack the common sense to understand this). Rather, you're engaging in gossip about whether he hates women. You even went as far as digging up another comment he made at another time to gossip about his attitude. You are the "Thought Police" this guy is talking about.

>Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was.

And so the backpedaling begins. Now you're concerned about how "inappropriate" it was. Note the misdirection, where suddenly you dial down the heavyweight accusations of "misogyny" and Internet detective work to look more reasonable at a tactically opportune moment. It's all about how "appropriate" the comment was. Unfortunately for you he is the administrator of the group in question and he (and Facebook and any other administrators) get to decide what is "appropriate" there. What you are really doing (ignoring your little tactical retreat) is trying to tie the essential point of the post to a hatred of women. Which note is not the same thing as whether the poster himself hates women.

>If my manager stands up on the conference table peeing while presenting the annual sales figures, it is not a 'defense mechanism' for me to respond by objecting to his pee instead of talking about the sales figures.

Bad analogy. The forum on which the post was made isn't yours to police, and his actions aren't equivalent to pissing on the table, which is a health hazard and a far more egregious social violation than saying some mean things on the Internet. Further, you have employed the same tactics against me by bringing my tendencies and background into question.

>I am curious, if my theory was wrong, why you tend to believe that people are joking about being bigoted when it is so likely that they are not.

A more interesting question is how you know how I "tend" from a sample of one. Just think how this power could be used for the good of mankind!

To be clear: by using the word 'inappropriate' I did not in any way intend to reduce or back away from the argument that what he said was misogynist, I was just changing up the wording.

I'm shocked that you don't seem to realise that this isn't a discussion about some random facebook group and whether the owner thereof is allowed to be a giant asshole. The point of the post was about hatred and rejection of women in software engineering, and this comment was one example of it being a real thing, frequently denied all over HN. And when a bunch of HNers came in and said 'he didn't mean that, he was just trolling the stupid PC SJ types, I'm sure he wants women to be in software engineering just without being activists about it' (not quoting you) the evidence of his other postings, showing a consistent worldview of hatred of women, was relevant.

If I thought that forum were somewhere I could police, don't you think I'd be over there policing it? However I don't think anything of the sort, so in fact I'm on here discussing it. If you don't think that we should be discussing his comment, feel free to not be part of it.

I'm sorry if I over generalised your habits from your behaviour. If you don't normally give the benefit of the doubt to people displaying bigoted behaviour, why did you do so in this case?

>The point of the post was about hatred and rejection of women in software engineering, and this comment was one example of it being a real thing, frequently denied all over HN.

Nope. It was a valid comment directed at a little PC warrior. Possibly from an unsavory character with malignant motives - as you keep repeating - but that isn't of interest. Further, my reply - from which your whole conversation with me spawns, and therefore constitutes the topic of this subthread (the one involving you and me) - was commenting on the reaction of people to the post itself which was a valid observation. Your contention that it is offensive and comes from someone you don't like is of no interest to me. The content of the post was not hateful toward women, even if the author is (itself dubious on a troll-filled Internet). Perhaps if you'd bothered reading what I say instead of firing off scattershot self-righteousness you'd have gotten somewhere in this thread.

>And when a bunch of HNers came in and said 'he didn't mean that, he was just trolling the stupid PC SJ types, I'm sure he wants women to be in software engineering ...

Please limit yourself to what I said in the parents, since that is what you are replying to. It's enough work to get you to read my own posts for comprehension without taking on the additional burden of defending other people in the thread who you _imagine_ share common ground with me.

>I'm sorry if I over generalised your habits from your behaviour. If you don't normally give the benefit of the doubt to people displaying bigoted behaviour, why did you do so in this case?

I don't agree that the post displayed bigoted behavior. The only reason to think the comment comes from a hatred of women is from information that you dug up. I'm not interested in digging up bullshit this guy might have said elsewhere, therefore there was no reason for me to think that's where it came from. I don't care if he's a _child molester_. He may or may not be any number of things.

The fact that you apologise for over-generalising shows that you missed the point, which is not that you affronted me by over-generalising, but that you destroyed the discussion and wasted my time by going on about my personality and the personality of the person who made the original post. And you're still doing it!

Glad we could clear up the fundamental disagreement - I found what he said offensive, bigoted, misogynist and hateful to women before ever reading anything else he'd said.