tw268
tw268 on Hacker News
Feminism is a cultural Marxist ideology which tries to explain the world through the lens of class conflict - an overclass (male) which is oppressive and therefore evil and an underclass (female) which is oppressed and therefore good. This is why it is not considered oppression when men die young or go to prison more often than women and it is not a problem when men are underrepresented in higher ed - men can't be oppressed by definition.
In a perfectly fair world, men and women would behave differently due to comparative advantage and specialization based on sexual dimorphism. Feminism, in seeking an equal world, denies reality and quite a bit of science. Also, like most Marx-derived groups, feminists are humorless killjoys
Getting mad at people having harmless fun isn't normal, but on feminism it is...
GitHub is known to have a dubstep and IPA culture. If they want to be a standard bearer for feminism in tech, the transition is going to be difficult and they are going to take some hits. The two cultures don't mix well.
It sounds like GitHub is going to have to become more stale and corporate to survive as a larger company, which is inevitable, but hastened by their own choices.
The facts get you the first 200 upvotes. Accusations of "sexism" get the next 500.
A couple hundred mostly-males built a company that was wildly successful where they loved to work. Now it sounds like they have to destroy that, build a culture that is professional and antiseptic, to make feminists feel welcome.
The modern world was invented in a cosmopolitan Europe. I think we should recognize that and preserve the best parts of that legacy, and yes, even be proud of it.
I don't buy into the whole white-guilt complex
This seems to be asserting some sort of bizarre serf-like hierarchy where men aren't even supposed to look at their superiors
So when a woman has a problem at work, it is "sexism"?
What's the difference between "looking" and "ogling"? Whether or not a feminist is standing nearby
There are plenty of scientifically well-documented cognitive differences between men and women, though the OP doesn't sound informed on them, and yes it is considered impolite to know about them if you're not working in a psychological research lab.
I wish there were a newsreader that looked good without the fancy algorithms, like a newsblur without the terrible UI. Like the old Google Reader
It's shocking and unconscionable. Some people are even given a leg up by parents that care for them and sacrifice for them and push them to succeed. Those nazis will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. Don't they know they are oppressing other children through their success?
I find it bizarre that anti-white racism from a Marxist perspective is an academic discipline with reputable journals and funded by the federal government in a majority white country. As far as I could tell in university, most of the professors involved were also white. Check out some whiteness studies material some time and be amazed at what people can get tenure for. Asian studies is still about how Asians are oppressed by white culture, only white studies is hostile towards its subject.
I guess my point is that white people are bona fide official second class citizens, as classified by taxpayer funded research. Asians aren't given special privileges like other minorities, but neither is their success considered evidence of oppression.
Social justice is largely a white self-loathing thing, a perverse way to mark yourself as one of the cultural elite. There's a reason why Amy Chua is the public face of books she cowrites with her white husband. "White guy says that some cultures are better than others" doesn't go over so well. You'll be relegated to selling books through websites owned by Pat Buchanan.
Among social justice academics, Asian success in majority white countries is largely ignored. It upsets the Marxist narrative of oppressor/oppressed, where the oppressors are white and the oppressed are everybody else. In academic circles, "Asian privilege" is considered a myth and an attempt to derail a conversation.
Poor whites and Hispanics aren't nearly as dangerous as poor (young, male) blacks. There is not another comparable group that manages to commit 27% of murders as 1% of the population. That's a huge ratio.
Keep in mind, most black males will never kill anyone. But black males commit a plurality of murders in the US. And 1 in 3 will spend some time in jail in his life. 1 in 7 American black men are in jail at any moment.
Remember, there are more whites in poverty than total blacks in the United States, and blacks commit 48% of murders.
If you're in an urban environment, don't be a progressive hero and try not to avoid young black males. It can be dangerous[1][2]
[1] http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/11/yglesias-i-wasnt-victim-o...
[2] http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/08/all-we-have-to-fear-is-in...
Black people really do commit a lot of crime in America, it's not just a "stereotype". And particularly, young black people, and particularly young black males. Black males between the ages of 14 and 24 commit 27% of all murders, despite being 1% of the population.
It's not scrawny white twitter engineers who are shooting each other in San Francisco
I don't get the romanticization of the under class. In poor neighborhoods, there are lots of noise, litter, and crime and few good role models. Why would you want that in your neighborhood? To prove how open-minded you are?
Free markets should only reduce
irrational discrimination based on race. If discrimination helps your business, it is rational, and will continue.
For example, if 5% of blue people trash your house, and you can't distinguish the 5% from the 95% easily, it may be rational/profitable to discriminate against blue people.
Property values could be tracking some other changing variable, like crime rates.
Have you never looked at the FBI crime statistics by race? Asians commit almost zero crime in America, and they earn more money on average than whites.
Maybe stereotypes exist because they reflect data?
What I'm trying to say is not all racial stereotypes describe a false belief, though it is fashionable to think so.
What do you call a stereotype when it is backed by statistical data? The a priori belief that is most common is that no stereotypes are true. It's the polite thing to believe. But if you are of a certain analytical mindset, you can be argued out of it with enough data and anecdotal evidence from friends.
What is feminism, if not the actions of feminists? I've seen this with my own eyes.
And the message of "Lean In" and the like is very much against the traditional female lifestyle. Prioritizing family over work is called "leaning out" and criticized.
A pretty big racial cognitive gap remains after adjusting for income, at least in America. Poor whites do better on cognitive tests than wealthy African Americans:
http://glpiggy.net/2013/03/19/a-sociologist-looks-at-race-di...African Americans are closer to European IQ levels than Africans, probably for several environmental and genetic reasons (better nutrition and schooling, ~25% European ancestry, etc)
Feminists give their girls toys typically associated with males and male professions. They seem mortified that their girls might want to be veterinarians, teachers, nurses, or mothers. Thereby, they devalue all the women who have acted like women in the past.
No dolls for you, little girl. If you have a Barbie, it better be the one with a computer, web developer Barbie. How about you put down that tutu, and put on these mechanic overalls instead?
This isn't a hypothetical. I have a friend with a strong education who wants to be a teacher. Her parents told her they would be disappointed if she did that. It's an inappropriate profession for an ambitious female, even if it is what she's passionate about.
We tell girls to work 80 hours a week. Forget about a family, unless you can squeeze it in somewhere in your late 30s. And pick up a nice male profession, like programming. Don't even think about being a housewife or a yoga instructor.
The message is to act like boys, not useless girls.
Feminists believe that traditional female behavior is bad/useless and needs to be eliminated. We tell girls that to be worthwhile, they need to live lives like men. I never understood this. If people are happy and productive in traditional roles, why do they need to be eliminated?
Minority set-asides wouldn't be my answer. It seems the government needs the best contractors it can get.
You'll notice that private companies never do that stuff because they suffer if they don't get results.