That subreddit is full of examples of people who indeed express the views listed above (and those views are often expressed in much more hateful and bullying terms than would be appropriate here).
You called Tohhou's post a conspiracy theory, clearly implying that he's wrong; he gave pages upon pages of evidence that he's right. What more do you want?
> But nobody has a problem with "Tulsa Codes!". Threads aren't full of people ranting about "third wave feminism" when they do.
If young Tulsa residents were more already more wealthy and more educated than young Oklahoma City residents, people would certainly complain about "Tulsa activists" if:
1. Companies were demonized by "Tulsa activists" for hiring young people from Oklahoma City for tech jobs, or
2. Mobs of internet "Tulsa activists" bullied people who dared to suggest that we shouldn't be spending extra money trying to further the achievement gap between young people from Tulsa and young people from Oklahoma City, or
3. "Tulsa activists" accused you of hating young people from "Tulsa" if you disagreed with any of their points.
Across all cultures (perhaps across all of history), women are more risk averse.
In fact, feminist activists didn't push to get more women into tech until tech was a higher paying, lower risk endeavor.
Only then did it become scandalous that young women were choosing different career paths (but interestingly, the fact that young women are earning more than young men and graduating from college in far greater rates than young men isn't scandalous).
He's concerned about being misconstrued because feminist activists love bullying people with waves of hateful, outrageously uncharitable, deliberately damaging messages at the slightest trigger.
> Will write about female founders, but traveling all day so it will have to wait. Reserve judgment? Prob too much to hope for, alas.
The responses are typical of feminist activists:
1. > pg translated: "Shut up. All I did in the last decade is not what I believe in, I will graciously explain it to you when I see fit"
2. > Obviously not an important enough issue to deal with now.
3. > please DO NOT write about women founders until you have a better fucking grasp on the issue.
4. > oh don't you even try to equate being a douchebag "startup" founder with being a hacker
The privilege topic has been discussed to death.
If someone were to use "privilege" to mean "unearned benefits for individuals in specific contexts", then no one could have a problem with it. We could talk about:
- female privileges in the workplace
- male privileges in the workplace
- white privileges at university
- black privileges at university
- gay privileges at bars
- straight privileges at bars
- American-born privileges regarding medical care
- Canadian-born privileges regarding medical care
- etc.
Instead, third-wave feminists have transformed the notion of "privilege" into a targeted weapon for belittling and denigrating the specific demographics they deem hostile to their goals.
When a "friendly" demographic does well, it's a result of hard work and determination. For example, when young women earn more than young men, or when young women graduate from college at far higher rates than young men, it's a result of hard work and determination.
Another example: Have you ever seen tptacek complain about the Asian tech problem, the Indian tech problem, or the Jewish tech problem? Nope. Those people worked hard! That is why they're wildly overrepresented. No need to scold them. No need to demand flagellation from them.
But men doing well? White men? Oh god, it's just their privilege. We need to fix this, and we'll know the problem isn't fixed as long as there is any disparity.
If my post came across as a generic "men's rights" post, rather than a direct response to the parent, then I didn't do a good enough job of tying it together.
Western culture's hypersensitivity toward women's issues, combined with its blindness toward men's issues, create an environment in which it's socially acceptable (even socially rewarded) to propose draconian measures that further throw young men under the bus that's carrying young women.
We should aim to help people who are suffering in society, rather than aim to help people with vaginas. And we absolutely shouldn't continue obsessing about leveling evening every single predominately male field without doing something to help the young men who are increasingly being left behind.
> It is irrefutable that for generations American society took "affirmative action" to suppress women, to pigeonhole them into an impoverished gender role concerned only with housekeeping and child rearing.
It is irrefutable that for generations American society took "affirmative action" to suppress men, to pigeonhole them into an overworked, hyper-stressed, diseased, prematurely fatal gender role concerned only with selfless providing for and protecting the women and children in their lives.
Feminists look at the 0.1% of men at the top of society throughout history, and willfully ignore the 99.9% of men at the bottom. Those men at the top of society are useful for shoring up sympathy for women; those men at the bottom of society are not.
> Who wants to, as a woman, invest themselves in a career in tech when there is a decent chance your boss will be this guy
What a sophomoric, hand-wavy thing to say. Who wants to, as a man, invest themselves in a career in tech when there is a decent chance your boss will be this guy, who is actually, literally a powerful boss who says bullying things toward men who don't toe the third-wave feminist line:
Plus, the man you're trying to ridicule is correct, as a recent large study shows beyond all reasonable doubt ("Penn Medicine Brain Imaging Study Helps Explain Different Cognitive Strengths in Men and Women"):
When in life do men's and women's brains diverge? Not during their youngest, most plastic years. Nope. During the surge of sex hormones in puberty. It doesn't mean men or worse or women are worse. It just means that like all other intelligent species, humans have different psychological tendencies between sexes.
> The solution to gender inequality issues is to simply hire women. Hire women and promote women.
This is a terrible idea, unless you only care about ensuring that every company has at least one vagina for every penis. History (and the present) shows us that this sort of widespread coddling is guaranteed to help privileged, connected women at the expense of underprivileged, unconnected men.
Hyper-privileged, connected, powerful men like yourself will have no issues finding a job either way. But young men—who are already out-educated and out-earned by young women—are badly affected, especially those without connections. Considering the lack of personal repercussions, it's little surprise that it's trendy for old, rich men to throw young, poor men under the bus. It's par for the course for history, in fact.
> employers tend to treat similar resumes with male versus female names differently.
Why shouldn't they, especially in the world you want?
It looks like you're using "sexism" to mean "views that are not in lockstep with rude, hyper-privileged feminist activists who make thinly-veiled threats toward groups of people for having too many penises".
> I think you misread the comment you're replying to.
I think you misread mine, because you're inserting the word "all" where I never placed it.
> People are not entitled to ignore all externalities that cause discomfort to others.
I agree with this. The man being vilified in this thread almost certainly does, too.
> For example, creating toxic pollution that spreads to people around you and forcing them to pay the cost of cleanup is not OK
I agree.
> but you're suggesting it is?
Not at all.
I was responding to a post that vilified people who ignored externalities that cause discomfort for other people. I responded by explaining that everyone ignores externalities that cause others discomfort. Every action (or inaction) negatively and positively affects other people, and you can't be paralyzed by that.
If you've ever been in a monogamous relationship, you've created externalities that caused discomfort in your romantic rivals. You made a judgement call, and decided to do it anyway.
Everything is a judgement call. The man in the article made one. We're not arguing principles here; we're arguing where to draw the line.
> And the part about not paying for public goods that you use, you seem to have misread as "not using public goods that you don't pay for".
I don't understand why you feel I misread it that way.
I was responding to a post that vilified people who felt they shouldn't be forced to pay for things that benefited them.
If I plant attractive flowers in my front yard, it would be nakedly evil for me to force the family across from me to help pay for them, even though their lives are improved by the flowers.
If I give someone genuinely useful advice, I shouldn't be allowed to say, "Ha! You're benefiting for free! Pay up."
Everyone is entitled to (and does) ignore externalities that cause discomfort to others.
If Alice performs well at her job, and her company gains a lot of marketshare as a result, she has likely caused discomfort for the employees of her company's competitors. It's frightening to imagine a world in which Alice is forced to stop performing as well because of her competitors' discomfort.
A simpler example: "hapless" is all over this thread, causing discomfort for those who don't want this man thrown in prison. Should "hapless" be forced to stop?
Additionally, everyone is entitled to (and does) ignore public goods that they don't pay for. It's frightening to imagine a world in which we force Alice to pay for her neighbor's renovations, or to pay for a weekly advice newsletter she never signed up for.
People like the man in the article make these value judgments more independently from government policy than most people do. If anything, that is your contention with him, not that he doesn't pay for things he didn't ask for, and not that he sometimes ignores the discomfort caused by his actions.
The explanation (and subsequent discussion) in your first link is wonderful.
I love that there are nerds tucked away in random corners of the internet, making themselves happy by working on obscure, challenging problems like these.
That dehumanizing attitude is extremely common in first-world "social justice warrior" circles.
They consciously and deliberately use shaming and bullying tactics to intimidate others into silence. They acknowledge this constantly, especially on Twitter when their bullying victims ask why the "social justice warriors" are being so cruel.
Their answers are typically something like, "We need everyone to know that being a fucking asshole like you will mean everyone will mock and hate you."
These activists are quite literally bullies. It's extremely important that we continue to stand up to them.
I use gender-neutral pronouns unless context dictates otherwise, but I want you to consider something.
If a policy (or lack thereof) is correlated with women feeling excluded or intimidated, it doesn't necessarily mean that the policy (or lack thereof) is a bad thing.
If women tend to feel intimidated by eye contact with men with whom they are in competition, it doesn't mean such eye contact should be banned. If women tend to feel feel excluded if the founding members of an organization or club are all men, it doesn't mean men should be forced to find a woman before founding an organization or club.
This community, like most others, has an unspoken bias against third-wave feminist bullies.
Look what happened to the "Atheism Plus" communities. They have been completely taken over by bigoted "social justice warriors" and their activism.
Completely.
Atheism is almost never discussed. And when it is, it is always discussed in the context of third-wave post-modern feminism. Think I'm lying? Take a look at any Atheism Plus community. Any!
Once a community accepts the tenants of post-modern discourse, it's over.
I don't think that's a counter point; it's a long discontinued practice of deliberately discriminating against people of a given race because other people of that race were too successful.
It's not something I support, by the way, in case the sarcasm in my above comment wasn't apparent.
You called Tohhou's post a conspiracy theory, clearly implying that he's wrong; he gave pages upon pages of evidence that he's right. What more do you want?