[mosquito242]

you seem to completely have missed this footnote:

>[3] The existence of people like Jessica is not just something the mainstream media needs to learn to acknowledge, but something feminists need to learn to acknowledge as well. There are successful women who don't like to fight. Which means if the public conversation about women consists of fighting, their voices will be silenced.

[wpietri]

I did not in fact miss that footnote. Given that, is there some point you were trying to make?

[mosquito242]

That he did in fact mention this issue, and noted it's relationship to Jessica in his article. He didn't expound on it at length, but why would he when the point of this article is Jessica's involvement in YC?

[wpietri]

That footnote does not even admit that gender discrimination exists, let alone address it.

It admonishes feminists for doing feminism wrong. Which I always find a little rich from people who are not themselves doing the thing. It feels to me like when non-developers tell me how to develop. My reaction is, "Oh, you know how to do this better? Why don't you show me?"

The point of this article also wasn't Jessica's involvement in YC. It was correcting the general public's lack of understanding of her involvement.

That lack of understanding fits the broad pattern of women being undervalued, and the work of women being written off as subsidiary to prominent men. It's a topic that has been much discussed, and was, as I linked, in the New York Times less than a week ago.

Given that he literally asks why more people don't recognize a woman's contributions, it seems weird to me that he lays it entirely at her character (and his), without reference to known systemic biases. That footnote only makes it weirder, in that he seems to be claiming sufficient acquaintance with the discussion of this problem that he should be aware of the biases.

[TeMPOraL]

Do we have to turn everything into a gender issue? This is exactly what feminists (or maybe people acting in the name of feminists) do wrong - they try to inject their fight for social justice every. fucking. where., whether it's startup economy or landing on a goddamn comet.

And pg is actually very right - reasonable people from all sides of the issue avoid mainstream social justice discussions because they're just ridiculous and a huge waste of time. Participants of those have their stance on discussed issues tied too close to their personal identity[0].

[0] - http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

[wpietri]

> Do we have to turn everything into a gender issue?

Feminists are arguing for things not to be gender issues. People make it a gender issue when they ignore female accomplishments for which men would be honored. Paul Graham explictly made this a gender issue when he praised her for being the "mom".

If you don't think talking about these things is valuable, nobody's forcing you to talk about them. The participants, me included, don't see it as a waste of time, because society has been making steady progress on this for the last hundred years or so. Maybe in another hundred things finally won't be intrusively gendered all the time and we can all get back to what we're doing. If you'd like to help, great. If not, maybe let the people who care get on with it?

[TeMPOraL]

> Feminists are arguing for things not to be gender issues.

Interesting way of doing that by making everything a gender issue all the time.

> Paul Graham explictly made this a gender issue when he praised her for being the "mom".

No, he just praised Jessica for performing the role of mother in the YC family.

> If you don't think talking about these things is valuable, nobody's forcing you to talk about them. (...)

I usually don't. But someone has to speak up when there's bullying starting to happen, because if nobody does, then it will just continue. I want to live in the world where all people are respected and happy. I don't want to live in the world where everyone is afraid of saying a thing in fear of getting bullied by political-correctness defenders.

[gone35]

Maybe is it because some of us might experience social injustice (almost) every. fucking. where.?

(And no, I'm not talking about 21st century first-world problems like "getting offended on Twitter" or PC-bullshit or what not... I'm talking shit that drives you literally to tears, as you see your life's chances, choices, freedoms and potential getting gradually but relentlessly taken away from you by the actions and expectations of your employer, your advisor, your peers, your own family even...)

So for you it might be "just ridiculous and a huge waste of time" --but some of us this is indeed "tied too close to our personal identity". Because we have to live with it.

[TeMPOraL]

> (And no, I'm not talking about 21st century first-world problems like "getting offended on Twitter" or PC-bullshit or what not.

And I am talking exactly about those. Because this comment against pg's essay was a typical 21st century first-world problem. And those problems are what dominates mainstream discussions. It hurts those who experience injustice more than it helps by trivializing their problems.

[e12e]

I thought that footnote was odd. It's acknowledging widespread sexism (implying that (almost) all public conversation about women is confrontational - or leads to a confrontation, presumably in contrast to most other public conversations (about men)) -- and calls for feminists to acknowledge that not all women wants to be/are confrontational?

The whole idea of fighting for equal opportunity is so that everyone can be more of who they are, and not have to fight more than anyone else to be heard, because of race, gender, sexual preference, social standing or any of the myriad of things we are so great at holding against people for no good reason.

Anyway, just as with the last time few times PG found himself in a minefield of mostly misguided political correctness -- I think this simply shows his general style of pragmatically voicing his thoughts, without much concern for overall social analysis. I for one welcome that, even though if read in in a certain light, he can sound anything from quaint to prejudicial (not so much in this article).

But he's not alone in that -- any neutral voice in a in-equal society can be seen as being oppressive -- of supporting the status quo.

I also see how people can get tired of being expected to fight, when all they want is get on with their work. It's a perfectly natural reaction. It's quite horrifying to see one of the more powerful women of Silicon Valley (?) not dare to be interviewed for fear of how her message will be twisted though. If anyone needed confirmation that there's a long way to go to equal opportunity in management, that surely is it.

[rtpg]

>even though if read in in a certain light, he can sound anything from quaint to prejudicial (not so much in this article).

Perhaps because he's actually being prejudicial?

It's odd how we somehow think that someone being honest about their prejudices somehow minimises the prejudice.