[coldtea]

It sounds like this is just sneer, not an argument.

It's tough in the real world (which is bigger than tech) for everybody.

Bullying and harassment on the internet is a fact for both women and men (as it is in real life for that matter. Male geeks, for example, hardly get much love in high school from the "football team" type guys, and same for geeky/unpopular females from the schools "a-list").

Women have the historical baggage of sexism and double standards to fight against, which has been closing down since the 60s.

Men who are not of the macho/alpha-male type (that is, most of us tech geeks) have the macho/violence/"bro"/anti-"faggot" etc crap to put up with, which doesn't get much attention, but is a real problem too.

It is possible (and I'd say, preferable) to acknowledge both, and their unique mechanics, without flying any flags for one or the other.

[tptacek]

I am sneering at the argument that men face meaningful harassment for being men on the Internet, yes. I hope that was clear.

[coldtea]

Again with the weasel word ("meaningful") and the "no true scotchman" thing...

Is it only meaningful when it gets physical?

Or are violence threats and death threats, internet mob justice, bullying and the like is not "meaningful harassment" if it happens to men?

And why would that be?

Is that because most attacks on men are mere jokes, or maybe most men are thick-skinned Rambos that just brush them off?

And, the corollary, is that because most attacks on women are real-world threatening, or most women are little delicate creatures that can't take a verbal/written attack?

I find it hard to agree with either idea.

Maybe there's some other possible intended meaning behind this "meaningful harassment" notion that I've missed?

[tptacek]

It's "No True Scotsman".

I'm not interested in the noodling semantic argument. Don't bullshit me. You're not getting anywhere with it.

I stand by everything I've said on this thread. Anyone who suggests men in this industry deal with harassment of the same kind women do should be embarrassed. Will, inevitably, be embarrassed. I'll happily sign my own name to that.

[Nadya]

The patronizing correction isn't needed given they had it right the first time. The second time was likely an uncaught typo.

>in other words, sort like the "no true scotsman" fallacy).

Further, you don't seem interested in any form of conversation. I can't say you're posting in good faith - but rather have already made your mind certain of something with no intentions of discussing it. Calling others names and taking the moral high ground, even when that moral high ground has little to no basis in reality and you've been given evidence otherwise.