[synth]

Do you actually believe that calling someone a sexist (however 'careless' it might be) is an attack on the male gender as a whole? Really? Try swapping sexism with homophobia or racism, and see how ridiculous you sound. (Note: I agree with your first assertion.)

First, throwing the term 'racist' around carelessly undermines genuine claims of racism. Second, it attempts to not only target an individual as racist, but often whites as a whole as being part of a "whites only-club", in turn implying that white identity itself is inherently wrong. Third, it undermines genuine racial equality - if people are concerned about their criticisms being perceived as racist they will refrain from open and honest critique which is the hallmark of colleagues and equals. Fourth, it assumes (essentially) a racial role for blacks as "poor persecuted minorities" who need protecting from criticism and attack. Consequently, racial inequality is perpetuated - after all, if this same criticism had been targeted at a white journalist would we expect to see responses such as "you're only picking on him because he's white"?

A problem with reverse racism/sexism arguments is that they allow people who are secure in their positions to brush aside the racist/sexist undercurrents of society in favor of "gender/colorblind" solutions that only make sense if everyone agrees to ignore all cultural, social, and historical context.

Just because people with axes to grind can use gender as a smear (an inept one, in this case) to paint someone as a sexist, doesn't make it right to imply we as males are somehow being attacked or victimized, or could be in the future. And no, being made uncomfortable of your position in society isn't an attack, it's a reminder.

[nopassrecover]

> Do you actually believe that calling someone a sexist (however 'careless' it might be) is an attack on the male gender as a whole

Keyword being 'often' not 'always', and it's usually particular to the male/female gender issue rather than all majorities/minorities. In particular, if you read the article you'll see that both the critic who claimed sexism and the woman being critiqued throw the term "boy's clubs" about. I've found it's socially quite acceptable to imply assumed male misogyny, but maybe my 'often' should be degraded to 'sometimes'?

> A problem with reverse racism/sexism arguments is that they allow people who are secure in their positions to brush aside the racist/sexist undercurrents of society

Right, which makes it all the more important to ensure that when racism/sexism claims are made, they are made legitimately and not casually, lest they be used as examples to dismiss, or ignore, genuine issues.

> Just because people with axes to grind can use gender as a smear (an inept one, in this case) to paint someone as a sexist, doesn't make it right to imply we as males are somehow being attacked or victimized

This probably comes back to my first point, but look I think the points are orthogonal. We agree that using social issues as a smear tactic is wrong. What I've noticed (and we seem to disagree on) is that at least sometimes (though perhaps limited to the gender case as I talk about above) someone using a social smear tactic will make an appeal to the wider issue (e.g. "x is a horrible sexist, and we all know how bad those boys clubs are") to solicit agreement and rapport, thus strengthening their attack. What I get concerned with is that the implicit acceptance of this wider issue claim tends to paint the majority as collectively guilty of issues which should be identified on an individual basis, which leads to more of the "us vs them" mentality that we're trying to eliminate.

[acomar]

> Right, which makes it all the more important to ensure that when racism/sexism claims are made, they are made legitimately and not casually, lest they be used as examples to dismiss, or ignore, genuine issues.

Too frequently this line of argumentation is inflated and used to attack even legitimate claims of sexism/racism -- they can be used inappropriately turns into they are being used inappropriately halfway through the argument, and the entire point slides unchallenged.

> someone using a social smear tactic will make an appeal to the wider issue (e.g. "x is a horrible sexist, and we all know how bad those boys clubs are") to solicit agreement and rapport, thus strengthening their attack.

Exactly. Consider that this is easier and more powerful in the reverse direction from a majority/empowered group to a minority/under-powered group.

[hatcravat]

Do you feel that in this case the charges of sexism are legitimate?

[synth]

> What I get concerned with is that the implicit acceptance of this wider issue claim tends to paint the majority as collectively guilty of issues which should be identified on an individual basis, which leads to more of the "us vs them" mentality that we're trying to eliminate.

The "boy's club" mentality that a lot of people glean from the "tech zeitgeist", for lack of a better term, is not entirely unfounded. I think a lot of us have a few anecdotes, where women in tech are called "irrational" or otherwise excluded solely for their gender, but we all know that anecdotes prove nothing, and since social issues don't lend themselves very well to scientific examination (too many variables), I present another angle.

Entertain the following notion: The reason it's more socially acceptable (depending on where you live) to rag on men in society, as opposed to women, is exactly because the relevant(in this case, tech) power structure is mostly male dominated. On its face, it's a terrible argument, but I submit to you that this is how all people subconsciously feel about the concept of discrimination.

And further, since people look different, inherently, the mass of people will inevitably make it an us/them issue. Always. This is one of the many ugly aspects of human nature, that I would love to see eradicated, but I'm afraid that, for now, it's a techno-utopic fantasy.

And of course, it's not fair at all, that because you or I share more "traits" with the leaders of society, that we are made to feel guilty for something we have no power to alter. I don't believe that's a good thing. But remember, the motif of the underdog overcoming all obstacles (an "us vs. them") has been around since the dawn of man, and people are naturally attracted to the "us vs. them" idea, even if it's a gross over-simplification of the truth. So everyone will naturally and subconsciously blame anyone who shares the traits of "them". That's why people, as you say "[tend] to paint the majority as collectively guilty of issues which should be identified on an individual basis, which leads to more of the "us vs them" mentality that we're trying to eliminate."

Instead of looking at these issues as cases of reverse sexism: "oh you believe that just because she's a woman, she can't make it in the tech world and needs protection/help", I look at it as acknowledging that all people have certain cognitive biases and that the majority of people will act on them subtly, all of which add up.

Anyone with a note of clarity and dignity in their heads knows that all people are of the same seed, and that, ignoring serious brain/developmental damage, all people are able to do much the same work, albeit at varying speed/efficiency.

But I also know, that subconsciously, I will tend to look down on "black people" as a whole if I see a black person to something wrong, as opposed to someone who looks like me, in which case I will look down on the individual. The sad truth is that all people will unconsciously and subtly ignore reason to all sorts of cognitive biases without realizing it. Everyone, you and me included. And to add further insult to injury, we will call that "rational" or "reason".

For example, people will tout IQ scores to show that blacks are inferior to whites, as if intelligence is determined by someone's ability to solve a few geometry puzzles, and that this further can be reduced to a single positive integer. This is what passes for rationality in some circles. Just a reminder.

[These articles highlight my point better, for those who are interested.]

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2012/04/17/ego-depletion/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/the-just-world-fallac...

My point is that we are not the rational actors we would like ourselves to be. We need to acknowledge that base, petty, irrational human nature still rules much of society, and we need to accept that we are all (everyone, to differing extents) parts of larger social mechanisms that subtly, but systematically, exclude anyone who looks or acts different.

Another example; discriminatory laws (like Hate Crimes) seem to, at face value, unjustly make the law about skin color. But viewed from a larger historical, cultural and social perspective, they're an attempt to give minorities more of a legal foot to stand on in a society where blacks are sentenced harder than whites for the exact same crimes. The guilt we are made to feel is the price we all pay (yes, even minorities who happen to also be part of a single dominant social group are made to feel guilty).

> the "us vs them" mentality that we're trying to eliminate.

I too want to live in a world where everyone is judged not according to their superficial traits, but according to their skills. A world of can's and can-not's, not have and have-not's. A world where rational scientific inquiry is separated neatly from politics (I assume you agree). But I further realize that we are an innately irrational and fearful species, who will seize on anything, statistics, science, even rationality, to justify our prejudices and worldviews.

That's why I believe positive discrimination is (fundamentally) good for our age. Yes, these measures are imperfect, inelegant, ugly ad-hoc solutions that create double-standards in society, but instead of pretending that simple, elegant solutions to complex problems are good, we have to face reality; sometimes, complex social problems need ugly, unjust solutions, until the time where a better solution is made real, because the alternative is to let human irrationality go unchecked and unaccountable.

Just to sum up all my rambling; we must accept that the problem is human nature, and that the "us vs. them" exists because of human nature, and that the ugly double standards of positive discrimination exist to counter-balance the effects of that, at the unfortunate but small price of further legitimizing it. These measures exist to reminds us that one-sided discrimination exists to this day. That's why we need them and that's why I think the benefits greatly outweigh the harms in the long run.

Edit: Looking at the post now I realized I typed way too much text in one comment. I'm sorry about this.

[pleasebehonest]

So, what would you say to an underprivileged, unattractive, short, Caucasian male? Perhaps, "I'm sorry, but I'm going step on your rights and make you a casualty in the fight for the 'greater good', as defined by me. Please step aside and keep quiet." Or would you bother saying anything to him at all?

Maybe you aren't obsessed with driving wedges between various groups in society, causing them to become factions with increasing animosity towards one another, but you're doing it.

It's odd: No group hates underprivileged, unattractive whites males nearly as much as privileged, attractive white males. It's a cruel form of preening.

[synth]

Race, gender, class, etc. are inextricably tangled up together. I'm not sure why you (seem to) think being underprivileged and Caucasian somehow means you will be trampled on or have your rights taken away. (How exactly?)

These "wedges between various groups in society" have existed ever since we've had an amygdala. They are innate, in that sense. We ought to accept that people as individuals, and more so as groups, are too biased when it comes to things like race, gender, etc, and we should address these problems in honest terms, as opposed to presuming that everyone is a rational actor who will realize that Racism Is Bad After All if only we did/didn't do X.

> Maybe you aren't obsessed with driving wedges between various groups in society, causing them to become factions with increasing animosity towards one another, but you're doing it.

Most of the animosity you might be referring to, has existed since day 1, but is just getting more attention from the media. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

> It's odd: No group hates underprivileged, unattractive whites males nearly as much as privileged, attractive white males. It's a cruel form of preening.

It's easier to hate people that you can relate to. Nothing odd about that. It's why you often see nerds making fun of other nerds with a ferocity greater than a non-nerd would ever muster.

[pi18n]

Point one and the latter part of three make sense to me. Point two should be, "it's an ad hominem attack and intellectually bankrupt." This applies if and only if the target of the term is not actually prejudiced.

I don't think males as a whole are being attacked when one gets called sexist, but I also don't know what you mean by "position in society". For the majority of men in the US that position is that they're more likely to be murdered, arrested, serve relatively longer sentences, receive less money for health care, pay more for insurance, get called to selective service, and die younger. You seem to be presenting it as if they should be embarrassed at how high above everyone else they are.

[yummyfajitas]

Point two should be, "it's an ad hominem attack and intellectually bankrupt." This applies if and only if the target of the term is not actually prejudiced.

Even if they are prejudiced, it is still an ad hominem. A biased person (i.e., nearly all of us) could still make a correct argument, as could an unbiased bayesian with a strong prior.

There are very narrow categories when ad hominem is justified - specifically, if one is attempting to appeal to authority, then attacking the authority is justified. In all other cases that I can think of, it's a logical fallacy.

[pi18n]

Forgive me, I meant if the criticism is in response to actual prejudice.

[king_jester]

> For the majority of men in the US that position is that they're more likely to be murdered, arrested, serve relatively longer sentences, receive less money for health care, pay more for insurance, get called to selective service, and die younger.

All of those things you listed are hugely intersectional with race, sexual orientation, and class. In terms of sexism, men will rarely face institutional barriers based solely on their gender and are unlikely to be have their lives affected by being called sexist.

[s_baby]

>Just because people with axes to grind can use gender as a smear (an inept one, in this case) to paint someone as a sexist, doesn't make it right to imply we as males are somehow being attacked or victimized, or could be in the future. And no, being made uncomfortable of your position in society isn't an attack, it's a reminder.

What position do "we" possess? As a user of ycombinator you are likely in a position of privilege. Extrapolating your experience onto the general male populace is an ad-hom attack on all marginalized men when done systematically.

Because you are the figurehead of "men", gay and transgendered men have no where to go when they are kicked out of their fundamentalist household. After all, why would you build shelters for the privileged?

Because you are the figurehead of "men", minority boys are falling through the cracks. Have you seen the difference in employment rates of african-american men and women? Have you seen the difference in incarceration rates?

Yes, some men like you experience disproportionate mobility towards the top. But even more experience mobility towards the very bottom.

[synth]

I speak for myself alone, and the "we" was obviously rhetorical. The parent comment spoke of males in monolithic terms like "masculine identity", and I seized on that. I also never extrapolated my own personal experience onto anyone else, just the totality of my experience, which is all anyone can offer really. So there's really no need for you to project any sort of messianic arrogance on me.

If you have a problem with people speaking in broad terms (this is not what ad hominem means), you might want to reconsider the comment space of a news aggregation website as the avenue for any deep, precise insight into unbelievably complex social issues.

[nirvana]

Swap it for racism? Ok.

A clear example of what he's talking about can be observed in the tendency particularly during the "Town Hall" meetings, and thruout the rest of the Obamacare debate to characterize anyone who disagreed with that piece of legislation as "Racist" for disagreeing with Obama. Because Obama is "Black", and those using this tactic agreed with him, so rather than respond to the points, they felt comfortable accusing their opponents of dirty things.

It is very much like calling anyone who advocates gay marriage a "pedophile". Using a highly emotionally charged negative word to slander someone to avoid engaging them in debate.

It got to the point where one day I saw MSNBC focusing on the gun a guy had slung over his back at a protest which also had a large 2nd ammendment component, with the MSNBC commentators talking about how this guy was making a threat to kill the president (because the president was arriving in that location later) and how it just showed the "angry violent racist attitude".

The video in question focused on the gun, so the commentator didn't realize the guy she was talking about was actually black.

The "You're a sexist/racists/homophobe" if you disagree with a "female/black/gay" is a very popular tactic these days.

It is easy to evade legitimate debate by simply asserting that "the TEA Party is racist" and things like that.

It also shows that many people think that simply because of someone's skin color, gender or sexual orientation is not that of a "minority" that their opinions are groundless and based in ignorance.

>being made uncomfortable of your position in society isn't an attack, it's a reminder.

Let me change contexts so you can see how this comes off: "Being made to feel guilty for your molestation of children isn't an attack, its a reminder of your crime." This is what someone in your position would say to rationalize calling a gay marriage supporter a pedophile.

First off, this seems an admission that the goal of this tactic is to make someone feel uncomfortable, as if they should be guilty for being part of what you consider a majority. Which means you're speaking to the person, and this is ad hominem. "You're white so you don't know what you're talking about" is a pure form of ad hominem.

Secondly, unless the issue is intrinsically related to the issue of race/gender/orientation it is an evasion of the topic at hand.

I don't see how cryptography is intrinsically racial, sexist or related to sexual orientation at all.

This line of attack is not a "reminder" it is an evasion of debate, and an attempt to reject intellectual discourse for ad hominem.

It seems those who engage in it feel privileged as if the rules of discourse don't apply to them and they can win by "playing the race/gender/etc. card".

All these security issues are irrelevant because a white presumably straight guy brought them up?

Really?

[synth]

To clarify, I don't object to the claim that people have wrongly used the "gender/race/etc card" when it isn't warranted. Of course this is disgusting. I take issue with the idea that, for example, if Obama were to play the race card, that this somehow represents an attack on "whiteness". This is ridiculous.

> This line of attack is not a "reminder" it is an evasion of debate, and an attempt to reject intellectual discourse for ad hominem.

I never meant to imply that. I meant that the reminder that you are privileged, isn't an attack as such. I could have phrased it better, I admit.

> It also shows that many people think that simply because of someone's skin color, gender or sexual orientation is not that of a "minority" that their opinions are groundless and based in ignorance.

> All these security issues are irrelevant because a white presumably straight guy brought them up? Really?

I agree that this is bad. But on the other hand, wouldn't one necessarily need to have these marginalized traits (skin color, gender or sexual orientation) to fully understand discrimination? You can read all you want about discrimination but unless you have actually experienced it, I don't think you'll be able to say anything new or compelling on the matter. That's what everyone wants, really; a good story.

Corny metaphor incoming: It would be like a director who has studied about 1920's history for years, having never experienced it, and a director having breathed and lived it. Who would you prefer to direct a movie, all other things being equal, about the 20's?

An aside: It's the same reason why people attack Romney's life of wealth. "How could someone so rich know how the average person feels?", goes the argument. That's a legitimate concern in my book.

> I don't see how cryptography is intrinsically racial, sexist or related to sexual orientation at all.

In itself cryptography, and by extension, mathematics, has absolutely nothing to do with gender politics or any kind of politics at all. Number theory is number theory is number theory. Yes. But it is in the CONTEXT of the larger social, cultural, political even economical factors, in which all of us live and most of us agree are important, that cryptography is made political. Why should I put on my blinders and ignore all of these issues just because the connection seems vague? (It isn't.) Here's the truth of the matter: everything is political to some extent, and there's nothing wrong with pointing this out.

I really like this quote:

"To claim to be apolitical is a contradiction. Every public stance is a political stance: all social acts can influence others, however subtly or imperceptibly. A political absolute zero is unattainable; just as all matter at a finite temperature radiates heat, all social acts radiate politics. In truth, to be "apolitical" is to be politically white-hot, to shine brightly in the colours of the status quo." -- Stephen Bond

But then again, nobody is saying that cryptography is inherently anti-woman, it's the culture that's under scrutiny.

> It seems those who engage in it feel privileged as if the rules of discourse don't apply to them and they can win by "playing the race/gender/etc. card".

I don't live in the US but I feel like this is an exaggeration. I agree that this behavior is disgusting, but the solution is to shame the individuals who engage in this behavior, not dismiss or whitewash the fundamental concerns.

[Locke1689]

Corny metaphor incoming: It would be like a director who has studied about 1920's history for years, having never experienced it, and a director having breathed and lived it. Who would you prefer to direct a movie, all other things being equal, about the 20's?

I've seen this type of ad hominem a lot and I'm not sure why so many people fall for it. I would take the historian every time. Aside from the well-studied facts showing that memory and eye-witness testimony are hugely inaccurate, in a movie about the 20s we would expect to see the 20s. We would want the period represented accurately as a whole, not one person's perspective. In a movie about Ray Charles, we would certainly like Ray Charles' input, but that is only because the movie is about Ray Charles' perspective.

To put it another way, if you're suffering an illness, does that make you an expert on the illness? Does it make you qualified to treat the illness? Clearly no, on both counts. Being a victim of racism isn't immune to anecdotal bias more than any other phenomenon. The cultural phenomenon of racism or sexism is not well-represented by a single person's experiences and it certainly doesn't give them any more license than an expert to attempt to proscribe a treatment.