[hacker789]

Agreed.

People have no obligation to include anyone in their writings. It's not immoral or wrong for someone to use language that does not include 100% of people.

It was you who wrote:

> And such a reminder would be completely appropriate. If someone else didn't remind him, then you should step up and do so yourself.

That said, your comparison is absurd, especially considering young women handily beat young men in college graduation rates and beat them in pay, even taking into account the predominance of young men in tech.

[saraid216]

> People have no obligation to include anyone in their writings.

Except this isn't the point I was making.

People in a privileged position are obligated to be more inclusive, because their position is different. This is why, for instance, it is problematic that the POTUS explicitly endorses Christianity as a matter of state. While I concede that it would waste political capital to be inclusive, it remains "immoral and wrong" for him to exclude non-Christians, atheist or Hindu or whatever, simply by weight of tradition.

In this case, males are in a privileged position. Failing to be inclusive, even by omission, is exclusive. We could make this about browser wars and point out how problematic it is that rendering engines are becoming monocultural. We could make this about the predominance of Windows and the implicit assumption that everyone who uses a computer must have a two-button mouse. We could make this about economics and ask why anyone would find it in their self-interest to not increase their disposable income.

It is a responsibility of those with the privilege of dominance to actively seek out ways to be inclusive. It is similarly the right of those who are disadvantaged to protect themselves when excluded, even if it's through exclusion themselves. Both actions are stepping stones towards a stronger egalitarianism.

[hacker789]

> Failing to be inclusive, even by omission, is exclusive.

> People in a privileged position are obligated to be more inclusive, because their position is different.

> immoral and wrong

If you're not with us, you're against us. And you're obligated to be with us.

Postmodern feminism is a remarkably authoritarian ideology, leaving very little room for individual choice and expression.

The world is not as absurdly simple as you make it out to be. The world cannot be easily broken down into neat, calming, convenient divisions of "oppressed" and "privileged", "good" and "ungood". That sort of worldview is great for sewing division, segregation, and hatred, but it's awful for accurately modeling society or for setting policy.

It's absurdly difficult for a non-authoritarian to have a coherent discussion with a postmodern feminist, because PMFs dishonestly redefine words (such as "society", "group", "privilege", and "oppression") in an attempt to impose their ideology on the discussion. Both sides end up talking past each other, but I'm going to do my best.

Anyone could construct a "group" to which they belong that is "oppressed" according to PMF ideology. Gluten-intolerant people are oppressed and excluded by a society that markets wheat products to them at every turn, for example. Instead of living in a free society, we could all construct chains by which to bind everyone else to our particular differences.

As I pointed out, young women have significantly higher college graduation rates and are paid better than young men, even taking into account young men's. Is it the right (your words) of young men to use exclusion (your word) to young women when it comes to college or money?