What Can Men Do?

edooby · April 27, 2014, 6:14am

One thing that particularly annoys me is overreaching feminist arguments. It presents a quite legitimate target which distracts people from the real issue. The reason that this bothers me so much is because I feel like we should use all our resources to achieve a measurable change and move on to the next step, like a computer program. If we try to solve multiple problems in parallel (some of which some of us may not even think a problem), we will inevitable delay the solution to the problems which we all agree exist and should be fixed.

This post provides one such argument:

Diversity leads to better products and results

As illustrated in this Cornell study along with many others, diversity improves performance, morale, and end product. More women engineers means building a better internet, and improving software that can service society as a whole. Building a better Internet is why I started doing software development in the first place. I think we can all agree this is of utmost importance.

The Internet is the largest recording of human history ever built

Right now the architecture for that platform is being built disproportionally by white and asian males. You’ve heard the phrase “he who writes history makes history”? We don’t yet know how this will affect future generations.

How can architecture be decidedly male? I like to refer to the anecdotal story of the Apple Store glass stairs. While visually appealing, there was one unforeseen consequence to their design: the large groups of strange men that spend hours each day standing under them looking up. As a woman, the first time I saw them I thought “thank god I’m not wearing a skirt today.” Such considerations were not taken in designing these stairs. I think it’s probable, if not easily predictable, that in a few years we will see such holes in the design of the web.

Here, #1 is the real argument which I believe in wholeheartedly. #2, however, is the overreaching distraction. With a high degree of certainty I can say that the method in which bits are delivered from Facebooks servers to my own home computer makes no difference whether I am a man or a woman. If the argument was meant to say that there might be some technological improvement which was missed because of the lack of female input, that is argument #1. The content of what is being delivered may have the sort of flaw that #2 is talking about, but that is not part of the architecture of the internet. It is quite literally at the presentation layer. Accordingly, the presentation of the internet is controlled by the individual website and not some designated group of men. This is true under the assumption that the presentation is only limited by the imagination of the website creator, which may not have been true a decade ago, but I feel fairly confident is true today. In conclusion, I feel like argument #2 is an overreach that quite frankly adds little value to the very important argument.

codinghorror · April 27, 2014, 6:47am

Given this exchange:

Let’s say your accusations are true (but are they? can you provide evidence? I think shanley’s public Twitter feed is ample evidence of public vitriol and hate directed at everyone, every day, for months on end.) For the sake of argument, let’s accept that what you say is true. That this particular person is some kind of known troll and therefore not a good example.

Why wouldn’t one, then:

Not reply at all, and immediately block this person.
Alternately, reply in the form of “you are a known harasser and you are not welcome here”, then block, so that others can see and judge for themselves.

Both seem a lot easier and more effective than multiple replies. And option #2 would assist future women who would know to steer well clear of this individual, it’d also leave a helpful black mark on their public record for anyone to find (future employers?).

Instead, option #3 was chosen: to reply to what, to the outside observer, looks like reasonable criticism with two tweets containing:

name calling and expletives
a personal attack on their physical appearance

I find it personally sickening that 12 people “favorited” a personal attack on someone’s appearance. That is profoundly disturbing to me, particularly in the context of feminism.

Even if this is “appropriating the harassment”, as you propose, I guarantee you that any future Internet citizen who happens upon this public exchange will have absolutely no idea what this context was, and will simply see it as I saw it: a vile and hateful response to a reasonable criticism.

Is that a good outcome? For anyone?

If you consider this a flawed example for some reason, just browse the public feed, there are dozens if not hundreds of other examples of actively spreading bile and hatred one could cite.

Honestly, I don’t know this John V. Petersen person at all, and I don’t care to defend him.

But I do care deeply in the idea of respectful discourse between fellow human beings. And that I will defend.

You can be extremely angry and still come from a place of deep respect for and love of those you disagree with, in working together for change. MLK speeches consistently move me to tears with anger expressed out of such deep compassion. They are incredibly compelling for that reason, and as I’ve said before, there is no higher example of persuasive writing I have ever read in my entire life.

For example in Whatever Happened to Civility on The Internet? back in 2007:

For an example of effective criticism of the strongest kind, I can think of no better piece than Martin Luther King’s Letter From a Birmingham Jail. I re-read it every year, and each time I’m floored by the passion behind this incredible persuasive essay – and the deep anger and frustration it presents in such rational terms.

This legendary essay demonstrates the fine art of disagreement: the ability to respect the people you disagree with, and to earn their respect in turn. The only way to do that is to be civil, reasonable, and rational.

Ultimately, I reach the same conclusion I did with @Tess, earlier.

I sincerely appreciate you coming here to engage in reasonable terms with me on this matter.

edooby · April 27, 2014, 7:32am

You should be a politician. I feel like the sort of discourse you are working so hard to curb is especially present there.

Kendall1 · April 27, 2014, 8:40am

The problem is that it does (alter value) in the perception of the person who receives the response. You yourself may feel any possible response does not change the value of yourself or your argument, but if enough people see it otherwise you have either lowered or raised the ability to impact how others think based on the response, especially the recipient. It impacts everything you say in the future, so how can the content not affect value?

You can’t for example curse someone out in one second and then drop down into a rational argument without being taken less seriously thereafter.

I also don’t see how the same value can be placed on what is said vs. who someone is. They are distinct.

Who a person is and thus their inherent value cannot as you say change based on what they say. What anyone says though, is inherently only as valuable as how it accomplished the goal of saying anything - to communicate with the person you are talking to.

I don’t see abuse as being communication so much as provocation, therefore to me it seems like abuse as a response has no value. Expressing disagreement strongly but acknowledging the other person is a person, has a lot more absolute value and effect - which again has to be the goal of even speaking to begin with. If the speech is directed at someone but is not intended for them, even that changes the value of what is said in relation to everyone but the speaker.

feminism has my back on this point 100%

I think a philosophy or movement that does not factor in human nature faces great difficulty in whatever they try to accomplish.

I consider myself a feminist and I don’t agree with the concept that a person respond in any tone without repercussions later on, so I don’t see how feminism can be 100% for it if I am not. That seems to be kind of an overreaching claim.

I consider myself a libertarian also but cannot think of a statement I would make where I would be able to say “Libertarianism has my back 100%” because I cannot control everyone else’s definition of libertarianism.

They do this in some european countries (I think Sweden), does anyone know if these countries have a higher percentage of female developers?

Most people’s perception is that Doctor/Lawyer has a far greater financial reward that Programmer (Despite that probably not being very true anymore), so lots more people of both sexes are willing to suffer abuse in the attempt at entering those fields. I don’t know it is productive to lure people in to any field who go there chasing money alone, there are a lot of people who become lawyers and are not happy they chose that route…

robdrimmie · April 27, 2014, 10:06am

Jeff, I am inclined to respect your stance on positive contributions but when you choose to enter a conversation about a long-lived topic with significant academic research behind it, it behooves you to do some basic research first.

Just as, for example, when asking for technical help one should search and research first (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/how-to-ask).

In gender studies (and broader studies around privilege) Tone Arguments are effectively considered a basic logical fallacy. When you engage in them, you are basically telling the entire existing community that you don’t care about the work that has been done previously.

Whether you agree with that stance or not doesn’t matter. You are persisting in behaviour that has repeatedly been shown to be disrespectful and negative towards the community you are trying to engage with.

You think of the vitriol engaged in by some as disrespectful, and you chose not to amplify negativity. These are not bad principles, and I really and truly do admire them. However, choosing to ignore the conventions of the community you are engaging with is also disrespectful.

Why is this important? My understanding of the background of this thread is that Anil Dash amplified Shanley’s original What Can Men Do (https://medium.com/tech-culture-briefs/a1e93d985af0) post. You saw this, and had a strong reaction to Shanley’s presentation of the arguments which you found negative. You and Anil discussed it briefly on twitter (you then deleted your side of the conversation, for some reason) and you felt that you could restate a woman’s feminist arguments so as to improve them without providing any background about why you were doing it.

That course of action in and of itself is somewhat intellectually dishonest but not necessarily horrible. But when called on it, you then argued against tone.

These two actions are why you’re getting such a strong negative response from some people. White Knighting and defending that through Tone Argument. You are indulging in basic tropes of being a bad ally and in continuing to debate the validity of Tone Argument you are putting yourself on the wrong side of the people for whom you are advocating.

This is one of those times where you need to stop and try to listen. Not to me but to the people who wrote the geek feminism articles I am quoting.

(I am sorry for the inline URLs, but as a new user I am limited to two links)

codinghorror · April 27, 2014, 10:44am

So you’re saying these two statements are both completely valid?

Hi Bob, I’d agree with your point A, but your point B contradicts C and D, which I outlined above. How can you reconcile the two?
Hey Bob-a-job, you fkstick, can you even FKING READ you idiot? Did your mum drop you on your head as a fing baby? You’ve totally ignored points C and D. Your whole argument is fing WORTHLESS. Srsly. People like you are the reason the world is so F**ED UP.

And if you state any objection to the latter, that is merely a “tone argument” to be disregarded?

It’s a fair point. So let me explain.

I really didn’t think a list titled “What Men Can Do” that opens with the palpably dismissive sentence “here is what you can do so you can stop asking me to do your job for you” and includes “start a feminist book club at work” … was doing a great job of actually reaching men, the audience it is intended for, the audience in the very title of the article.

And that’s a shame. Because as a man I realize this is our problem too. But getting men to help means you have to actually reach them. So rather than just criticize, I thought I would try to help. My blog reaches men. Lots of them. I am good at reaching men. Hence, I wrote a list that contained simpler, more practical and actionable items… for Men To Do. You know, take responsibility for our own actions as men.

And I posted it on my blog, because as the original article advises us:

Use your platform. The writing and work of men in tech gets much more attention…

So I did.

I believe men can help, and should take responsibility in owning their part of the problem. I’m pretty sure we have the same basic goals, though our methods are different.

However, expressing the above felt like a public criticism of the other author, something that was received extremely poorly when I tried it on Twitter. I got back hatred, and bucketloads of it:

I felt that expressing even more public criticism of this author on my blog (to contextualize this blog post), versus Twitter, would result in even more vitriol and hate being pushed out into the world, versus rational dialog. So I was silent about it.

kd__ · April 27, 2014, 10:58am

Re the plumber analogy. I built a house ( $0.5e6 ish budget) last year and am a lead dev for a multi-million dollar software project. I managed the build and did the software dev at the same time.

Sysadmins are like plumbers as they deal with all the crap, and have to deal with some really unsavoury stuff. (dev-ops are like electricians …). Software devs are like carpenters. Precision work, understanding how to achieve the spec given the system constraints, lots of time spent staring into space followed by writing notes onto the nearest available unfinished surface etc ect. The main difference is that the carpenter’s spec is physical, and the end-user or PM and the carpenter can relate to the physicality of the artefact. For a software dev, the artefact is not physical and it’s manifestation occurs via a often difficult intellecutal process prior to implementation. I think for standard work it’s quite reasonable for the carpenter to work through a PM in order to achieve the artefact. In my experience in software devs greatly benefit from close interaction with the end user. For a carpenter that makes the job much nicer in terms of non-financial reward (for a good client), but having a PM who does not intimately understand the client in construction is much more achievable.

robdrimmie · April 27, 2014, 11:18am

No. I am saying that discussing the tone of an argument will always be viewed as disrespectful. For me it isn’t a question of validity, it’s a question of joining an existing conversation and following the rules of that conversation and conventions of that community.

There is plenty of space to argue in favour of civil discussion, you’ve done so very effectively here in the past. As part of a discussion around feminism (or racism, classism, and other privilege-related concepts) it flags you as a new entrant who hasn’t done their basic research at a minimum, and as an active opponent to the cause in the worst case.

And it was a good idea, but it was executed poorly. Jacob Kaplan-Moss details why that is the case better than I can. He also implements a successful mechanism for crediting without amplifying, in the event you need to do so in the future.

tim_almond1 · April 27, 2014, 11:29am

One thing that no-one has raised is the nature of IT departments and how they have changed.

Back in the 80s, in a large business, you would have the business departments and the IT departments. They would go to the IT department and say they wanted something, and the IT department would deliver it.

I worked in one of those IT departments, and yes, we had more women than men in them. But a lot of those women weren’t the coders, they were analysts. Of the women I worked with in my first job, around half were analysts.

One thing that’s happened in more recent years is that businesses have a “business development” function that works out the requirements and what is to be built, and then they outsource that to IT companies to do the build. We’ve split the “IT department” in two and some of that is on gender lines.

robdrimmie · April 27, 2014, 12:48pm

Here’s another way of looking at it: There are bad actors around feminism. People who do the cause a disservice while pretending to be doing it a service. Over the many, many years feminism has been a cause, certain tactics are repeatedly employed by bad actors, including (but certainly not limited to) White Knighting and Tone Argument.

I am not accusing Jeff or anyone else in this thread of being a bad actor, but one thing men can do to support feminism is know the tactics used by bad actors, and avoid them. Whether you agree with them or not doesn’t matter too much.

To make a technical analogy, it’s like spaces versus tabs. We have our personal preference, but when we join a project we conform in the interests of forwarding the project instead of painting the bike shed. Feminism’s style guide dictates that we don’t argue about tone.

There’s a lot more to it than that, but perhaps that’s a good starting point. Conventions exist and there is a legitimate reason for them to exist. If we assume that there is a legitimate reason, and conform to the existing convention, we can make a pull request without it being rejected for the wrong reasons.

That’s a really strained analogy, for which I am sorry.

Edited to respond to @simon_lmn, as I am a new user and have reached my reply limitation: Feminism doesn’t dictate any of this. Any oddness stems entirely from me and my strained analogy.

johnvpetersen1 · April 27, 2014, 1:23pm

First, thanks to @jongalloway1 for questing this. I appreciate that. And thanks to a few other folks for pointing this site out to me. Always good to be able to participate when you are being talked about…

And for the record, what Jeff wrote was not plagiarism. Somebody out there thinks they own all right and title to the subject matter. Sorry…they don’t.

I’ve been in this business for about 24 years - as long as many folks have been alive - or longer. Suffice it to say, I’ve seen it all.

@Liz_Carlson :I have a history of “trolling women” online? Let me give you a very brief history how I got involved in these discussions. Some time ago, a friend of mine who runs a conference (that is happening this weekend) was getting threatened with a boycott of his conference; a conference that is about soft skills, respect, civil discourse, etc. Why was he getting threatened? Because he didn’t have a code of conduct. You may or not be aware Liz (which this next fact matters a bit for you) - I’m a lawyer. Some words of advice - be EXTREMELY careful when you start throwing words like harassment, trolling, etc out as it pertains to people. You may find very quickly that you will be on the business end of a defamation lawsuit. Don’t worry, I have no such interest in that. If that comes off as threatening, harassing, so be it. I happen to find it pretty distasteful when some are allowed to throw out accusations and bold face lies in the name of advocacy, diversity, etc. Let’s set that aside…

As a lawyer, I will tell you the codes of conduct out there, as written, don’t do much. The fact is, there are entities that put on these conferences and they have concerns as well. I’ve been to a lot of shows and have spoken at many of them. In 1999, I had to physically pull off a guy from a woman who was clear incapacitated. So…when I tell you I’ve seen some bad things - I have AND I’ve done something about it. I don’t have daughters. I have 2 sons and I’ve brought them up to, in a word, act civil. Two of my best friends have daughters that are at an age where they are beginning to think of what they will do. I’ve talked with both of them about tech careers. They are investigating that. So again, where I can, I’ve done my part. The code of conduct I wrote was short, but it was drafted with some teeth in mind. Most of the codes you see are drafted by non-lawyers. they are documents that don’t work. Again, just trying to do what I can do. Ashe Dryden’s response - I’m raining on her parade!! In other words, she’s not really interested in solving problems - and neither is Shanley. As I understand it, Shanley was offered a platform with the news outlet of record - the New York Times. She basically told the guy to F-Off. Anybody who turns an offer like that down simply cannot be taken seriously.

I’m a white guy in tech - and based on that, I supposedly have privilege. I think in history, it is well established that ONCE UPON A TIME, to vote, own land, sign a contract, etc - you had to be two things: 1. White, 2. A Man. I think we’ve progressed a bit on that. Still, I’ll concede that I have some level of privilege. The question is whether I abuse that privilege. Ashe and Shanley would tell you the entire population of white men in tech are a bad lot. It’s a patently absurd argument. Nevertheless, it’s the one they make.

Liz, let’s get to tweets you clipped. What is Shanley mad at? She’s mad that she personally, was not approached by Jeff - but she does acknowledge that Jeff approached other women in tech. Implicit in her statement is a question “Why not me?” Well - I think I answered it. It is her approach. Please note that at no time did I use the word “Tone.” I said “approach”. I choose my words carefully and deliberately. When you say “Tone Argument”, that implies that I’m using that I’m saying your tone invalidates her argument and point. I didn’t do that. Rather, I was speaking for myself. I can tell you my propensity to listen to you is going to be in part, based on your tone TO ME. I don’t care if you are Albert Einstein. If his discussion were laced with rants about me personally, I don’t care if he is the smartest guy on the planet, I won’t bother to listen. And you know what, most people wouldn’t. I have to chuckle a bit at the logical analysis that goes on that ignores the basic reality that if nobody LISTENS to your argument, your argument really doesn’t matter. It’s particularly ironic that people fall into that trap that are supposedly software developers that need among other things - logic. For the record, a tone argument can be a form of straw man.

A good book recommendation: A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston.

For the record, I have yet to see any real “arguments” coming from the likes of Ashe or Shanley. I’ve seen a lot of ranting, complaining, and blaming others for the state of affairs. Here’s the deal, I’m no more responsible for their particular circumstances than I was for slave trade. And for the record, I’, 1/8th Cherokee. My great grandmother was forcibly removed from South Carolina and relocated to Oklahoma. Should I continue to rant about that? My father was born/raised in Denmark. During the WWII, my family was part of a group responsible for getting Jewish families out of occupied Denmark to Sweden. I rarely mention these items as they are personal for me. I’m sure Ashe and Shanley have their personal stories too. But that doesn’t make a movement and for sure, I personally am not responsible for their lot in life.

Here’s the other irony. Folks like Ashe and Shanley will say that we men use certain excuses to justify bad behavior. In the law, we’d say that is a pre-textual argument that often, doesn’t hold water. It seems to me that if we apply that same logic to them, they are using the flag of “feminism” as a justification of sorts.

IMO, there are two camps where the “feminism” label is used. There are those folks that advocate - sometimes very passionately. They are about the cause - not themselves. For sure, they don’t label every white guy as a proponent of suppression and pro “rape culture”. Instead, they concentrate on solutions, education. And what they do is embrace those men who want to help.

Then, there is the other camp that for the most part, just complains, blames others, and quite frankly, relishes their celebrity status - whatever that may be. Guess where I put the Ashe’s and Shanley’s of the world. The irony is that they actually profit off the “movement”. It’s what they do and if the issue didn’t exist, they would have to do something else. In other words, they have an incentive to not see the problem go away. Fortunately, there are OTHERS out there who care about solving the problem and who care about being productive, positive and inclusive. I’m fortunate enough to know many of these folks and that is who I talk with.

My major mistake, engaging with likes of Shanley and Ashe. You can’t hope to have positive discourse with them. What they put forth as fact? I don’t find them to be credible. That’s not to say that at least some of what they say isn’t true. It’s just that I don’t find them to be trustworthy. As for being experts, they aren’t. There is no real intellectual rigor around any discernable research. There are a lot of folks that are bona-fide experts that conduct real research that hopefully, will lead to positive results. As always, I’ll strive to do my part.

As for being a troll…It seems that part of the Internet Troll Definition includes in part that if you “upset” somebody, that is a trait of a troll. That definition also says that you have to sow discord, start arguments that are off topic with no legit purpose but to upset people. The problem I have is that the word gets used as part of an argument. There’s another irony. Some say that talking about tone is a logical fallacy. What about labeling what somebody says as trolling? Is that not the same thing then? There’s a word for that and it will be the one I close with that really describes these “feminists”

Hypocrites.

johnjmcg · April 27, 2014, 3:04pm

I am not accusing Jeff or anyone else in this thread of being a bad actor, but one thing men can do to support feminism is know the tactics used by bad actors, and avoid them. Whether you agree with them or not doesn’t matter too much.

Bad actors have used words and persuasion. Does that make them out of bounds for the “good guys?”

These are the rules. You must follow them. It doesn’t matter if you agree with them. We have our reasons. If you don’t know them, you are displaying your ignorance.

Gee, I’m sure no “bad actors” have ever used those type of tactics.

Also, just because Jeff is writing about a topic touching on feminism does not turn his blog into feminist territory where he must abide by its rules. If I work at BigCorp, I need to follow their coding conventions. If I comment on BigCorp, I don’t have to.

–

Also, I don’t think Jeff is arguing about tone. Jeff is stating what he will and not promote on his own blog. That is his choice, regardless of what the rules of feminism are. He paid for this micrrophone.

Now, just as it would help his interlocutors to understand the impact their emotional payload has on their listeners, it may hope Jeff to understand the impact words like “tone” have on them. But he is not obligated.

simon_lmn · April 27, 2014, 4:10pm

Oh, so because the great feminism commitee has decided on a style guide, it should be followed blindly? (sorry for the sarcasm, but that sentence really struck me as very odd)

It makes absolutely no sense to me to say that some things are not to be argued about. If there are people who want to argue about it, then it should be argued about. Of course, if you are tired of it, you certainly have every right to not participate, but don’t tell people that “one” doesn’t argue about it.

You might think that it is a waste of resources to argue about certain things over and over again, and you may be right. But in my experience, you can’t just end arguments that way.

Besides that, I don’t really know if @codinghorror really started a tone argument, but well, since people are sort of having one now, it doesn’t really matter who started it.

gwwar · April 27, 2014, 5:10pm

Sweden has a pretty nice statistics site. There’s still a noticeable gap at the moment: