Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

This is kind of the end result we're heading for, where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy. The shitty part is that I'm pretty sure 99% of people are reasonable human beings but the media has to make it seem like that isn't the case so the risk equation changes. Similar to how kids used to roam around the neighborhood but now it's deemed too risky because the media makes it seem like there are murderers lurking around every corner.

Imagine a woman were to say, if we don't put an end to casual sexism, the end result we're heading for is that men will take any woman they see, kidnap her, and lock her in a dungeon.

A much more realistic and likely outcome, and a far less hysterical perspective than yours, is that the needle was way too far one way, now people are learning to cope with it shifting, and if we try to be more empathetic, perhaps getting help when we need to, we can shift it to a better place than it was before.

How do I know this? Because identical dynamics play over and over, change is scary, even if it is for the better, and people have opposed it on similar grounds -- it would lead to absurdities and worst outcomes for everyone involved -- since time immemorial. For example, see some arguments against women suffrage from just over a hundred years ago [1]:

> Because the acquirement of the Parliamentary vote would logically involve admission to Parliament itself, and to all Government offices. It is scarcely possible to imagine a woman being Minister for War, and yet the principles of the Suffragettes involve that and many similar absurdities.

> Because Woman Suffrage is based on the idea of the equality of the sexes, and tends to establish those competitive relations which will destroy chivalrous consideration.

And, of course, women do not want the vote [2]

The belief that we can -- and must -- work tirelessly change the world by, say, allowing humans to fly and even reach other planets, but when it comes to how people should speak to one another, well, that's too difficult to change, there's no point in trying, and if we try then the outcome will obviously be bad, just seems so bizarre.

[1]: https://www.johndclare.net/Women1_ArgumentsAgainst.htm

[2]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1903/09/why-wom...

> men will take any woman they see, kidnap her, and lock her in a dungeon.

> And, of course, women do not want the vote

Please keep this sort of flamebait out of your HN posts. It's guaranteed to make everything worse, and you can make your substantive points without it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The second was a quote from numerous reasoned arguments (which I linked to) posted in similar forums in the ear 20th century. Anyway, this thread is so terrifying (and brings back bad memories from my time in SV) that the natural reaction should be to scream in horror and not make any "substantive points." I am even more worried and, frankly, hurt that you don't see that. The most I could manage is try to hold a mirror up so that some people might see what they sound like to others.

Usually when people describe their internet comments with phrases like "hold up a mirror" they're coming across as far more aggressive than they think they are. Everyone always feels like they're just playing defense while the others are committing outrages.

As for how shitty this thread is, I've spent the last several hours posting dozens of comments, feebly trying to do something about that. All I'm asking you (and others) is not to make it worse yet. Gratuitous provocation takes discussion straight to failure modes. We're all worse off if that happens.

How that's a reason not to make substantive points, or what it has to do with SV, I'm not following. The vast majority of HN is far away from SV, all over the world, and I've never seen a correlation between posts being shitty and posts being from SV. On the present topic there is probably a mild negative correlation, just because people in SV have been through so many iterations of this discussion, for so many more years than most places, that they're less likely to get activated with naive outrage.

I don't think that trying to appear less aggressive is the correct ethical response to the putrid horror show unfolding here. Aiming for a civil discussion of "the woman problem" is not the right goal here. The correct answer to how should we best debate the question, But What Shall We Do About the Women? is not to have such a discussion at all. Just the fact that how to treat women is even considered an appropriate topic for discussion is enough to deter any human that isn't on the autistic spectrum from approaching this community, and the industry sector it represents. If the dehumanising, humiliating monstrosity of this "discussion" is hard to see, try replacing "women" on this page with "Irish" or "Jews."

I'm just asking you not to omit gratuitous flamebait like "men will take any woman they see, kidnap her, and lock her in a dungeon" and "women do not want the vote" from your HN comments. It's obviously against the site guidelines, and pouring kerosene on flames is arson even if the building was already on fire.

People who feel strongly on topics routinely use language like "putrid horror show" to justify their own breaking of the site guidelines and making a discussion even worse than it already is. This sort of "why bother" / "fuck it" attitude is a big part of why things are so bad to begin with; it leads people to create the situation they deplore. No one wants to look at the "putridity" of their own contributions—the problem is always caused by other, never by self.

The only solution I can see to this is to prioritize taking care of the commons, regardless of how bad things are or you feel they are.

I don't think you understand the seriousness of what's unfolding here, and the level of virulent dehumanisation expressed. There is no right way to discuss "The Woman Question" any more than there is a right way to discuss "The Jewish Question." The tone of discussion is insignificant in comparison to conducting it in the first place.

Where you get these thoughts that you imagine moderators think, I don't know, but I don't recognize any of them. I don't give a shit about tone. I'm simply trying to support an internet forum in not going to hell and asking you not to make that job harder.

What I hear you saying is that it's already gone to hell, so it doesn't matter what you do. Actually it matters a lot what you do. Every user here needs to abide by the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Bringing up "Jewish Question" is singularly unhelpful and more gratuitous provocation. It seems to me that you're the main person framing this thread as "Woman Question" to begin with, then using that to justify pouring kerosene of your own. That's not cool.

What I've noticed is that users with strong ideological passions tend to describe as "putrid" and "cesspool" and so on, any discussion in which their own ideology isn't imposed as the dominant one. That's understandable, but it's not a realistic demand. HN is a large forum which is as divided on ideological topics as any other large population sample—moreover this population sample is all over the world, which unfortunately makes people far more prone to interpret others' statements as "putrid" without it even dawning on anyone that that's a factor.

Much as I might wish it, we don't have the power to change how divided this community is. All we can do is look for ways to nudge users into having thoughtful discussion despite divisions. Everyone has a different sense of what that might look like, and we can talk about how to do that, but we don't have the power to make people agree.