> We talk to each other. We warn each other. If there aren’t any women pitching you, it’s not a pipeline problem.

Secret industry blacklist amongst women, causing them to actively avoid potential opportunities.

Blacklist prevents women from applying for VC funding, panels, etc.

Fire everyone. Point blank.

Everybody deals with tragedies, they're a part of life. Being an adult means facing those tragedies and accepting them. It's not easy, and some tragedies are just too much for someone to fully accept and move on from, but there should never be any reasonable expectation that the world should change to accommodate them.

If we're going to blame the employers, can someone show me that there's a disproportionately large number of unemployed minority engineers that are seeking work but not getting it?

Makes sense, but I'd say it should be a disproportionately large per-capita fraction of minority engineers with similar degrees, experience, geographic location, etc, relative to white engineers with the same characteristics.

For example, if minority engineers with Stanford degrees with 7-10 years experience and living in zip codes [A, B, C, ...] are 10% unemployed and their white classmates have a 5% unemployment rate, that could be evidence of deliberate discrimination. It's important to compare like to like, otherwise you can wind up with all sorts of weird conclusions.

Her post only implied her own personal, subjective and utterly understandable anxieties on that point. My response was at pains to put both her questions and anyone else's to rest. She earned everything she got, and the comprehensive respect she received from her peers was without qualification. Never mind gender, she coded way beyond her years of experience. The main thing with managing Bryana was to get out of her way and let her do outstanding work, which she did.

> If you want to put the conversation to rest, simply clarify that point.

Was there something ambiguous to you in my statements here?

* Bryana's performance _across the board_ was top-notch, _without qualification_.

* ...she..._earned_ every single bit of responsibility she ever got.

* We just evaluated the [interview] performance and hired the best dev for the position, _end of conversation_.

> This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does.

I would not call it "reverse sexism", because it is is just plain sexism. Of course the author doesn't "see it that way", despite acknowledging it, because the author directly benefits from said sexism.

If the author is being encouraged to apply for and accepted to speak at conferences primarily based on their gender, then the industry's reaction will be to expect that women speakers are token speakers, and this will set back women in the industry.

Embrace differences, embrace diversity, but in the long run special treatment does not benefit anybody.

If a manager hires a person who needs a bit more structure in order to stay focused, that person should be given a little more structure. Or in this case, if a manager hires someone who has been pushed down her whole life and has learned to fade into the background so as not to upset men around her, the manager should most definitely spend some time helping her get accustomed to speaking her mind and advocating for herself. It's just good managing.

This way, she'll be able to contribute much more to the team that she would if she was still worried about fitting in. And her knowledge can be spread to new female employees, which helps move the inequality further towards equality in the long run.

I don't see how this "special treatment" is in any way detrimental.

This isn't what is happening here though.

This comes off much more as "Bryana, you're our only female programmer, and we want to look more progressive and diverse than our competitors. We are sending you to conferences to speak for us so we can show you off as our token female."

It works out in her favor, so she'll never complain, but it is sexism nonetheless. Special treatment doesn't lead to equality. Equal treatment leads to equality.

In the UK, white British make up 40% of medical doctors.

Would you support quotas and biased hiring to increase the number of white British doctors? It would make it more representative of the population.

What about primary school teachers? If 9 females and 1 male go for a job, should the male always get preference?

If you would support treating women special in fields where they are a minority, while opposing treating men special in fields where they are a minority you clearly have a sexist bias.

This isn't about leveling the playing field for a specific industry, this is about "reversing" the problem by pointing discrimination in the opposite direction that is has pointed historically. This ignores the fact that sexual discrimination is still occurring, and is even being encouraged!

Unless you can answer programmernews3's question or provide sourced statistics about these "100 high-paying jobs and industries", I can't regard your argument as anything other than an appeal to emotion.

Semantic quibbling about 'reverse discrimination' is a standard lame trick used by those in power to justify their continued power. It doesn't fool anybody; its just selfishness.

And really, if you have no idea of the state of employment and the gender gap, what place have you in this discussion at all? Denying the widely published statistics and endemic problems in modern hiring is a species of willful ignorance I find breathtaking.

See, I take care 99 days out of 100 to reply evenhandedly and avoid any reference to others posting here; I try to stick with the topic and illuminate the issue as best I can. But today, I've been driven mad by the sophomoric nonsense.

We can do both. No good reason remains to delay corrective pressure in staffing processes.

Also, your local Engineering college is not representative of the country as a whole. Even if equality of opportunity is picking up steam, that doesn't excuse implementing blatantly sexist policies to try to give women an extra boost...

It's like people think that women are less capable of success by virtue of being women, and need men's help to pull themselves upward. It's asinine and basically infantilizes women...

I reiterate: if the industry sees a glut of women speakers who are there only because they are women, then the industry will have no choice but to acknowledge their token status.

In the very same article the author laments not knowing whether she is being offered more responsibility because she is a woman or if it's because she's seen as capable and competent. It's a completely valid assumption, because she's already been offered more responsibility because she is a woman.

This is exactly the problem that goes ignored when people argue that "reverse discrimination" isn't a problem. Treating people differently because of their protected status only serves to further divide.

The interest should be on making sure boys and girls get the same opportunities and encouragement growing up. in US universities, we have 30 male STEM majors for every female STEM major. We aren't going to see the industry change until we fix the root problem - that men are 30x more interested in STEM jobs than women.

No amount of Social Justice Theater is going to level the playing field when men are being raised believing they can be whatever they want, and women are raised believing that marrying a wealthy man and becoming a stay-at-home mom is the greatest thing they can do with their lives.

Women are lacking in STEM not because STEM is sexist, but because few women ever consider a future in STEM. Introducing pro-woman sexism into STEM is a paradoxical way to "solve" the problem.

Hosting more women speakers at conferences helps to fix the broken stereotype of software engineers all being white dudes, which in turns fixes the problem of fewer women and minorities becoming interested in STEM.

It would set the whole industry back by decades. Not because women got involved, but because they became token minorities instead of competent colleagues. For an entire generation, minority STEM students would face impostor syndrome in themselves, and have to work twice as hard to prove themselves because everyone would assume they got to where they are based on "positive discrimination" instead of merit and ability.

This all relates to the same debate about affirmative action that's been happening since the 60's. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1976/5/19/bernard-davis-an... This guy (happens to be my grandfather) argued essentially the same point as you: that black students would be accepted to the medical school based on a lowered standard, and end up graduating as less qualified doctors as their white counterparts. This in turn would lead people to have a general mistrust of black doctors, because they would be seen as only being in their place through affirmative action, and not through merit. That is definitely a scenario to avoid, and also definitely one worth considering in debate.

However, this has proven not to be the case, and Harvard is still viewed as ranking among the greatest institutions in the world, even though they have been admitting minorities to their program since the 70's! In fact, here is a more recent Crimson article highlighting some points in defense of promoting people in minority groups: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/11/7/affirmative-acti...

If we want to decrease the gender inequality in STEM, we need to take concrete action and promote the hard work of women and other underrepresented groups in order to slowly shift the male-dominated culture to one that's more diverse.

But... either we can discriminate based on gender or we can't. If you have an all male team where most members are extremely shy around women (like bad enough they probably should see a therapist), then it would make perfect business sense to only seek another man for that team. But discrimination based on gender isn't allowed, so you can't do that. And for the same reason, even though there is business reason why special treatment is justified, you can't discriminate based on gender.

The key here is that discrimination against someone for their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. is unethical, no matter what kind of social wrong you aim to right.

Giving women more opportunities may seem like it's progressive. I mean, "we're helping women"! But it still contributes to defining people based on their gender, rather than their skills and abilities.

I worked at a company a few years ago that would ONLY hire women to work at the front desk. This was a deliberate move to make the office look more diverse than it actually was, because most of our male employees worked outside of the view of our visitors.

That, and the CEO openly admitted that he enjoyed "seeing a pretty face every time he came to work".

How do you separate my blatantly sexist employer's hiring of women for visibility from social-justice oriented businesses doing the same thing to "further women"?

I'm not sure which is the right one to aim for, and it affects not only the women in engineering debate but also things like affirmative action. There are certainly good arguments for both sides.

I am telling a true story about an actual boss I had who was using "positive discrimination" in a dubious way. This wasn't some fabricated argument meant to replace yours. I'm contrasting two similar actions, one of which you defend, while the other you condemn - yet you can't articulate why.

>We want to see women with skills and abilities hired in the same ratio as men.

Well, if an employer gets 30 male applicants for every female applicant, then by your standard they are now obligated to mass-discriminate against fully-qualified men for no other reason than their gender, while suffering a lack of staffing while they try to find as many technically-qualified women to fill their ranks.

This problem runs much deeper than sexual discrimination by hiring managers (which is actually quite rare). You're trying to put a band-aid on a nonexistent wound.

But there's no reason to assume that is the case. The evidence, in fact, is that women do apply for jobs and are not hired. Blind trials of anonymous resumes show that women would be hired, if only the reader didn't know they were women. That once hired, with nearly identical job histories for men and women, men are complimented for leadership qualities and promoted, while women are criticized for being bossy and demanding, and denied raises and promotion.

Willfully ignoring these well-documented issues is not the same thing as debating. Coming up with one anecdotal case (that 'constructive contrasting') and concluding that nothing should be done because there is no problem, is pretty much classic strawman argument.

This doesn't level the playing field. It specifically encourages employers to treat their female employees differently than male employees.

As Bryana mentioned in her blog, it's pretty much impossible for a woman to not be singled out in STEM, simply because she is a woman. Men almost never have to worry about their gender being brought up, while women generally either have to deal with being looked down or being put on a pedestal.

You can thank "people deliberately righting wrongs such as by giving extra encouragement to female developers" for this additional layer of sexism in STEM...

If all capable employees were encouraged and incentivized equally, in all situations (i.e. all women attending conferences would be encouraged equally as men because the number of women speaking at conferences was equal to the number of men), then we would not have an issue with sexism in the industry.

We do.

Because of that, the industry raising up the females in the industry to attempt parity is necessary, whether or not it qualifies for the definition of discrimination.

But yes, I agree. It is sexist to push her to do things BECAUSE she is a woman. She should be pushed to do things regardless of her gender.

Any emphasis on sex is sexist. Any emphasis on race is racist. We aren't defined by the color of our skin or what we have between our legs. Unfortunately, people regularly do sexist and racist things in an attempt to be "anti-sexist" or "anti-racist", and it just doesn't do any long-term good.

I like to call it "moonwalking", because it gives the illusion that you're moving forward, but really you're just stealthily moving backward...

I see this attitude not infrequently among pseudo-liberal city crowds. I've heard the claims that we're postracial or past the need for feminism or civil rights activism.

I agree that's how it should be, but it's not. Civil rights was only a generation ago, and america has spent more time mistreating its women and minorities than not. It's delusional to believe that everything is going to be fixed.

The reality is that women do have a tougher time due to various social programming, and minorities do as well in many industries due to stereotypes that we all hold. To pretend like we all have the same advantages in America is a lie, and one that benefits the ones already at the top.

Here's a good test: if gender/religion/etc truly doesn't matter, would you rather be a <not straight>, <not white>, <not man> who practices <not christianity> in america, or a straight white anglo man? It shouldn't matter, right?

How I wish that (at least for the remaining few conferences where you can submit a proposal without having to be a "silver sponsor"), submissions were "blind". No name submitted, you get a reference number back to confirm your submission.

Focus on merit, not gender/name recognition/budget.

I agree with you that "special treatment" does not benefit anybody, but there is so much misogyny (aka "special treatment") that counter-treatment is not just desirable, but necessary.

Positive discrimination for one person is negative discrimination against another, of whom the discriminator has power over the discriminated. So it still fits as being a *ism.

That is assuming you even accept the whole 'power + mistreatment' bit.

The male engineers experiencing what you call reverse discrimination are still in a position of power as a class.

Critical race theory is as effective at hiding that fact as a Klu Klux Klan white hood.

The critical race theory definition is just a shield to hide behind while practicing racist or sexist behavior, and I will only acknowledge it as such.

Case in point: "Black History Month" wasn't supposed to be permanent. We still celebrate it though, as if black history were distinctly different from American history. It started off with good intentions, but it continues to this day as an unnecessarily divisive holiday. How much "black history" is ignored 11 months out of the year just so we can celebrate it in February (the shortest month of the year)?

Sexual discrimination is sexual discrimination, regardless of context.

Here's an idea: lets reverse things for now. You lose your job, along with most other men, and women are put in their place. That's millions of people changing jobs. How long before men start complaining? How long before 'special treatment' begins to look good to them?

Or even better, let's use industries in our own universe that already has those conditions: education and child care.

What sort of "special treatment" do men get in those industries? Well, in many day care services, the male employees are not allowed to be alone with children. In education, male teachers make it a deliberate point not to be alone with students, because a single false accusation would end their career permanently.

But are there cries for more "positive discrimination" from the men in those industries? Not that I've heard. Equal treatment would be just dandy, though.

Muslims are the highest offenders for terrorism - should we treat them different?

How about this - it is very radical and might be hard for someone like you to handle.....

How about we allow companies to hire people by merit.

I apologise if it is a horrible thing to hear for authoritarian, "diversity officer" supporting, communists.

And if 'straw man' offends, then I suggest learning to make other kinds of arguments. I call em as I see em.

At root, women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce. Something should be done about it, or we just have to admit we don't care that women are marginalized in our society. All the moaning about how no solution is pure enough in some ivory tower way, is beside the point.

Everything isn't so black-and-white. I agree that "women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce". I also agree that we, as a society, are responsible for inciting positive change in this regard.

Regardless, I simply cannot endorse the implementation of sexually discriminatory business practices as a "solution" to the problem.

The root of the problem isn't with hiring managers. The root is that in the fields in which women are most absent, men make up the vast majority of APPLICANTS. Unless we can level the playing field in education, as well as in family structure, we won't see any change in these industries.

If 15% of men enroll in STEM fields in college, while <1% of women do, then the disparity being reflected in the STEM workforce is inevitable.

Woman aren't as interested in STEM as men are, and we need to determine if:

1) This is the result of sexism.

2a) If so, where can we incite change to boost the likelihood that women will pursue a career in STEM.

2b) If not, why do we see the disparity that we do, and is it actually ethical to try to "fix" it.

I have no problem with the ends here, just the means. If you want to fight against sexual discrimination, you cannot participate in or encourage it. How's that for black-and-white?

Men and women deserve the same opportunities and treatment in all industries, but any situations where those opportunities skew one way or the other does not mean that the solution is more discrimination.

The Open Code of Conduct is a design-by-committee list of all the reasons you're a terrible person and you just don't know it yet, but don't worry as soon as you slip up we'll wage a campaign of harassment against you because you're "privileged" and you deserve it. And don't you dare criticize it, because "reverse"-isms don't exist.

Men are violent.

If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.

Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.

Men should not have any reproductive rights.

Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.

Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it, even though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very heart of sexism.

Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed to have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.

Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a "male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-image issues.

Men cannot discuss their issues in a public forum without feminist protestors shutting down discussions.

If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own sexuality.

If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living room window.

Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the same crimes.

> Men are rapists and sexual offenders by default.

Nope, the argument is that there is a societal pattern that devalues the severity of rape through humour and other cultural tropes.

> Men are violent.

The patriarchal "masculinity" foisted upon men is one that is competitive and aggressive.

> If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.

If you see a woman only existing as to please your sexual appetite, you are objecting.

> Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.

Women should be paid according to the merits of their work and ability, along with men.

> Men should not have any reproductive rights.

A woman's body is hers to do with as she should wish. Nobody should have operations forced upon them.

> Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.

Due to the fact that often a carer role is taken by a woman in a patriarchal society, this means that her earning potential and career is sacrificed.

> Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it, even though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very heart of sexism.

There are advantages that men get because of their sex/gender, and these should be recognised.

> Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed to have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.

Due to many women having suffered terrible experiences at the hands of men, and the tendency for men to dominate discussions, there needs to be a place away from that where people can talk without fear and interruption.

> Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a "male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-image issues.

Not sure about that one, I think the argument drastically varies, but men are more often portrayed in a powerful, dominant role.

> If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own sexuality.

Characters are often designed by men, for men.

> If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living room window.

Yes because receiving some flame or smack is the same as constant rape threats.

> Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the same crimes.

This is bullshit, obviously.

> Nope, the argument is that there is a societal pattern that devalues the severity of rape through humour and other cultural tropes.

"Teach men not to rape."

"Teach your sons to respect women."

>> Men are violent.

> The patriarchal "masculinity" foisted upon men is one that is competitive and aggressive.

Framing masculinity as a negative is anti-male. "Patriarchy" as a concept, regarding men as responsible for all the ills of the world, is also anti-male.

>> If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.

> If you see a woman only existing as to please your sexual appetite, you are objecting.

Physical attraction alone does not disregard a person's humanity or personal agency.

>> Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.

> Women should be paid according to the merits of their work and ability, along with men.

No arguments there. Unfortunately "positive discrimination" (an oxymoron I see as often as "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism") says otherwise.

>> Men should not have any reproductive rights.

> A woman's body is hers to do with as she should wish. Nobody should have operations forced upon them.

I never said anything about forcing or denying abortions, only that a woman has the right to cede responsibility for reproduction whereas a man has none. If a woman chooses to abort or put a child up for adoption, she is well within her rights to do so. If a man suggests the same thing, he is a "deadbeat".

>> Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.

> Due to the fact that often a carer role is taken by a woman in a patriarchal society, this means that her earning potential and career is sacrificed.

Again, "patriarchy" as a concept is farcical, and you're completely ignoring a woman's own personal responsibilities. You can either argue that women should be treated as equals, or that they should be treated like children in need of constant care, not both.

Also, men are not your personal ATM machines. If you see a man as only existing to please your handbag appetite, you are objectifying them.

>> Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it, even though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very heart of sexism.

> There are advantages that men get because of their sex/gender, and these should be recognised.

You've basically repeated what I said, except you seem to think sexism a good thing as long as it targets someone you perceive as "advantaged".

>> Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed to have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.

> Due to many women having suffered terrible experiences at the hands of men, and the tendency for men to dominate discussions, there needs to be a place away from that where people can talk without fear and interruption.

Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.

>> Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a "male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-image issues.

> Not sure about that one, I think the argument drastically varies, but men are more often portrayed in a powerful, dominant role.

So as long as an exaggerated body image is accompanied by power and dominance, it shouldn't place unfair expectations on impressionable viewers?

>> If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own sexuality.

> Characters are often designed by men, for men.

Bayonetta was developed by a woman. Women are allowed to be sexual if they please, and even if the character is designed by a man, ignoring the potential for sexuality in a woman's personality would result in one-dimensional and frankly unrelatable characters.

The idea of sexuality as being negative is also unhealthy, for both genders.

>> If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living room window.

> Yes because receiving some flame or smack is the same as constant rape threats.

You must have missed the part where I mentioned men also get serious threats to their person, and that there are documented cases where those threats have been acted upon.

>> Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the same crimes.

> This is bullshit, obviously.

Yes, obviously.

http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender...

This is true! The thing is, most feminists I've met also believe this. When people complain about 'objectification', they are not complaining that someone might find them physically attractive at all--it's the patterns of behavior and speech which some/many men exhibit which clearly show that they are not valued beyond their physical appearance or are primarily valued for their physical appearance.

> I never said anything about forcing or denying abortions, only that a woman has the right to cede responsibility for reproduction whereas a man has none. If a woman chooses to abort or put a child up for adoption, she is well within her rights to do so. If a man suggests the same thing, he is a "deadbeat".

There are some fundamental challenges to 'perfect equality' w.r.t. reproduction. I don't think any feminist platform I'm aware of suggests that men should not be able to put forward their feelings on adoption/abortion when they are the father and in a relationship with the mother: simply that the father in those situations doesn't have the final say and should not have the final say, particularly w.r.t. abortion. Things get significantly more complex after a child is born, and I don't know many feminists who think the current situation is ideal either. (That the mother is primarily responsible for the child, or that the mother almost always gets custody in a custody battle. That isn't equality either.)

> So as long as an exaggerated body image is accompanied by power and dominance, it shouldn't place unfair expectations on impressionable viewers?

Male incidence of eating disorders is, as I recall, actually heavily underreported (partially b/c of how it manifests, partially for other reasons), but I don't know many nonradical feminists who claim that male self image issues are not a problem--simply that given our current societal norms and values, women's appearance is more heavily focused on then men's... and that is an issue perpetuated by things like Barbie. I'd strongly disagree with the original sentiment, but I also haven't met any recent feminist claiming that and don't believe it's part of any particular non-radical platform.

> The idea of sexuality as being negative is also unhealthy, for both genders.

This is the entire point of sex positive feminism. I don't think any sex positive feminists have argued that female characters shouldn't be allowed to have any sexuality--just that they are often portrayed in unrealistic ways that are designed to appeal to male fantasies. I'm not familiar with Bayonetta, but from looking at google images, at least from her exaggerated appearance, impractical clothing, etc. I'd say that she may very well qualify. (It's also just as possible for women to design unrealistic characters which appeal to male fantasies as it is for men--nobody I know has claimed that every woman is by necessity a perfect feminist.)

> Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.

No feminist I know has said "Men should not be allowed safe spaces", particularly not "Men who are survivors of abuse should not be allowed safe spaces." Every feminist woman I know would be 100% behind these getting set up by men who felt they needed them: perhaps it would be better to ask why they are not getting set up by men who need them? This is actually of personal interest to me, because I would have greatly benefited from one (as a male survivor of abuse who has been diagnosed with PTSD) had one existed in the past.

> You must have missed the part where I mentioned men also get serious threats to their person, and that there are documented cases where those threats have been acted upon.

Cases of men getting serious threats to their person is, as you said, 'unfortunate'. (I'd take a stronger stance and say it's pretty bad.) That is, however, different from the recent trend of women who have been harassed, doxxed, received rape threats, etc. for publicly expressing feminist viewpoints. If it did seem like a plausible trend existed in the harassment of men, I'd be interested.

> http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender...

The statistics there don't actually prove that point... it's definitely possible that women simply commit fewer crimes, less serious crimes, or are caught less often. That being said, let us presume that men do get, on average, longer sentences for the same crime (I think this is plausible): do you know of any feminists who are claiming that this should be the case? (Most I know are generally against the current prison system and rate of incarceration in the first place, for both men and women, so I'm not sure where your argument is here anyways.)

Look up Erin Pizzey- she makes an excellent foundation for any research into this area. After founding the world's first women's shelter, she discovered in interviews that many (if not most) of her victims were also abusers themselves. She suggested opening a men's shelter, and was driven from her own movement- receiving death threats, and being forced from her home after he dog was shot and left at her door. IIRC, she said that it came down to money. It was easier to raise money for women than for men or even just people... And easier to control, too.

> do you know of any feminists who are claiming that [men should receive harsher punishments] should be the case?

Feminists saying women shouldn't be jailed for anything https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/...

My reading of that is that she wants nobody to be imprisoned, she just thinks that for various reasons, the argument is more realistic for women right now -- for instance, the far lower incarceration rate of women, and the otherwise-irrelevant practical reason that there's a O(number of incarcerated genders) monetary cost in prisons with a high constant factor. Getting all the women out of prison is a greater cost savings than getting the same number of men out, and easier than getting all the men out. But I don't see any indication that she thinks her arguments wouldn't apply to men as well: "Essentially, the case for closing women’s prisons is the same as the case for imprisoning fewer men."

In a similar fashion, your entire post is misaligned with the kind of feminism I see on the daily basis.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/23/sexist-scientist-tim-h...

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-rosetta-...

Some small form of feminism may still be necessary in this day and age, but no meaningful progress can be made until the extremes of modern feminism are torn down.

This is true. Objectification is a complex subject with lots of potential targets: you can treat a person as a sexual object, you can portray/view a character as a sexual object, etc. In the context of that post, I was referring to specific complaints of flesh and blood women RE: being objectified. Objectification in fiction and advertising is a separate thing: characters who exist primarily to titillate a male audience's sexual desires would qualify... as would characters who exist primarily to titillate a female audience's sexual desires. (See: Magic Mike, Magic Mike XXL for really good examples of male characters who are pretty obviously objectified.)

To be completely honest: I don't have any serious problem with what I'd view to be pulp-y fiction or characters in the rough. (Hell, romance novel characters seriously qualify here too!) However, if it seemed like every male lead character in a genre primarily characterized by how they were "tall, dark, and handsome, with a bad boy streak and a heart of gold" then I'd probably get the message that the genre was not necessarily aimed at me or about characters I could relate to or find interesting. If that was true of all genres, or most popular works, then I'd probably get the message that I wasn't the audience for any genre, and perhaps even that men existed to be "tall dark and handsome" and should behave as "bad boys with a heart of gold". Being short and generally well behaved, I'd probably complain about unrealistic male characters who ride horses into the sunset and have perfect abs. Perhaps I'd even come to believe that I should wear platform shoes, work out all the time and never eat to get the abs I needed, start behaving like a bad boy, and learn how to ride horses so that I could meet a basic bar of manliness. Fortunately, that fantasy world that I just described doesn't exist for me, because romance novels are not the primary genre or what we base our societal expectations of men on, but replace "tall dark and handsome and a bad boy with a heart of gold" with "skinny, brunette, and buxom" and you begin to hit the issues that some women have with many video games.

> In a similar fashion, your entire post is misaligned with the kind of feminism I see on the daily basis.

The thing is, my post is aligned with the feminism I believe in and try to push forward. It's aligned with the feminism that I've heard expressed by my close friends, some of whom are activists for various feminist causes (equal job rights, etc.). That doesn't necessarily correspond with the loudest "feminist" voices on the internet (or tumblr), in the same way that someone like "Maddox" doesn't necessarily correspond to mainstream male views.

To me this sounds less like a product of a complex underlying notion and more like simple inconsistency created by equating fundamentally different things.

Characters are not people. They are fictional entities. Arguing that it is immoral to design them in a way that sets "unrealistic" examples of behavior attacks the foundational premise of fiction itself. There is no rational criteria that would make this a valid argument in regards to sexuality while sparing any other aspect of human behavior.

So yes, there are plenty of one-dimensional characters who are products of someone's fantasies, designed to appeal to a select audience. That's a design/writing issue, not moral/social issue. If you're arguing to the contrary, you're effectively demanding to edit all fiction to become a form of propaganda.

No, I think we should put anyone who creates unrealistic fictional characters in prison. Maximum security. Single confinement on weekends. Or maybe just shoot the bastards.

Your argument is perfectly reasonable, it would be nice if other feminists understood the difference. In my experience, it is more often used as a spark for a larger confrontation or an excuse to bash males in general.

> I never said anything about forcing or denying abortions, only that a woman has the right to cede responsibility for reproduction whereas a man has none. If a woman chooses to abort or put a child up for adoption, she is well within her rights to do so. If a man suggests the same thing, he is a "deadbeat".

In an ideal world, a father would be told of the pregnancy immediately, and given the opportunity to absolve himself of responsibility for it. With this knowledge in hand, the mother would have the opportunity to decide to abort, give up for adoption, or keep the child with the understanding that there would be no (legally mandated) financial support from the father.

> So as long as an exaggerated body image is accompanied by power and dominance, it shouldn't place unfair expectations on impressionable viewers?

I most often see it as a corollary to arguments about the representation of women in movies/TV/video games. If the representation of a fictional woman is attacked for unrealistic standards, the rebuttal will be that the men are held to the same standards by male characters in the same space. Feminists then reply that it is a "male power fantasy" and does not count.

A perfect example, and most of the women's "before" representations aren't even unrealistic to begin with!

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/lara-croft-gets-a-realistic...

> The idea of sexuality as being negative is also unhealthy, for both genders.

A "sex positive" outlook would not care whether or not Bayonetta was designed by or for men. Bayonetta would have the inherent right to dress and behave as she pleases, with no care for the viewer's tastes.

> Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.

If you go to a college campus and attempt to set up a "mens center" in the same vein as the womens centers that are increasingly common, you will most likely be 1) called a misogynist, 2) not taken seriously, 3) not succeed.

You will also very likely be harassed and carry the "misogynist" label for the remainder of your tenure there. School newspapers will have carte blanche to drag your name through the mud in any way they can. An "example" will be made of you.

> You must have missed the part where I mentioned men also get serious threats to their person, and that there are documented cases where those threats have been acted upon.

https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/enough

Anyone, man or woman, that disagrees with feminist narratives, can be immediately and unquestionably be labelled a harasser and misogynist.

In case you don't care to listen to that SoundCloud, it involves a case where a man tries to remain a voice of reason in an online debate that has extremists on both sides, and because he adhered more strongly to ethical standards than "choosing a side" he was labeled the enemy. He has seen harassment and vitriol slung at him primarily from the "feminist" side, and even a great deal from people that could be considered celebrities. Those people will gladly attack him, and have absolutely no fear of reprisal for doing so.

The only time they face the consequences for their actions is when they upset their own compatriots. In those cases, they will not hesitate to turn on them like a pack of rabid dogs on an injured prey. But that is only the same hatred that is flung at men every day in that space.

> http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender....

http://gothamist.com/2013/04/29/male_teachers_get_longer_sen...

This is a small example, however every time it's brought up it's immediately shut down by popular feminist voices.

"Longer prison sentences for men" is not a stated goal of feminism, but maintaining that status quo which greatly benefits women and greatly disadvantages men, is time and again strongly implied by their words and actions.

> Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.

This may be a kind of blunt observation, but perhaps you see what you're looking for?

I don't think I've even met a single person, male or female, who seriously complained when someone (a) expressed interest in a reasonable way/place/situation and (b) was clearly willing to not continue if the person who had interest expressed in them did not reciprocate. Both (a) and (b) have had to be the case for all men and women I know to be comfortable with people's expression of interest: and its been my female friend's experience that men are generally much worse about both (a) and (b). Does that mean all men are bad at (a) and (b)? No. But most of my friends who're women have at least one story (usually many more) about a guy who was bad about both (a) and (b), and the incidence in friends who're men is much lower (although goes up again if you limit it to just my gay friends--turns out gay men are not necessarily magical wizards about being good at (a) and (b)). Taken out of context, a woman complaining about how several men have been bad at (a) and (b) in her life seems like something you'd be likely to read as "bashing men" as a whole, especially if you didn't have any context for her complaints. Not hearing the whole story here might be exacerbated if your general model for interacting with women who bring up their frustrations here is to go on the offensive. ("not all men are like that!"/etc.) If I wanted to vent about an unpleasant experience, I know I wouldn't go to someone I thought might engage me in an argument over it rather than listen, and I'd almost certainly shut down any argument that happened and refuse to share more if I felt like I was being attacked. That's human nature and not at all unreasonable: the last place I would've gone after I was read as gay and threatened with violence by a group of drunk men would be someone who'd I'd imagine would've told me that "not all Southern men are like that" or questioned me on it--I went to the closest gay friendly bar I could find and promptly got sloshed before getting a trusted friend to drive me home.

> If you go to a college campus and attempt to set up a "mens center" in the same vein as the womens centers that are increasingly common, you will most likely be 1) called a misogynist, 2) not taken seriously, 3) not succeed.

The thing is: is this a problem with feminism? I'd argue no. I think that you'd get a lot of pushback from more mainstream culture, and that push back would likely be very tied to patriarchal (as a hegemonic system) ideals about what men "should" be or do or how they "should" act.

> A "sex positive" outlook would not care whether or not Bayonetta was designed by or for men. Bayonetta would have the inherent right to dress and behave as she pleases, with no care for the viewer's tastes.

As a fictional character, Bayonetta has no will or desires beyond what her creators attribute to her. If we were talking about an actual woman here, I'd agree completely: but we're talking about a fictional character who uses magic. Critiquing characters and critiquing people are two very different things. As a counterpoint: I'd argue that characters like "He Man" (or many other male superheroes) or those in "Magic Mike" are a male equivalent and just as unrealistic.

> This is a small example, however every time it's brought up it's immediately shut down by popular feminist voices.

I'm not aware of things like this getting shut down except in cases where its brought up as a bit of a red herring to distract from another debate. I'm not aware of any feminist voices that have literally said "Male teachers who assault their students should go to jail for a longer period of time"--In fact I think the general feminist critical theory perspective would be that patriarchal ideas about sex (i.e. that men always want it, etc.) contribute to lower than deserved prison sentences for female teachers who abuse male students. What was the context for this getting brought up and "immediately shut down"?

Saying I'm looking for an excuse to get offended in a conversation about feminism is a level of pot and kettle I haven't experienced before.

I can barely turn a corner anymore without being accused of objectifying women somehow. Every movie I want to watch, every video game I want to play, everything "objectifies" women somehow now, as long as it has any hint of sexuality and male demographic.

So you haven't come across and/or recognized that yet. Good for you, you're living in an ideal future and I someday hope to join you there.

> The thing is: is this a problem with feminism? I'd argue no. I think that you'd get a lot of pushback from more mainstream culture, and that push back would likely be very tied to patriarchal (as a hegemonic system) ideals about what men "should" be or do or how they "should" act.

"Patriarchy is not some claim that men are responsible for everything bad that happens."

"This isn't feminism, it's the patriarchy."

Sure, it's primarily feminists that fight those initiatives, but they're not acting in their capacity as a feminist. They took that hat off first.

> As a fictional character, Bayonetta has no will or desires beyond what her creators attribute to her. If we were talking about an actual woman here, I'd agree completely: but we're talking about a fictional character who uses magic. Critiquing characters and critiquing people are two very different things. As a counterpoint: I'd argue that characters like "He Man" (or many other male superheroes) or those in "Magic Mike" are a male equivalent and just as unrealistic.

Feminists say that fictional women (Barbie et. al) are representative of women as a whole, and should be treated as such.

If this is the case, then a fictional female character has the right to be represented as a complete character, sexuality and all.

If you're telling me it's otherwise, then why does a fictional female character's sexuality even merit discussion?

> I'm not aware of any feminist voices that have literally said "Male teachers who assault their students should go to jail for a longer period of time"

Well I'm aware of at least one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/...

> What was the context for this getting brought up and "immediately shut down"?

http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/1000093/protesters-shut-down...

Not at all.

A huge amount of mainstream media and art is aimed towards men, marketed to men, designed to titillate men, and involves objectification of women. To be completely honest: I don't think that completely removes it of any artistic merit (or fun factor for video games) or that it means you shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it.

Similarly, I firmly would defend a woman's right to enjoy (the small, percentage wise, and often looked down upon, culturally) pieces of media which are marketed to women, aimed at women, designed to titillate women, and involve objectification of male characters.

I honestly believe that people should be allowed to enjoy the media that they enjoy as long as it isn't harming other people, as long as they are willing to do some critical thinking about what enjoying it means. If you have done some critical thinking about what your enjoying of media that objectifies women says about you, your sexuality, and etc., and are comfortable with that, then who am I to stand in your way? If, however, you believe that all media should be that way, I'd have a bone to pick. If you don't believe that all media should be that way, then perhaps you should consider sampling other forms of media (including those aimed at women! Some romance novels can be /quite/ fun: I'd personally recommend Eloisa James, as her novels are accessible, adult without being particularly pornographic, and quite intelligent, and have quite interesting female leads) or pushing for media that is more accessible for people who aren't you. If it seems like 'absolutely everything' you want to consume involves objectification of women, then perhaps your taste in media leans towards the kind of mainstream media that doesn't include well rounded female characters, and perhaps those desires would be worth delving into and examining critically.

My root point is, though, that asking for well rounded, realistic female characters in what people are marketing as the primary pieces of an art form is totally reasonable, just as it would be reasonable for me to demand art or media that doesn't only portray "tall dark handsome men who're bad boys with a streak of gold" male characters. The problem is when two dimensional characters who are comparable in depth and characterization to the male leads of some romance novels are the only or the primary examples of female protagonists, or trumpeted as beacons of equality.

> Sure, it's primarily women that fight those initiatives, but they're not acting in their capacity as a feminist. They took that hat off first.

Women, even women who identify as feminists, do not always act completely in accordance with the principles they espouse. It may surprise you to learn that religious people, democrats, republicans, libertarians, etc. also fall victim to this. I don't know the details of the things you're referencing, but tbh it sounds like a bunch of college students behaved as a mob. That kind of thing is never alright.

> Feminists say that fictional women (Barbie et. al) are representative of women as a whole, and should be treated as such. If this is the case, then a fictional female character has the right to be represented as a complete character, sexuality and all. If you're telling me it's otherwise, then why does a fictional female character's sexuality even merit discussion?

Barbie, as a product, is marketed as an ideal that all (or most) (white?) women should push towards. If there was a good, interesting range of complete portrayals of fictional women in mainstream film, television, and video games at all, then one or two or even a genre of uniform female characters wouldn't be a problem for me (or, indeed, I think most feminists--do you hear many women decrying the two dimensional female characters in grocery store spy novels, which I'd claim are probably the male equivalent of romance novels? I certainly haven't heard a lot of uproar over that.), just as a genre or piece with flat male characters wouldn't be a problem! It is when all or most representations of women in all or most media are two dimensional and unrealistic (and this is being called 'progress') that there is a problem. Unfortunately, that's largely also the current state of affairs! There has been a lot of great movement towards interesting/nonstandard female leads in recent television (Interestingly, I'd say that Mad Men comes to mind as a very strong example of this, despite its period setting.) and I think that trend is moving into movies as well, so hopefully this state of affairs won't last forever.

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/...

That's an interesting argument, although to be completely honest it seems kind of ridiculous. Replace "women" with "people" in that article and aside from needing to fix the statistics RE: violent crime, you have a pretty standard (if slightly overwrought) argument against imprisoning most nonviolent offenders--which isn't completely beyond the pale and something I could get behind.

> http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/1000093/protesters-shut-down...

College students are dumb. They always have been, they probably always will be. The funny thing is, they almost certainly have legitimate complaints about the campus culture, society, and the world, but they're likely behaving in such a juvenile fashion because they feel like it's one of the few ways they /can/ affect change. Judging every anti-war protester by the actions of the Weathermen would also paint a pretty bad picture of anti-war protest.

That is word-for-word the way I hear it phrased, and no context can make it right. It implies that men are rapists who don't know any better, and need educated on what rape is and how not to do it. It implies that all men are sociopaths, and need to be taught basic human empathy.

Saying that all/many/most men are rapists is an unsupportable claim, as in much of the Western world rape has been (and still is) defined specifically as unwanted male-on-female penetration. Until statistics can be presented that have substantiated backing, this is an unfair assessment.

"Teach X not to Y" is an ineffective method for preventing Y. You can put everyone in the world in a class telling them not to mug, murder, rape, pillage, stab, shoot, or use the Oxford Comma. People will still act according to their own personal motivations and (presence or lack of) morals. If I want to prevent myself from being mugged, I will learn to recognize the sort of dangerous situations that could lead to that eventuality. I will take personal responsibility for my safety. I will also understand that there will be times that there was nothing I could have reasonably done to prevent it from happening, if it should.

What about "teach black people not to murder"? Does that not sound incredibly racist to you? If it does, and I really hope it does, what is the effective difference? After all, there is ample data that the majority of murders are by blacks.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...

Regardless of the effectiveness of "Don't Be That Guy", the ends do not justify the means. It would also be effective to immediately throw into prison the people most "at risk" to commit a crime, but that does not make it morally right. After all, how well do you think a "Don't Be That Black Guy" campaign would go over in Detroit?

Phrased like that, yes, it does sound a little racist. However, your point is slightly facetious: I think you and I are both aware that the statistical link between murder and blackness is poverty (i.e. control for poverty/neighborhood and the link between murder and blackness goes away), which is exacerbated in the US by a lot of structural racism/etc. that black people face.

However, from a practical standpoint, I believe that I actually advocated for exactly that, and I stand by my arguments: my point about CBT-based crime prevention (teaching people to not X)? Perhaps obviously, those programs are most effective at reducing criminal behavior from those who are most likely to commit crimes in the future. In the US, the places where they've been shown to be effective are for youth from high crime, poor urban neighborhoods and current prison inmates... both of which are populations that are predominantly black. I'd totally advocate for the expansion of programs like the ones I mentioned if they continue to show statistically significant results RE: reducing criminal behavior, and I think most people would. Teaching people who are most likely to commit criminal acts to instead not commit criminal acts is a net benefit to society and to those people. I'm not, I hope obviously, claiming that being black makes you criminal (or more likely to be a criminal) or that black people alone should be targeted with programs like the ones I mentioned regardless of location, risk, etc. at the expense of similarly high risk white people, in the same way that I'm not claiming that being a man makes you inherently a rapist.

RE: "Don't be that guy" and the ends do not justify the means: It's possible to come up with all kinds of exaggerated scenarios to argue this. I would agree that, say, killing all men to prevent male on female rape would be both very effective and completely unjust.

So let's keep in mind the comparison you're making here: we are talking about, variously, (a) a public advertising campaign about how it's bad to rape people versus actual rape, (b) a course that lasts a few days at the start of college or a week in middle or high school on the importance of consent (tbh, I'd claim it'd be good for it to be aimed at men and women) versus actual rape or (c) a month or semester long course on self control and healthy behaviors in middle/high school/prison versus actual mugging/assault/murder. The "means" we're talking about are not exactly things with a particularly high human cost, especially when compared to the "ends".

If your "means" involve teaching young men that they are considered sociopathic abusive rapists by society and that they need extensive education to learn otherwise, and you do not consider that a "particularly high human cost" then I think we should leave this conversation as it is. Neither of us will be able to convince the other of our position, and we'll only talk in circles trying.

Rape prevention education is generally along the lines of "This is what consent is. It's important! If you don't get consent and have sex with someone, that's rape, and that's bad! These are situations where someone really isn't capable of consent: when they're incapacitated, if you're blackmailing them, if you're holding them down and they're verbally objecting, or really if you haven't gotten a clear and enthusiastic "Wow I want to bone you" from them. You may see someone try to have sex with someone else under those circumstances: that would make you a bystander! If you are a bystander, here are some things you can do to keep that person from raping someone: (a), (b), (c). Etc." Similarly, the crime prevention things I linked and referred to take a different tack of "These are ways to control your emotions and think through the consequences of your actions".

Your portrayal of it as anything else leads me to believe that you haven't ever gone through a rape prevention course and have done absolutely no research on what they usually entail. The reason I'd advise them for everyone is because they're valuable courses for women, too: both because if there's a explicit culture of "nobody is getting laid without an explicit 'yes'", it's shocking how quickly people will start actually getting explicit 'yes'es (See Antioch College), and because I've known of at least one woman who got a man extremely drunk, well beyond where he could remember or consent, and then had sex with him. (Spoiler alert: The guy there was me. I remembered none of it and only found out we'd done anything a few weeks later. I never pressed charges, sought help, or reported it, because like in many situations these things are complicated and she was a friend. When we discussed it later/I'd found out it happened, she didn't think she'd done anything wrong, and that was probably the most messed up part of it. Let's just say universal consent training is something I have personal reasons to feel strongly is important.)

First World Male Privilege | First World Female Privilege | Third World Female Privilege

    _ |   |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ |
    _ | _ | _
    _ | _ | _

Should we go around devaluing the accomplishments of a person in the First World because they were born into the life they got? Do we tell them that everything they achieved was purely a result of the luck of the draw, and that their hard work and dedication means nothing?

People don't seem to have any problems understanding that: if I was to start saying that villagers in (African or Asian country) who live on less than a dollar a day (or whatever) should just go to a good US college and get a tech degree (when, say, no post-primary or even just primary school education is available), nobody has any problem looking at me and going "Really? You f'ing serious right now?"

That doesn't devalue the fact that I worked hardish in high school, got into a good US school, finished two undergraduate degrees and almost finished a masters degree in four years and from that and my extensive programming hobby got a job, where I've been recognized for being a solid developer: those are all meaningful accomplishments that I worked hard or work hard on and things I can (and do!) celebrate!

However, realizing that they aren't necessarily options that are as readily available to everyone or as accessible to everyone is basic empathy. This is something I don't understand: we both have no problem acknowledging this when the person in question a black woman from Uganda, where the structural inequalities are so stark it'd be impossible to miss them, but when it's only a black man from Detroit or even a white woman from New York who might not have had the opportunities and support I had, it somehow devalues my accomplishments? The deck I was given at birth was stacked in my favor, with (quite literally) almost every educational + societal opportunity: that doesn't reduce my accomplishments, but I can't say it definitely didn't contribute to them! (And that even means acknowledging the subtle things, like the fact that I was able to work on my second undergraduate degree and the masters coursework over the summers instead of needing to support myself or save money for the next year, or things like the fact that my high school had a lot of AP courses and I didn't have to start working as soon as I was legally able to in order to help my family's financial situation.) Acknowledging things like that may explain how I managed to do what I managed to do: but that doesn't mean that I just walked in the door and was handed two degrees without any work or was handed a job simply for being who I am. It doesn't devalue my accomplishments, but if someone had achieved the same things as me from a less advantaged position, then that would certainly be more impressive. And I'm fine with that: if someone had to work harder to get what I had to work hard to get, then their accomplishments are that much more impressive. If someone else, say, was genetically engineered and then programmed to know everything about computer science and modern mathematics, then maybe their getting degrees in CS and math would be less impressive... in the same way of if I went back to college knowing everything I learned and got an A+ in a class I used to TA, maybe that isn't really much to celebrate.

The differences between First World Male and First World Female opportunities are also stark, unfortunate, and inarguably unfair:

https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarsh...

https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarsh...

But even putting educational and financial disparities aside, let's look at how the term used in the real world:

"I am a white male that has achieved moderate success in life, but still face financial difficulties due to the harsh economy that puts an undue burden on the middle class."

"Stop complaining and check your privilege."

I agree that there are competing definitions for the word patriarchy. The usage I see most often used in feminism tends to be the toxic version.

Walmart has zero career paths for technical expertise. There are low-level technical positions (rarely entry-level) and they peak at "Technical Expert", and to get past that you have to switch to pure people management.

The IT division, internally called ISD, is so completely inept that the majority of the company still runs on Windows XP despite the fact that support will expire in about a month. They had a Windows 7 team at one point, but that team was dissolved and the rollout "suspended indefinitely".

ISD is so universally recognized as terrible that they were actually the only reason I had a job there. Individual departments and divisions have been forming their own "IT Teams" for years, because it's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay somebody $70,000/year to create a half a dozen new applications yearly than it is to pay ISD $2.8 million to do one of those applications poorly over the course of two years. And then completely dissolve the development team responsible and offer little to no ongoing support for the application.

Despite those exorbitant costs ISD is hemorrhaging money just trying desperately to keep the lights on, mostly because they're still running decades-old legacy applications and hardware. They only recently started drawing up plans to start sunsetting some of the hundreds of legacy systems over the course of the next decade or so.

This is really just scratching the surface of how terrible retail IT can be, and how little they value real technical expertise. Given what I've seen I wasn't so much surprised that the Target et al breach happened, only that it didn't also include Walmart or happen much sooner.

I have a good deal of confidence in Walmart Labs' technical abilities, but they do not have responsibility for the majority of the IT areas that pain the company as a whole.