This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Seriously. My top 3-5 lady programmers were all AMAB. Patriarchy?
I'd guess there's a bunch of reasons other than just plain old coincidence. One is that there just aren't that many female programmers, so there's a relatively higher proportion of MTF women in the industry. Also the well known male/female difference in interest-in-things versus interest-in-people could be resistant to whatever the cause of an MTF transwoman to be a transwoman rather than a cis man, and also resistant (perhaps not fully immune, but resistant nonetheless) to whatever treatment they might undergo as part of the transition. And there's also some (weak) indication that autism is correlated with transness. The latter 2 don't automatically translate to someone being better at programming, but it's not hard to see why someone who's further on the autism spectrum and with a greater interest in things could develop programming skills further than otherwise.
The 1st 2 could be attributed to patriarchy under standard modern feminist ideology. Not having roughly same amount of female programmers in the industry as male ones is, tautologically, an indication that society hasn't been engineered in such a way as to equalize the proportion of the sexes within this industry, and this is attributable to patriarchy no matter what the mechanism. If society has largely provided women the freedom to pursue whatever careers they want and they're just choosing not to pursue programming - which is likely the case in most western societies - that means that society has sent girls some sort of messaging that has discouraged them away from pursuing programming, which is a form of patriarchy. For the 2nd, the same reasoning applies, just to the interest-in-things/interest-in-people difference. The fact that there's some measurable difference between the sexes in this dichotomy means that there must be some sort of messaging, possibly starting even from the womb, that girls receive that pushes them towards greater interest in people rather than things. The messaging can take forms that are literally invisible and undetectable, but it must be there, and it must be an indication of patriarchy, as long as the results are the kind of imbalance we're talking about.
For the 3rd one, I'm not sure what feminist ideology has to say about the apparent correlation between autism and transness - it might not exist in any case, since I don't think this has been studied much. But there's got to be a way to attribute it to patriarchy somehow if it turns out to be the case; it's just that both autism and transness are considered to be "innate" or "born with it," and I'm not creative enough to come up with a way by which patriarchy can be attributed to a correlation between the 2, but that doesn't mean nobody is that creative.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link