All this talk about "Don't do X, it's sexist" or "Don't do Y if it's for Men not People" has a negative focus: what not to do.
And then punishing offenders instead of helping them learn better. People don't learn by punishment. (See: Karl Popper.)
At best, this gets people to hide overt problems. It sweeps problems under the rug without getting rid of them. People will still think sexist thoughts, then add self-censorship on top of that.
Real solutions will come from discussion of better ways of life and thinking: what to do instead. And how to characterize this by what it's about rather than a list of things excluded. Life needs a whitelist more than a blacklist.
Ah yes, the ol' "You're being negative by pointing out the negative thing I'm doing!" argument.
Anyone trying to point out a hurtful behavior is being positive. They're trying to help you not hurt other people. You telling someone they should be nicer when you're being a shitheel is a privileged behavior. "Sorry, but you're not being nice enough so I refuse to listen. I might be sexist, but you hurt my feelings by pointing it out!"
I think there's something to be said for faking it until you make it, in this case.
IF men in tech learn to "hide" their sexist thoughts, this will help women in tech feel more comfortable and will thus encourage more of them. And then they will show men how competent women can be in CS, sexist stereotypes disappear because they aren't true at all anymore, etc. etc.
I know this is an optimistic oversimplification, but you get the idea.
I don't think that works. We've had a lot of (unintentional) "fake it until you make it" with anti-semitism at various times in various countries, but it has never solved the problem. (Example: France during/after the French Revolution.)
PS I don't agree but I don't think you should be downvoted.
I guess I don't understand, then, how society shifts. Some people who are racist/sexist/whateverist come around, but more often it seems to me that younger people grow up in a world with different paradigms. There has to be a huge number of people "faking" tolerance.
I could be completely wrong on this, however. This isn't something I've spent a ton of time thinking about.
On the other hand, I am pretty sure that Be Nice To People is considered a basic law of humanity.
One reason for brogramming is that our society (not everyone, but overall in various peer groups or subcultures) provides substantial social rewards for men who:
- like sex
- like beer and other alcohol
- like to party
- are "fun"
- like to "hang out", "socialize", etc
- various other stuff kind of along these lines (it's really not my scene, hard to give good examples)
- demonstrate their strong commitment to these things. roughly: the more dedicated, the larger the social rewards.
So, brogramming is stupid overtly, and causes some problems, but if you tell people to just stop, a lot of them aren't going to want to. They may not know how to explain why, but one of the reasons is that brogramming provides them social rewards (ones that programmers in general are a bit starved for compared with athletes or even chefs).
You want social change? It needs to be broader. Brogramming is a symptom of something much larger. It's basically a coping mechanism for lonely people.
The most important driver of societal shifts are good ideas. Really high quality ideas. One type of idea that will help is changes that make things better for some and don't create any losers. Those are pretty easy to get everyone to agree to and like. But they are hard to come up with. They require a really good understanding of the situation and incentives and how people benefit from the behaviors you want them to stop (which normally gets into even more complicated, larger social structures, which normally touch on sensitive issues affecting most people).
I might be inclined to try starting somewhere else entirely if I wanted a large scale societal change. For example a lot of people feel shame regarding being alone. There are problems with being alone, plus social costs, but then there is this extra emotional cost that isn't from any actual concrete problem and even goes beyond the social costs. Help people be more proud of living alone and spending time alone, and feel good about it instead of bad, and that will be a step towards changing romantic relationship dynamics. Making standard romantic relationships a little more optional will enable people to question them a little more. And, very indirectly, that is a step towards less sexism or brogramming.
I think the US has actually done a reasonably good job of this with regards to various sorts of racism.
People today get that saying something obviously racist is wrong and don't do it very much. That isn't to say they still don't have those thoughts, but at the very least they don't get to spew obvious idiocy without getting called on it.
I agree that hasn't solved the problem, but I do think it has helped shrink the problem.
Frankly, I think comparing antisemitism to other prejudices... doesn't really work. Something about it means that it never really dies, it just integrates your new anti-prejudice measures into itself somehow. You teach everyone that Jews are just people, and antisemites pop up worrying about how they can no longer tell Jews apart.
There was a recent example where people got really offended by the idea of female beer servers. And the people behind the ad got punished by sponsors pulling out.
Are men not supposed to find that sexy? Are they supposed to find it sexy, but pretend they don't? Does everyone know it's sexy, but it's just taboo to appeal to this preference in advertisements?
Seems like they are either being asked to change or hide their sexual preferences. And just not talking about it is no solution.
So, should men in general change their sexual preferences? Well, I'm happy to go with "yes" on that one. And women should too, in my view. But that's an advanced topic and I wouldn't expect most people to agree with me without discussing a bunch of philosophy and stuff. (See more details below.)
I think most anti-sexists would not agree with my perspective on this topic. I think most of them have inconsistent ideas. When you're doing advocacy but have inconsistent ideas, it's not going to work out so great.
What kind of inconsistency? Liking regular attitudes to sex in some contexts, but then not liking some of their consequences in some other contexts. And not recognizing that these are linked.
It's not at all easy to divorce sexual preferences from sexism. One of the many consequences of ending sexism is that everyone would be bisexual (or asexual). If you're not bisexual (or asexual) then you're sexist! Maybe you won't agree with that but there are plenty of smaller issues that are pretty easy to agree on. If you look at the large majority of common sexual fantasies, they involve some amount of gender stereotypes like a strong man or a pretty woman. The beer related ad basically communicated "hey guys, we'll have pretty women near you", it was appealing to a very mainstream preference.
Tons and tons of women have rape fantasies. And tons and tons of men have nasty fantasies too. In that context I'm not going to get very mad at men for beer server preferences, it doesn't seem all that important to me.
Do anti-sexists want everyone to give all that stuff up? Drop all gender stereotypical sexual fantasies? Drop most (all?) sexual fetishes? Maybe become bisexual or asexual?
I don't think so. They want to keep some of that stuff but a limited amount.
But rationally you can't just stop half way, arbitrarily, and avoid the full consequences of your ideas. What's the argument for partially rejecting sexism? Some kind of practical argument? Well, that's not so bad but when you look at it that way you'll see it in a new way: the sexists and anti-sexists are both partial sexists, who draw their line in the sand a little different (not even very far apart, from my perspective). Then they fight over where the line should be (they both agree on tons of stuff that is and isn't OK, but then there's a small category where they squabble). And there's no principled arguments to determine this because it's just an arbitrary part-way line determined by practicality, cultural norms, fads, etc... Both sides look a bit dumb to me: mostly agreeing and then arguing over small details with no principles to determine who is right. If you're going to take some "practical", unprincipled approach, at least try to be really tolerant of people who do something similar but not quite the same, since exactly how far you go is arbitrary you really shouldn't start a witch hunt over it.
Most people, including most anti-sexists have no clue how to replace all their sexual preferences with new ones created according to modern rationalistic, progressive standards. More generally, little understanding of how to change their personality (let alone change it safely and rationally). And honestly most people shouldn't try it. They will make mistakes and mostly do worse than the (partially sexist) traditions they're currently adhering to.
Yet the anti-sexists demand the "sexists" change their personalities and sexual preferences, without providing the philosophical knowledge of how to do such a thing, which neither side has.
I also don't think it's fair to blame men in general. All this stuff is part of gender roles and lifestyle traditions that both men and women participate in. Just as one example, many women want the man to take lots of initiative and kiss her without asking. But they don't want to be kissed by men they don't fancy. And they don't want to send clear signals. The woman's passive role and the man's active role go together, and combined with the lack of clear communication on both sides, you get false positives where women get kissed who don't want to be. Men get blamed for this by the anti-sexist crowd, and sometimes fired, but it looks to me like it's a consequence of both the male and female behavior. There's no straightforward way for men to unilaterally fix it: if they act less like "alpha males" and do more "beta" behavior (like asking permission to kiss a woman or passively waiting for a lot more evidence to go by), they will have a worse shot with most women.
Comments
All this talk about "Don't do X, it's sexist" or "Don't do Y if it's for Men not People" has a negative focus: what not to do.
And then punishing offenders instead of helping them learn better. People don't learn by punishment. (See: Karl Popper.)
At best, this gets people to hide overt problems. It sweeps problems under the rug without getting rid of them. People will still think sexist thoughts, then add self-censorship on top of that.
Real solutions will come from discussion of better ways of life and thinking: what to do instead. And how to characterize this by what it's about rather than a list of things excluded. Life needs a whitelist more than a blacklist.
Ah yes, the ol' "You're being negative by pointing out the negative thing I'm doing!" argument.
Anyone trying to point out a hurtful behavior is being positive. They're trying to help you not hurt other people. You telling someone they should be nicer when you're being a shitheel is a privileged behavior. "Sorry, but you're not being nice enough so I refuse to listen. I might be sexist, but you hurt my feelings by pointing it out!"
Grow up.
I think there's something to be said for faking it until you make it, in this case.
IF men in tech learn to "hide" their sexist thoughts, this will help women in tech feel more comfortable and will thus encourage more of them. And then they will show men how competent women can be in CS, sexist stereotypes disappear because they aren't true at all anymore, etc. etc.
I know this is an optimistic oversimplification, but you get the idea.
I don't think that works. We've had a lot of (unintentional) "fake it until you make it" with anti-semitism at various times in various countries, but it has never solved the problem. (Example: France during/after the French Revolution.)
PS I don't agree but I don't think you should be downvoted.
I guess I don't understand, then, how society shifts. Some people who are racist/sexist/whateverist come around, but more often it seems to me that younger people grow up in a world with different paradigms. There has to be a huge number of people "faking" tolerance.
I could be completely wrong on this, however. This isn't something I've spent a ton of time thinking about.
On the other hand, I am pretty sure that Be Nice To People is considered a basic law of humanity.
One reason for brogramming is that our society (not everyone, but overall in various peer groups or subcultures) provides substantial social rewards for men who:
So, brogramming is stupid overtly, and causes some problems, but if you tell people to just stop, a lot of them aren't going to want to. They may not know how to explain why, but one of the reasons is that brogramming provides them social rewards (ones that programmers in general are a bit starved for compared with athletes or even chefs).You want social change? It needs to be broader. Brogramming is a symptom of something much larger. It's basically a coping mechanism for lonely people.
The most important driver of societal shifts are good ideas. Really high quality ideas. One type of idea that will help is changes that make things better for some and don't create any losers. Those are pretty easy to get everyone to agree to and like. But they are hard to come up with. They require a really good understanding of the situation and incentives and how people benefit from the behaviors you want them to stop (which normally gets into even more complicated, larger social structures, which normally touch on sensitive issues affecting most people).
I might be inclined to try starting somewhere else entirely if I wanted a large scale societal change. For example a lot of people feel shame regarding being alone. There are problems with being alone, plus social costs, but then there is this extra emotional cost that isn't from any actual concrete problem and even goes beyond the social costs. Help people be more proud of living alone and spending time alone, and feel good about it instead of bad, and that will be a step towards changing romantic relationship dynamics. Making standard romantic relationships a little more optional will enable people to question them a little more. And, very indirectly, that is a step towards less sexism or brogramming.
I think the US has actually done a reasonably good job of this with regards to various sorts of racism.
People today get that saying something obviously racist is wrong and don't do it very much. That isn't to say they still don't have those thoughts, but at the very least they don't get to spew obvious idiocy without getting called on it.
I agree that hasn't solved the problem, but I do think it has helped shrink the problem.
Frankly, I think comparing antisemitism to other prejudices... doesn't really work. Something about it means that it never really dies, it just integrates your new anti-prejudice measures into itself somehow. You teach everyone that Jews are just people, and antisemites pop up worrying about how they can no longer tell Jews apart.
You know, I think I understand you better after rereading this a few times.
Do you have any suggestions on how to help people (men) understand these issues?
(That IS what the forum was supposed to be. Not a punishment.)
Maybe not exactly what you asked, but:
There was a recent example where people got really offended by the idea of female beer servers. And the people behind the ad got punished by sponsors pulling out.
Are men not supposed to find that sexy? Are they supposed to find it sexy, but pretend they don't? Does everyone know it's sexy, but it's just taboo to appeal to this preference in advertisements?
Seems like they are either being asked to change or hide their sexual preferences. And just not talking about it is no solution.
So, should men in general change their sexual preferences? Well, I'm happy to go with "yes" on that one. And women should too, in my view. But that's an advanced topic and I wouldn't expect most people to agree with me without discussing a bunch of philosophy and stuff. (See more details below.)
I think most anti-sexists would not agree with my perspective on this topic. I think most of them have inconsistent ideas. When you're doing advocacy but have inconsistent ideas, it's not going to work out so great.
What kind of inconsistency? Liking regular attitudes to sex in some contexts, but then not liking some of their consequences in some other contexts. And not recognizing that these are linked.
It's not at all easy to divorce sexual preferences from sexism. One of the many consequences of ending sexism is that everyone would be bisexual (or asexual). If you're not bisexual (or asexual) then you're sexist! Maybe you won't agree with that but there are plenty of smaller issues that are pretty easy to agree on. If you look at the large majority of common sexual fantasies, they involve some amount of gender stereotypes like a strong man or a pretty woman. The beer related ad basically communicated "hey guys, we'll have pretty women near you", it was appealing to a very mainstream preference.
Tons and tons of women have rape fantasies. And tons and tons of men have nasty fantasies too. In that context I'm not going to get very mad at men for beer server preferences, it doesn't seem all that important to me.
Do anti-sexists want everyone to give all that stuff up? Drop all gender stereotypical sexual fantasies? Drop most (all?) sexual fetishes? Maybe become bisexual or asexual?
I don't think so. They want to keep some of that stuff but a limited amount.
But rationally you can't just stop half way, arbitrarily, and avoid the full consequences of your ideas. What's the argument for partially rejecting sexism? Some kind of practical argument? Well, that's not so bad but when you look at it that way you'll see it in a new way: the sexists and anti-sexists are both partial sexists, who draw their line in the sand a little different (not even very far apart, from my perspective). Then they fight over where the line should be (they both agree on tons of stuff that is and isn't OK, but then there's a small category where they squabble). And there's no principled arguments to determine this because it's just an arbitrary part-way line determined by practicality, cultural norms, fads, etc... Both sides look a bit dumb to me: mostly agreeing and then arguing over small details with no principles to determine who is right. If you're going to take some "practical", unprincipled approach, at least try to be really tolerant of people who do something similar but not quite the same, since exactly how far you go is arbitrary you really shouldn't start a witch hunt over it.
Most people, including most anti-sexists have no clue how to replace all their sexual preferences with new ones created according to modern rationalistic, progressive standards. More generally, little understanding of how to change their personality (let alone change it safely and rationally). And honestly most people shouldn't try it. They will make mistakes and mostly do worse than the (partially sexist) traditions they're currently adhering to.
Yet the anti-sexists demand the "sexists" change their personalities and sexual preferences, without providing the philosophical knowledge of how to do such a thing, which neither side has.
I also don't think it's fair to blame men in general. All this stuff is part of gender roles and lifestyle traditions that both men and women participate in. Just as one example, many women want the man to take lots of initiative and kiss her without asking. But they don't want to be kissed by men they don't fancy. And they don't want to send clear signals. The woman's passive role and the man's active role go together, and combined with the lack of clear communication on both sides, you get false positives where women get kissed who don't want to be. Men get blamed for this by the anti-sexist crowd, and sometimes fired, but it looks to me like it's a consequence of both the male and female behavior. There's no straightforward way for men to unilaterally fix it: if they act less like "alpha males" and do more "beta" behavior (like asking permission to kiss a woman or passively waiting for a lot more evidence to go by), they will have a worse shot with most women.