Hacker News Reader

Comment by edblarney | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure I agree.

I often call people quite my junior 'boys' and 'girls'. I work with a startup of dudes under 24. I call them 'lads'. I could technically be their father. Is that wrong? No.

Neither is using the term Mrs. Ms. or Miss.. In far-left socialist Montreal, where women are not even allowed by law to take their husband's name - people use the French equivalent everywhere: 'Madame' and 'Mademoiselle'. Same in Germany. Is that harassment now?

I think this kind of comment is not helping the situation - you want to find prejudice wherever you can, even when there is none there.

Let's work on getting the actual harassment stuff fixed - and avoid getting into culture wars.

View on HN

> and avoid getting into culture wars

Complaining about identity politics is how white men practice identity politics. Your post here is a shot fired in a culture war. You can't do that and complain about culture wars.

The phenomenon you're exploiting here is that the status quo is seen as the default state of the system. When women talk about bias, it's easy to say, "Why are women always talking about bias? Why are they starting a culture war?"

The start of the war, though, is lost in prehistory. For millennia, women were basically property, traded among families and owned by men. In the last couple hundred years, we've been unwinding that. We're not done yet, though. E.g., in the US we only hit parity in the number of medical and law degrees circa 2005; we won't see parity in the number of doctors and lawyers for decades more.

Women didn't start the war. They, and a growing number of men, are the resistance. Hopefully we will end the war within decades. But please don't pretend that shouting, "Stop fighting back!" is equivalent to a call for peace.

> in the US we only hit parity in the number of medical and law degrees circa 2005; we won't see parity in the number of doctors and lawyers for decades more

It is a flawed assumption that "parity in degrees" has any meaning as a measure of some vaguely-defined "equality" value.

That's a very fancy way to say "nuh-uh".

Complaining about identity politics is how white men practice identity politics

That's either illogical or racist. It could only be logical if you have as an axiom that white men can't possibly have a legitimate reason to complain about identity politics, which is itself a racist axiom.

Are you claiming that every non-white who practices identity politics is perfect and correct?

It's observational. Because we white men are the default, we don't have to directly advocate for white men; we just have to push against anything that draws attention to our unequal status.

You are also mostly arguing with something I didn't say. I'm not saying all complaints about identity politics are illegitimate. Just that when white men are practicing identity politics, one tool they use is to complain about identity politics. Similarly, your last line is another misinterpretation.

Because we white men are the default

As a person of color, I have to say that this is one of the most corrosively racist concepts there is, flat out. White people aren't special. They aren't a "default." Everyone else isn't a flavor of the month. The "everyman" isn't a white man. Because to say such is to relegate everyone else to 2nd rate status.

I'm not saying all complaints about identity politics are illegitimate. Just that when white men are practicing identity politics, one tool they use is to complain about identity politics.

It sure sounds like you're saying that all complaints from white men about identity politics are illegitimate or are somehow special because they come from white men. That strikes me as racist. Also, it sure makes white people sound special somehow.

Let me take the second point first. I'll make the statement generic: "A way people in a dominant group reinforce the power of the dominant group is to try to prevent discussions where non-dominant groups explicitly discuss their experience as non-dominant groups and how they relate to the dominant group." That's pretty clearly not a racist statement.

Now let's take another statement: in America from the 1700s onward, white men are the dominant group. This is explicitly in the foundations of the country, and although it has become less true over time, looking at things like wealth distribution, positions of power, and access to power, it's still not an unfair statement. That statement describes a racist system, but I don't believe to be racist in itself.

What do we get when we combine the two statements, using the generic thought expressed in the first and the historical specificity of the second? "The way white men practice identity politics is to complain about identity politics."

So I believe that's not a racist statement either. I also think you over-apply it. As I already explained once, I am explicitly not saying all complaints about identity politics are illegitimate. I am saying that white men acting to maintain their societal dominance will complain about identity politics as a means.

Now to your first bit, I believe what you say is correct, but you miss my point. The reason I'm bringing it up is as part of pointing out edblarney's treating of men as the default. I agree with you it's wrong that white men are treated as the generic. But in pointing it out, I'm trying to undermine it. (In case you're curious, the technical names for the phenomena that I'm concerned about here are erasure [1] and the unmarked case [2], and I'm opposed to both.)

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/magazine/the-painful-conse...

[2] http://www2.bakersfieldcollege.edu/driess/Readings_files/Mar...

I don't have time to keep monitoring this for replies, but feel free to email me if you want to discuss this further.

I'll throw my hat in: using girl in the general form during an impersonal discussion (such as anything related to facts, debates, etc.) should be discouraged. It sounds as out of place as saying "boys" to refer to men. Your argument that "girl" is the same as "guy" applies in friendly terms and informal conversation, like the examples you provided.

I think there is something to be said about "Not Giving A Fuck". People should try it. Sometimes people just speak, and sometimes people get offended. I believe the vast majority of the time, no offense was intended. Words are just words and they cannot relay perfect messages 100% of the time. The best thing anyone can do is keep their ego's in check, do your work and do it damn well. Let your work create the narrative. Nobody's going to shit on someone who carries the team.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com