See... it's the little things like this. I am pretty sure that was not your intention, but please do know that turns of phrases like that hurt a little, and exclude a little.
To see what I mean, s/man/jew/ or s/man/white/ or some other category and see how it reads.
I look at "manly man" depictions of, well, manly men (for instance, watch Kevin Kline's performance in A Fish Called Wanda) as parody. Monty Python did it. Mark Twain probably did it. Do they offend people? Sure. Do people not get the joke? Oh yeah. Did that stop the artists in question? Not really. Am I comparing myself to great artists? I'm not worthy, but I study at the feet of masters.
So, in my writing (and I've done a bit of it; look at my profile and my blog) I tend not to give a flying unmentionable about who I piss off. Now, HN is different because it's not my ball game here, but hey, if everyone wrote so as not to offend then the world would be a dull place. I've opposed what I believe is the actual evil -- Political Correctness -- for decades, and I'm not going to stop now.
I like to take language out and give it a violent shake. Have fun with it, see what it can do. I'm not going to change the world by substituting something benign and utterly unoffensive for "manly-man," so fuck it. That's what down-votes are for. I'm not even sure what I'd put there instead, quite frankly. Your suggestions don't preserve the meaning at all. Kevin Kline would be sad.
I regret that you were offended.
Now, can we Godwin this stupid thread and get it over with? Someone toss in the grenade, okay? in 10, 9, 8 . . .
Then I'm sure you're also OK with an ever-shrinking subset of the world being willing to put up with that tone.
It all works out, I suppose.
Sadly, some users have to disrupt a thread, no matter how inane or off-topic it might be :(. Sometimes it gets to the point I don't even want to read or contribute to the discussions on HN anymore and add the site to my hosts list so I won't be tempted to read it out of habit. Eventually I come back, but the times in between get longer.
After skimming the comment history of the person you're replying to, I'd just ignore them, because they have a history of doing this. If HN had an ignore list, they would surely be on mine. Won't be the first or last time they disrupt (troll) a thread.
I read his comment as self-deprecating humor. If he had used white, jew, or whatever else may apply, it would still be self-deprecating humor, which is generally non-offensive for the simple reason it applies to the self.
I don't at all get what benefit there is to being able to say "manly-man programming," either from a communication or a social standpoint.
I don't get what's lost when we replace "manly-man programming" with anything less stupid and awful.
This is like any other literature. Don't force the world into newspeak.
Is this genuinely offensive and exclusive though?
You're sitting in a conference room full of women who are developers, and you start saying, "So let's do some manly-man programming and get this done," what are these women supposed to think?
So if your dev team consisted of a mix of men and women (not even counting if anyone identified as neither or somewhere in between), you'd still say "Let's put in some manly-man programming time" to them?
What if your dev team consisted of just one employee, a woman? Would you still tell her to put in her manly-man programming time? I'm having trouble seeing it. "Jane, it's crunch time. Can you man up and put in some manly-man programming time this weekend?"
If someone is looking to be offended then they will find a reason no matter what is said or how it's said.
Intent is the thing that should be judged, anything else is a foolish way to live and you will constantly find yourself offended.
Same with telling a woman that doing something "manly-man" style is doing it skillfully.
And even if you know it's going to be taken as humorous, let me give you a hint: it's not very funny. It's just not very good as humor. There is much better material out there if you're going for a joke.
I've been referred to as African American, Afro American, colored, person of color, black, negro, etc. It makes no difference to me personally. Unless intended otherwise, it's just a point of reference.
If, say, someone from another company who's visited your offices for a day later refers to you as "that negro in product development," would it be typical that other people of color would take no offense at that use of language?
I'm curious about it. I don't have that lived-in experience, so all I can do to understand is ask and listen.
Why would I ruin my day and relationship with someone by taking offense to a word when there was no malice intended?
See... it's the little things like this. I am pretty sure that was not your intention, but please do know that turns of phrases like that hurt a little, and exclude a little.
To see what I mean, s/kid/jew/ or s/kid/white/ or some other category and see how it reads.
I agree with you on that part but your substitution doesn't make much sense.
The original comment links programming competency to masculinity, which is a problem. It's as simple as that.
If that's what they meant, that's a pretty retrograde attitude.
If that isn't what they meant, maybe it's time to update their vocabulary.
When I feel offended, I treat it as an opportunity to learn about a different viewpoint. Sometimes it makes me change my mind. It always gives me a better understanding of people.
The different viewpoint, I guess, is that the original author has some outdated views on gender competence.
I've seen lots of comments saying "oh but it adds flair to language," and that's a reeeeeally weak defense. There is much better language available; that stuff just sounds stupid at best and retrograde at worst.
Sometimes, the world changes, and it's up to us to keep up with the times.
(It's funny, I bet you anything if the original author had said "this negro gentleman at my workplace...", no one would be defending his retrograde use of language.)
I think they didn’t mean to equate programming skill and masculinity. I also think they should be more sensitive in how they speak. I also think it’s dishonest to ignore the fact that one can be true without the other.
Furthermore, “manly man” is a wacky satirical caricature of “real man”, a problematic stereotype. “Negro” is just a problematic stereotype. I think we should find a better comparison, but one doesn’t come to mind.
Times change, and we can either keep up, or we can let ourselves becomes relics from an earlier era.
2.>original author has some outdated views on gender competence This is libel. This is not at all a conclusion that can be drawn from that user's posts. It's an unfair presumption and you're wrong to go around stating your opinions of others as facts.
On point 2: I can't even dignify that "libel" remark with a response.
The fact that this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9200905 is still live and wasn't heavily downvoted says something about the current HN audience.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Furthermore, my remark doesn't prove in the least that I'm a troll or a holocaust denier. Use your logic. The fact that your comment is still live and wasn't heavily downvoted says something about the current HN audience.
Indeed. I'm glad at least one person got my point.
(A minor nitpick, tho: for the record I happen to have been born with two X chromosomes. Good guess though; especially on HN threads like these.)