Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW

Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?

by pemungkah (Priest)
on Apr 03, 2013 at 18:13 UTC ( #1026886=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?

None - I refuse to acknowledge the term man hours, you patriarchical pig. But I have many person-hours. And let me tell you.....
I find this really offensive.

Using a straw feminist to pretend that ha, ha, exclusive language isn't a microaggression and privilege isn't an issue is bullshit and has no place on a site that is supposedly meant to be welcoming to everyone.

  • Comment on Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Apr 10, 2013 at 16:56 UTC

    I don't care if you say (or imply) that some Englishmen are thick, greedy, ugly or unreasonable; because it is true.

    I do care if you state or imply that *all* Englishmen are any of those -- or their inverses -- because: a) you could not know that; b) it is statistically unlikely; c) those types of characterisations are subjective. So even if you knew *all* Englishmen; and concluded that for you they *all* fit your chosen characterisation; it will not be so for all of them for everyone else. It is therefore untrue. A falsehood that should be challenged. And against the laws of most civilised states to do so.

    So even if you could infer from the OP joke that speaker was in fact a women, rather than (say) some litigation-shy male trying to over-compensate -- which you cannot -- it is either naive, or fantastical or fanatical to believe that the intent was to cause readers to believe that all feminists are so obsessed with gender-neutral terminology. Indeed, it is sexist to believe, imply or state that.

    And as soon as you move away from the "all feminists" to 'some feminists' or 'a feminist somewhere', the possibility of sexism goes away.

    Unless that is you are prepared to claim -- and demonstrate -- that no feminist does, or ever has, seen the use of gender-specific terms as an affront to womankind.

    Because at that point the joke becomes a (misguided) woman -- perhaps under the delusion that she is furthering the feminist cause -- making a stupid remark regarding the use of gender-specific terms being applied to gender-neutral concepts.

    Just as there are some stupid Englishmen; so have there been some feminists -- of both genders -- that have cited the use of gender-specific terminology when used to describe gender-neutral activities and concepts, as examples of sexism.

    So, unless you are of the view that sexism is a one-way street that can only be perpetrated by men against women -- in which case further discussion is pointless -- concluding that the OP joke was deliberately intended to both target *all* female feminists and by doing so cause male readers to view womenkind in a lesser light, then your calling-out of the joke as sexism, and all the follow-on posts in support of that charge, along with the demands for its removal and demands for apologies are both a) wrong; b) themselves sexist (against menkind).

    That is to say, the attempted cure is worse than the original sin.

    My hope is that this contribution will be seen as an attempt to settle the issue rather than anything contentious worthy of further ire and debate. That it will both close the issue in this thread and provoke (quiet) contemplation that might prevent people going off half-cocked in similar ways in the future.

    That is probably a forlorn hope, but I am apt to dream.

      I think I understood you. Please correct me where I have not.

      I think this is the core of what you are trying to say:

      So, unless you are of the view that sexism is a one-way street that can only be perpetrated by men against women -- in which case further discussion is pointless -- concluding that the OP joke was deliberately intended to both target *all* female feminists and by doing so cause male readers to view womenkind in a lesser light, then your calling-out of the joke as sexism, and all the follow-on posts in support of that charge, along with the demands for its removal and demands for apologies are both a) wrong; b) themselves sexist (against menkind).
      I don't believe that I made any statements saying that it was a one-way street, and in any case, it's not relevant to talk about hypothetical things that might sometime happen somewhere to somebody. I was talking about a specific event, the poll entry, in a particular place, here. Bringing in all these hypotheticals feels to me like we're wandering away from the actual situation in a fog of assumption and hypothesis, but I'm willing to be wrong. Can you explain it more simply, perhaps using the example of the poll to illustrate?

      I said it felt to me that here, in this particular case, where the "I refuse" item was written for the poll, that the statement as it was written referred to a caricature of feminism called a "straw feminist": "A character whose "feminism" is drawn only for the purposes of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them. More likely to fight an imaginary male conspiracy rather than actually helping disadvantaged women, often being an out-and-out man hater with exaggerated beliefs." (See? I was kind and didn't link to TV Tropes!) I read that poll entry that way. Do you read it differently? If you do, I'd like you to explain what it is meant to say and imply. (I may disagree, but I'll keep talking with you.)

      I did not say that it was intended to "cause male readers to view womenkind in a lesser light". I said it was a clumsy joke that seemed to me to imply that feminists are all "out-and-out man haters with exaggerated beliefs". I have seen a lot of tap-dancing around this, a lot of what it is not, but very little about what it is. If anyone really has a very specific explanation of the joke that is different - what it specifically is meant to mean - that would be useful information to better inform the discussion. In my personal experience a reluctance to get to grips with an issue like this means it really needs to be worked out and looked at. Often there are assumptions that, once laid out, turn out to be unwarranted.

      For the same of trying to find a consensus, let's see if I understand your logic by making a parallel. I'll try to remap this to the bus and feet again.

      Let's say I get on the Chinatown bus here in San Francisco. I'm wearing my heavy hiking boots, having just gotten back from a trip to Yosemite. I like my hiking boots; they're really comfortable and support my feet, and I feel good and safe and warm in them. Today the bus is really crowded. Gee, there are a lot more people here than usual! I work my way back as usual to the middle of the bus, and in the process I almost step on the foot of an old lady who only speaks Chinese, so I don't understand she's saying, "Hey, watch your feet! You could have stepped on me! Those big shoes could hurt someone on a bus with these extra people on it!" because it's in a language that's just noises to me. So now a young man who speaks both Mandarin and English says, "Hey, you just missed that lady's foot! You need to be more careful! And you shouldn't wear those big shoes on this bus!".

      If I understood what you were saying, I come to the conclusion you're saying that the young man who speaks both languages is being a racist because he's translated the Chinese that couldn't be understood and is telling me, the non-Chinese person, that I'm doing something that could hurt people - I didn't, but I could have - and that there some things I should do to avoid it, even if I didn't directly hurt someone this time. The other thing you seem to be saying is that is was actually inherently wrong to speak to me at all to tell me something he's I'm not understanding.

      This parallel could be off; I'd appreciate your help in trying to fix it if it is. Sometimes metaphors are more powerful ways to work something out than trying to deal with loaded situations.

      The story, as I've written it, is meant to be a very close parallel to the poll situation. When I mention potential gender-related issues. I'm trying to translate a language that, on the evidence in this thread, doesn't make sense to a lot of the more-vocal Perlmonks. When I'm talking about this stuff, I'm trying to introduce the core concepts that make it easier to understand the component parts of situations that discourage people from being part of Perlmonks.

      Here's a for-instance. When I say the term "Using 'Man-cave' like that is an attack", I'm using shorthand to say "in this context someone is taking the perfectly lovely concept of a guy having his own private and personal space where he can indulge himself and his interests, and giving it the spin by way it is being used of "this is my place, owned by me, a man, where I make all the decisions, and things that concern you, who not a man, are unwelcome, and will be ignored and ridiculed because they are not anything I care about and therefore not man stuff and consequently completely unimportant". In short: "Mine. You're worthless. Leave."

      I am, and let me say this in bold, not saying any person here is bad. Even the "cancerous asshole" and "mangina" people. You may have said something thoughtless, or even deliberately cruel - but those are actions, they are not "you".

      When I'm saying that something is "sexist", I'm saying, "I'm trying to let you know: this is said in a way that implies to certain people: we don't like you, we don't want you; if you are like the person we are talking about you are bad and should leave, and we will be as nasty and unkind as we can to you".

      Nobody needs to make jokes that are needlessly cruel to people - even if they are people you don't know. If you do know someone who is angry about an issue and lashing out - try to sympathize. Try to see who they are. Try to understand them. Yes, it is very hard to deal with someone who is angry. It's much easier to be angry right back. But it gets us nowhere.

      Sympathy and tolerance are the lubricants that allow groups of people to grow. Anger, taunting, and belittling can draw an existing community together - but as a policy, it sows the potential for explosions later, when suddenly one of the closely-bound people suddenly is "one of those people".

      I am speaking only because I see signs of the most active and vocal members binding themselves closer through tightening their circle, not through saying and living that "we all love Perl - even though we are different, let us find a way to love it together and support each other, finding a way for our differences to coexist here."

      I think you're saying this, as I am trying to: that you want Perlmonks to be as big as it can possibly be. I'm trying to find a way to remove the intolerant bits that make it harder to grow. I think you have ideas about this too. I'd like to know them. We very likely won't agree at first, but perhaps there is a way we can.

        I think I understood you. Please correct me where I have not.

        Stated more simply, you inferred sexism where it could not exist and without consultation voiced that unfounded charge in a public forum.

        Later in the thread you inferred homophobia and voiced the charge, again without foundation, publicly.

        Those two combined open up a third possibility, defined in European and other legal doctrines as 'hate mongering'.

        I strongly suggest that you stop now and seek both salient education and appropriate legal advice.

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        "Anger, taunting, and belittling can draw an existing community together..."

        Paraphrasing from American Dad...

        I'm not telling you to stop hating.
        I just want you to hate where hate deserves.
        Hating feminists is hate we could be using on Python!
        package Cow { use Moo; has name => (is => 'lazy', default => sub { 'Mooington' }) } say Cow->new->name
Re^2: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by shetech (Initiate) on Apr 04, 2013 at 01:26 UTC
    I agree with pemungkah on this one. It's a strident and wildly inaccurate attempt at a joke on feminism, and further implies that the straw feminist would then go on to continue bitching about something or other, seemingly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'm a female, something of a nerd and yes, a feminist (and even as I write this, I can FEEL the number of eyes rolling at that statement). As such, I will simply say that the " patriarchal pig..." comment does a disservice to this entire community, male AND female, by further alienating a group of people that are among your greatest assets and champions.
      Nice one sockpuppet troll. Brand new account made just to make this post.
        Would you like to know why I created an account? So that I would be posting with a name instead of hiding behind a cloak of cowardly anonymity. That is all.
        Yes, it's great to see the welcoming attitude you so exemplify here.

        I'd be happy to introduce you to a real, personal friend of mine who you just insulted. But you are hiding behind the screen of anonymity because even you know that saying crap like is is wrong. You just don't want to admit it.

      I'm a female, something of a nerd and yes, a feminist (and even as I write this, I can FEEL the number of eyes rolling at that statement)

      You know, I didn't :) I'm of the opinion that almost ever guy on here is a feminist, even the joke poster/defenders

        If they are then they need to be acting like it and to be speaking up about the jerks and saying, "that stuff is unacceptable". When people are being jerks in a public forum, the only way to fight that - and to ensure that the forum is not taken to be supportive of the jerks - is to say, "that is wrong, that is unacceptable, it offends me, and you should find somewhere else to go if you want to say crap like that; we don't accept that here."

        Don't feed the trolls only works when it's clear otherwise - through positive affirmation by a majority - that the trolls are indeed trolls. It's not clear at Perlmonks. For instance the poll is still up and unchanged.

      Funny thing is ... straw or not ... that's exactly what happened. I say the joke was spot on.

      Enoch was right!
      Enjoy the last years of Rome.

        Funny thing is ... straw or not ... that's exactly what happened. I say the joke was spot on.

        Please, can you show me where in the thread someone called the author a patriarchical pig? Or something comparably insulting?

        So the joke is discrediting feminists by putting the word pig in their mouths. (If that was the intent of the joke, one can discuss - well, if one is able to discuss)
        People complain, without insulting.
        The joke defenders:
        insult the ones who complain,
        tell them how they have to feel,
        and in the end make that a proof that the joke is actually right.

        I'm missing that proof.
      I'm a female, something of a nerd and yes, a feminist (and even as I write this, I can FEEL the number of eyes rolling at that statement).

      This is a precision example of where this kind of "joke" goes.

      Because you, the original poster, think making this kind of joke is hilarious, you've painted everyone else on Perlmonks as thinking this kind of crap is OK.

      Here we have a potential contributor, and supported of Perl, who now feels like we're a bunch of exclusionist jerks who think diversity is dumb - and therefore Perl programmers as a whole think this way too.

      Don't argue that she's being too sensitive. If someone essentially says, "I don't like people like you," it goes in no matter how "tough" you are - and it sure doesn't make you want to hang out with the person who says it - and it absolutely creates a bad association at an emotional level (for both men and women - there are no Vulcans or machine intelligences here).

      So congratulations! You've made great strides in convincing someone else that Perl programmers are elitist, insensitive dicks who like their boys club and don't want anyone who isn't just like them around.

Re^2: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by Ratazong (Monsignor) on Apr 04, 2013 at 13:50 UTC

    Hi pemungkah!

    Calm down. It's just a joke. You may not think its funny, and that it is politically incorrect. But having this option is in no way implying that perlmonks is supporting racism or genderism.

    Look at some of the other options. They also make fun on certain social groups. E.g.

    • Thanks to Scalosian water ...: What a mean play on people who think that Star Trek is reality ... we should be ashamed!
    • ... so I get the maximum return on my investment: Looking at many postings here, people who only want to learn as few perl possible, in order to maximize their ROI, are not treated with respect at all
    • More time than I've spent learning basic social skills: It is so easy to mock nerds. And so mean, because they never take revenge.
    In fact, there is no option a normal monk can chose, without being insulted being obsessive (last answer), snobbish (5th answer) or a noob (4th answer). If you judge perlmonks by just this poll, obviously no-one is welcome (except possibly bots).

    So please don't take this poll seriously, and don't get enraged by that option. I don't see the need of a some-monks-are-discriminated-because-of-their-gender-we-need-to-end-this-discussion.

    So long and have fun!

    Rata (who likes that poll)

      it's one of those seemingly harmless jokes we're confronted with regularly. I see a big difference to the other options. I don't have any problem with the "social skills" option.
      and it goes one level further - it's not "only" discriminating women, but it's discriminating those who complain about discrimination by pretending that all feminists are aggressive. especially after the incident where a woman heard a bad joke in a conference audience and put a photo of the guys on twitter (which I think was a really bad idea).

      just like I don't generalize men all being sexist, I don't want feminists being generalized as aggressive.

      like it was said in a similar discussion months ago, it's also about context. in a group of friends this might be funny because you know how it was meant.
        Just so. And this is one of the primary reasons why I don't hang out in communities like this very much, and is the reason why I don't attend developer conferences. Every step I take in that world is a reminder of why I'm not welcome.
        I just popped up to say "Hello!"
        I'll soon return back down below
        I came to further my agenda
        That single issue you'll remember
        My raison d'etre for contributions
        No questions to ask nor proffered solutions
        No molehills flattened just mountains raised
        My PC issue for which I must be praised
        My single issue to disturb the peace
        The issue that gives my life its lease
        And now I've done my duty clear
        That's it. I'm out of here

      Edit: What was here was a cruel and specific piece of satire that's served its purpose.

      In short: if you were reminded almost every day that you're not quite like everyone else here and if that difference were the focus of countless jokes, you might get tired of feeling singled out all the time. It's not about just one joke. It's about a culture that can't seem to stop focusing on the irrelevant things that make you different instead of the common things that the community is, ostensibly, about.

        Update: Why the downvotes? Can't you take a JOKE?
        Maybe it's because people are sick of you spouting the same who-little-old-me, tendentious, tiresome bullshit year after year.

        EDIT: here's the original comment, which chromatic deleted

        Calm down. It's just a joke.

        I don't know you and I don't know anything about you, but I do know this: you don't belong on PerlMonks because of some characteristic that has nothing to do with your programming ability. You aren't intelligent enough. Your brain doesn't work the right way. Your skin color is just a little bit wrong. Some aspect of your biology isn't the same as mine. You don't share every opinion I do. The only reason we keep you around is so we can point and laugh at how pathetic you and the people like you are. You'll never be good at programming. We snicker and roll our eyes every time you say something. It's cute, the way you think you can fit in.

        I'm going to give you subtle reminders of this as often as I can, because it's hiliarious.

        Hey everyone, look at the Ratazong! There's a Ratazong in the room! Maybe it can prove it's really a Ratazong, and not merely a tagalong for a real programmer who really belongs in here.

        Ha ha.


        What's that? You don't like hearing this? Cry me a river, you faker. It's just a joke. Why don't you grow up? If you can't handle a little ribbing every time you come around, you've just proved that you and people like you who aren't exactly like me don't belong here. We don't care about your feelings because you're the representative of everyone like you, and if you dare to tell us you might disagree, that just proves that you'll never, ever, never ever hack it as one of us.

      Yeah, telling an African-American "bet you like fried chicken and watermelon" or saying "you're Asian, can you do my math homework?" is just a joke too.

      The other jokes do not take advantage of privilege. This one does.

        Q: How many psychologists does take to change a lightbulb?
        A: Just one, but the lightbulb has to really want to change.

        Q: How many capitalists does it take to change a lightbulb?
        A: Three. One to develop a marketing plan for the event. One to hire the underpaid schlep they'll exploit to actually do the work. One to sell tickets.

        Q: How many radical feminists does it take to.....

      "it's just a joke", yeah right - that's crap. Why don't I just make some jokes about "niggers and watermelons" and we can all have a good laugh, I mean we don't need yet another discussion about racism or anything. Bullshit.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1026886]
[Discipulus]: hello chickenman and welcome to the monastery!
[Discipulus]: can I help you somehow? do you need a barber for the tonsure? ;=)

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (9)
As of 2018-02-20 08:02 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    When it is dark outside I am happiest to see ...

    Results (268 votes). Check out past polls.