[anonymous]9y1

could you recommend a source that would assist in understanding the method you used to arrive at this result?

Of course! I tend to agree with orthonormal - in writings by men, women are often talked about as the "Other" and not the audience.

EY has written a similar argument . But then in this piece, he makes multiple accusations that women tend to talk about men as "Other" without ever providing any sort of evidence to back it up. He just takes it as some obvious de facto truth that doesn't even need justification. I personally was put off at this.

Some more good ones to read include this argument which mentions that you shouldn't forget the historical context/ culture that people are coming into these discussions from, and this piece, which posits that the essence of the "Taking Offense" is a percieved lowering of social status.

I also recommend a quick perusal of the comments therein.

From my personal experience, one of the early things I did upon finding Less Wrong (after some explorations in the sequences) was to click on the tags of subjects I was interested in (gender, social, etc). Somehow, a vast majority of the articles' comment sections ended up devolving into repetitive arguments about PUA. Looking back, this was probably due to my navigating by clicking on links within the article I was already reading, which lead me to stay within a subject range that could devolve into PUA discussions, and not so much that PUA is in fact mentioned in the vast majority of posts. My opinions on this (although probably more positive than you would expect of an average female) are a whole different subject which I can expound upon if need be, but I assume that you could guess how a female would feel when she goes to a blog supposedly about rationality, and all the comments are about PUA.

Finally, I would like you to imagine yourself as the only male in a Women's Studies class. Even if the language always remains respectful and your classmates encourage your participation, I'm sure you can visualize many respectful debates where you would get frustrated that the other members of your class just don't "Get It"...LW is a similar situation, just with the genders reversed.

I would like to mention that I have in fact been the only female in engineering classes, and would like to point out that any time your race/gender/belief system is in the vast minority, there is bound to be additional pressure there. My views on that subject best summed up by these comics .

Finally, I would like to comment that in my introduction, I was operating in a social interaction mode (aka I was posting in a "Introduce Yourself" thread (social interaction), not a "Let's Have A Rational Discussion" thread (factual/debating interaction). Even a polite request (such as the one made) to rationalize my feelings would not be acceptable in most social spheres outside of LW. (unless the claim I made was completely outside reality, such as "I was driven away by the intense focus of the LW community on ice cream." In which case a "Say whaaat?" is a completely acceptable response, lol) Here it is de rigeur. I wouldn't be surprised if this also tended to draw away many women. (And I would like to clarify that I am not trying to attack you personally at all, I am just using your response as an example of the LW culture.)

Even a polite request (such as the one made) to rationalize my feelings would not be acceptable in most social spheres outside of LW."

I realize this post is quite old, but there's clearly a norm of conversation I'm not understanding. I don't want to cross peoples boundaries, but I have a hard time understanding them.

Could you be so kind to explain to me why one would be offended by that?

1J_Taylor8ySorry for not responding to this sooner. Thank you for explaining your view. I have only two statements to make. * Apologies for failing to abide by the relevant norms of conversation. (This is not sarcasm. Without body language, it is hard to demonstrate this. However, perhaps I can express myself better with this photograph of a chimpanzee.) http://www.ebookanoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/embarrassed-chimp.jpg [http://www.ebookanoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/embarrassed-chimp.jpg] If I were to anthropomorphize, the chimp would be thinking the chimp equivalent of "D'oh." * After the recent romance thread (which was not qualitatively worse than the previous threads), stating that Lesswrong has a "Not-Getting-It-ness" with regards to gender is perhaps something of an understatement. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/27/science/chimp.reach533.jpg [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/27/science/chimp.reach533.jpg] If I were to anthropomorphize this chimp, the chimp would be thinking the chimp equivalent of "Really, folks? Really?"
-1[anonymous]9yPS- I really which there were a "Preview" button, or a way to edit posts in Not-A-Tiny-Text-Box. I'll be doing some editing now, but it will only be clarity, not content. :)

Welcome to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)

by orthonormal 1 min read12th Aug 2010805 comments

42


This post has too many comments to show them all at once! Newcomers, please proceed in an orderly fashion to the newest welcome thread.