I think it’s worth noting that if a person who is sensible, fair, and interested in gender equality issues came to LW and was greeted by the backlog of heated debate on the topic, I would not blame that person for feeling some discomfort about discussing gender issues here. Nor for thinking that there is no group consensus about such issues like there is about, say, religion—because there does not appear to be one. Presumably we all believe that men and women are of equal moral value, but LWers have demonstrated a variety of attitudes about what that means in the modern world and how it should rationally correspond to behavior. If I didn’t know whether a comment about feminism would bring the response “all men are misogynistic and can’t be trusted” or “sexism has reversed, women have the power these days,” I’d be reluctant to talk about it as well.
(I haven’t seen anybody say either of those things on LW, which I hope is because they’re both really stupid. I’m just using them to illustrate extremes.)
I also agree with SarahC’s point about “people talking about a group you’re in,” although I’d take it in a different direction. Things which happen to and affect women and not men (or rarely affect men) are a foreign experience to the majority of LW readers. They can talk amongst themselves about these things in the abstract. Between that fact and the suggestion I’ve seen several times that LWers are disproportionately on the autism spectrum, I can see it being very difficult for them to remember that they’re talking about the real lives of people present, and to ensure that the tone of the discussion is respectful to those people. Thus, people who really are respectful and considerate and want to make good things happen don’t come off that way, and then we get flamewars.
The way for people-who-are-upset-by-these-conversations (often women, but certainly not always) to help would be to make an effort to assume good faith and unravel miscommunications before they occur. Their obstacle is their instinct to defend, which may mean stepping back and taking breathers sometimes … which is another reason we might currently see less of their participation.
People-who-are-upsetting-to-the-above-people can help by examining their choice of wording and ensuring that not only their point, but also their respect, is clear. (Anyone who would rather communicate disrespect has no business in the conversation.) Their obstacle is not knowing how and when to do so; if they start with a good faith effort, practice and good feedback will help.
Both groups can help by knocking it the hell off with the anecdotes. On a subject we all can consider in the abstract, it’s acceptable to be a little less rigorous while exploring an idea, but something which is personal for some participants requires more care. The enemy of the emotional argument is evidence.
On a side note, I’d be interested in the results of a new demographic survey, to see if anything had changed. I think I’ll mention that in the open thread.
I think it’s worth noting that if a person who is sensible, fair, and interested in gender equality issues came to LW and was greeted by the backlog of heated debate on the topic, I would not blame that person for feeling some discomfort about discussing gender issues here. Nor for thinking that there is no group consensus about such issues like there is about, say, religion—because there does not appear to be one. Presumably we all believe that men and women are of equal moral value, but LWers have demonstrated a variety of attitudes about what that means in the modern world and how it should rationally correspond to behavior. If I didn’t know whether a comment about feminism would bring the response “all men are misogynistic and can’t be trusted” or “sexism has reversed, women have the power these days,” I’d be reluctant to talk about it as well.
(I haven’t seen anybody say either of those things on LW, which I hope is because they’re both really stupid. I’m just using them to illustrate extremes.)
I also agree with SarahC’s point about “people talking about a group you’re in,” although I’d take it in a different direction. Things which happen to and affect women and not men (or rarely affect men) are a foreign experience to the majority of LW readers. They can talk amongst themselves about these things in the abstract. Between that fact and the suggestion I’ve seen several times that LWers are disproportionately on the autism spectrum, I can see it being very difficult for them to remember that they’re talking about the real lives of people present, and to ensure that the tone of the discussion is respectful to those people. Thus, people who really are respectful and considerate and want to make good things happen don’t come off that way, and then we get flamewars.
The way for people-who-are-upset-by-these-conversations (often women, but certainly not always) to help would be to make an effort to assume good faith and unravel miscommunications before they occur. Their obstacle is their instinct to defend, which may mean stepping back and taking breathers sometimes … which is another reason we might currently see less of their participation.
People-who-are-upsetting-to-the-above-people can help by examining their choice of wording and ensuring that not only their point, but also their respect, is clear. (Anyone who would rather communicate disrespect has no business in the conversation.) Their obstacle is not knowing how and when to do so; if they start with a good faith effort, practice and good feedback will help.
Both groups can help by knocking it the hell off with the anecdotes. On a subject we all can consider in the abstract, it’s acceptable to be a little less rigorous while exploring an idea, but something which is personal for some participants requires more care. The enemy of the emotional argument is evidence.
On a side note, I’d be interested in the results of a new demographic survey, to see if anything had changed. I think I’ll mention that in the open thread.