I still intend to respond to some others' replies, but clearly you are having trouble keeping up with me as it is so I'll give it another day.

For now I'll just leave you with a little taste of reality from a couple of women:

YouTube is literally full of truly intelligent women and men that get it and are loud about it. It isn't always easy to find unfortunately because there's a lot of Feminist noise online as well, but now and then you get lucky with a streak of intelligent conversation. Feminism is not a universally accepted thing. Many, many very intelligent people see through it and oppose it. Not only men, but women as well.

Oh good, more useless "meta" posts that don't add to any topic in the thread, and attempt to stop the conversation entirely. I imagine if you add it all up you'll find the time you waste reading those posts is more time than you'd spend reading mine. Here, have another video:

(Insert: NSFW: Feminist boobies)

Towards the beginning there is even subject matter very applicable to the OP.

I read (most of) bambam's last huge post, and I have to agree with most things he wrote. Judging from what I saw other people writing about bambam, I was actually a bit surprised how differentiated his post was. Yeah, of course, it was long, but it contained many interesting and good thoughts. Give him a chance.

The issue is not that some of his points make sense in isolation, but that he pushes it all as one whole irrefutable truth.

Maybe it has something to do with women's interests generally being completely unrelated to computer programming and game development, and women generally being rare and exotic in communities like this. It isn't just women that have to put up with that attention. It is any minority in any group. A white man in a black neighborhood. A rap artist in a singing contest. We are naturally curious about things that are different, or things that we lack knowledge about. We try to interact with them to learn about them. There's nothing wrong or malicious with that. If women find that attention uncomfortable then it isn't our fault. That is their problem, not ours, and unique to each individual. Not all women would find that uncomfortable, and indeed many thrive on attention and seek it out. As with my points about slapping butts, kissing, or copping a feel above, nobody knows their threshold except for them in that moment so we cannot know if we've exceeded it until they tell us. They usually tell us by accusing us of being essentially sexual predators, which is itself a sexist assumption to make, and an injurious allegation.

When I joined the site there were probably about ~5 female members known to me, and none of them were overly active as I remember it. In fact, only one or two of them were even programmers or had any interest in computer game development, IIRC. The number is vague. I think that a couple of them increased activity after a few years of me joining, perhaps provoked by me. Only a few of them were ever regulars while I have been a member (which is almost 8 years).

I never bullied or harassed any women on this site (albeit I'd say some of them did try to bully or harass me at times). My big crime was treating them like equals and trying to have intelligent debates with them, much like this one. I was labelled a "chauvenist", and the whole site ganged up on me and called me names, and eventually the thread was closed to calm things down (or censor the debate, who knows).

The point is that if any women felt "unwelcome" here it was not because I treated them rudely (or at least that was never my intention). I enjoyed having them around. That doesn't mean that I censored my ideas though. I was taught to treat women as "equals" (which doesn't mean that I agreed with it). I assumed that they would be capable of handling intelligent debates about gender because I knew I was and an equal would be. I openly talked about men generally being better programmers and doubts that I had about women being as good as men at things like programming, and for the most part I still maintain those generalization to this day. I have since met women online that have genuinely surprised me, but they have generally been lesbians (grey-area), and the few exceptions to the rule. I have also met many women online though that have been more or less capable of handling debates about gender, and admitting to double-standards and hypocrisy in society, and that defend my right to challenge it, and even that agreed with me. If any women ran away from the site because of those discussions then perhaps it was because they were sore losers.

Well then there was that "girl programmer" blogger. I forget her name, but my memory says it started with J. IIRC, somebody posted a thread highlighting the fact that ZOMG, there's a girl programmer (it wasn't me...), and she apparently was paying enough attention to who was reading her blog (I guess she must have just been sitting on Google searching for it...?) to track us down and join to say hi. I don't remember her ever demonstrating her abilities as a programmer so it seemed like more a Feminist gimmick to me than anything. "Girls can do it too! See!" This was around the time that I had started a controversial thread about rape and women's responsibility for their own actions and my lack of sympathy for them. It didn't take long for people to point her in its direction to condemn me in her eyes, and she got involved in the thread and lacked any capacity for open debate and eventually ragequit. As I remember it. She was probably never going to be a long time member anyway (unless we explicitly catered to her, which would have been discrimination). I don't think she had any interest in video games, if memory serves, and she was really just trying to gain followers for her blog. Probably trying to make a living from it and just exploiting us for advertising revenue...

In short, the women that have ragequit A.cc were generally not very constructive members to begin with. The only reason they are missed at all is precisely what you accuse the rest of us for: discriminating against them for being women, and in this case wanting them around purely because they are women.

To me this sounds like you're contradicting yourself. First you say that we can't speak for women because we don't know what it's like to be one, and then you say that if you were one you know how you'd feel about A.cc.

Wait, are you a woman^[2]?

Did you ever consider that it might be uncomfortable for women because they cannot relate to us and visa-versa? The same is true of men in predominantly female groups. Unless you are a homosexual or overtly feminine man you probably would not enjoy being the only man in a group of a hundred women. Waaaaaaait! OK, let me qualify that: that you don't have any interest whatsoever in having sex or being romantically involved with.

There's nothing wrong with not catering to what women like. The vast majority of us are not women. Why would we do that? Why would that even make sense to cater to the few instead of the many? It doesn't make sense. It's discrimination.

They are expected to fail because they have historically failed. It isn't because men are threatened by or hate women. It is because we have past experiences where women did not pull their weight, or expected special treatment because they're women. Women can absolutely earn men's respect and many of them do. It doesn't come free. Respect is not free. You do not automatically respect me as a programmer or as a person. You may respect my rights, my space, as well you should, but you will not respect me until I show you that I deserve it. Respect is very much a matter of ranking the worthiness of people within a society. It isn't a Boolean attribute. It is scalar.

You don't know how much you respect somebody until they have demonstrated their worthiness to you. Men do not automatically respect one another. We are in competition with one another. Respect is earned by either demonstrating usefulness, or surpassing others' abilities (being better than them). Women in male dominated fields generally struggle to just keep up with men, let alone surpass them. Often the very best women in a particular male dominated field only rival the mid-level men and are nowhere near the top men.

The truth is that most women today do not respect men either, in spite of men's usefulness (essentially it is just a universal that women do not respect men), and if you do not give others the respect that they believe they deserve from you then you should not expect to be respected back. Unfortunately, this was a product of Feminism. Women and girls are basically being taught that men and boys are not worthy of respect, and that every time they fall short of a man it is because of oppression instead of just not being as good. It is essentially unsportsmanlike conduct. We generally despise that kind of behavior from men. For some reason society took a left turn and started encouraging it from women.

You need to cite some sources for your claim that women need to be "significantly more qualified" to be given fair consideration. According to who? The women? Feminism teaches women that they are all powerful, flawless, infinite creatures. I think if someone was making a claim such as this I'd want to have their assertion corroborated by impartial third parties. I have my doubts that this has ever been done, but I implore you to find examples.

A small group of women not getting hired amongst a group of equally or better qualified men is not discrimination. Hiring/recruiting personnel may also be applying personal biases formed with past experiences they may have had with women that didn't work out in their decision to prefer a male candidate, even if on paper he is less qualified. That would be discrimination, but it is NOT limited to gender. Hiring/recruiting personnel apply all kinds of biases to their decisions. That is their job. To pick the person that they believe is the best candidate with finite resources and time, and unreliable information. They definitely rule out good candidates in the process, but that doesn't make it malicious or intentional. It's a difficult and imperfect task to judge human beings. People lie, cheat, deceive, manipulate, and exploit (this is not a complete list). You cannot force this to be fair. It is impossible. It has been shown that not only men do this. Female educators and employers discriminate against women just as much as males do. Maybe there's a valid reason for that.

Feminism hasn't been conclusively shown to have really made any improvements in society for women. Women's happiness has declined over the last 100 years, while men's happiness has mostly stayed the same or gone up. The reality is that women are now expected and often times required to work full-time just to get by. In addition to that they generally also have the traditional roles in the home of cooking, cleaning, etc.

It isn't that men aren't pulling their weight. Studies show that women on average spend about 15 hours per week working in the home above whatever hours they put in for employment. However, men on average put in 20 hours per week more in the work force than women.

So what is going on here? Men are still doing more work than women. Why are women suffering? Well men are better equipped for it. Women are doing more work than they used to have to, and the work that they're doing is less fulfilling for them, while at the same time they are unable to appreciate the work that used to be fulfilling for them because we've taught them that it's degrading.

The only thing that really benefits from Feminism is the economy/markets/business/government/"Illuminati"/etc. There is now "twice" the workforce (probably much less than that, but significantly more than there used to be) and production and tax payers. At least, in theory. It's true that we probably do produce way more than we ever have, but at the same time a lot of it is automated (most of which is done by men, not women) so I'm not sure that Feminism really accounts for that. I imagine the reality is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Men used to be able to more or less provide for their families by themselves. Now that often isn't enough and women need to work too. Why is that? Money is a virtual concept. "We" (not "us", but people: the rich bastards at the top of the pyramid cracking the whips) decide how much worth it has. If you lessen the value of money then you can force women into the workforce. They might not really like that though, and the people will probably just riot in the streets and refuse to work. Oh, I have an idea, what if we convince women that they're oppressed, and just as good as men at everything, and that it's degrading for them to not work full-time like the men do. Mmmm, yes, that just might work.

If you wish to assert that Feminism has helped anyone without hurting others in the process, such as setting up quotas to steal jobs away from men to give to women instead, then please at least attempt to prove it. It just so happens that men are socially obligated to work no matter how meager their rewards. If you discriminate against men and give the easy jobs to women the men really can't complain about having to work crappy, low paying, or difficult jobs. They have to "man up" and take it. It has already been demonstrated by women both on record and still living that lived before Feminism that they had no problems at all with attaining university educations (in the 1920s and 1940s) and successful careers in fields that they love. The opportunities were there for women before Feminism. Most just had other plans for their lives (generally to get married, have a family, and live happily ever after). Women are credited with several "firsts" in computers in the 1950s (albeit in many cases I personally challenge their direct contributions to those accomplishments; it sounds more like Feminist hype than historical fact). They didn't do that from the kitchen. They did that from universities, government organizations, and commercial enterprises.

Ada Loveless is credited with writing the first computer program in the early 1840s. Wikipedia cites her as a mathematician. Grace Hopper is attributed many "firsts" for computer science. She graduated from Vassar College in 1928 with a bachelor's degree in mathematics and physics, and earned her masters in 1930 at that same school. She earned a Ph.D in mathematics at Yale university in 1934, began teaching mathematics at Vessar College in 1931, was promoted to associate professor in 1941, and her career goes on from there for over 40 years. These women are not alone. Many, many, many women were well educated and had successful careers long before Feminism came along.

I agree.

There is where I don't necessarily agree at all. It sounds like "man up" to me. Men have every right to kick and scream about how they are being oppressed today. It is real oppression and it is bullshit that is in response to perceived oppression of women (because it's a contradiction in itself). The fact that they are censored, harassed, and ridiculed for their protests makes it all the worse.

It might sound like poetic justice to the alleged oppression of women (a "taste of their own medicine", as it were), but I've already demonstrated that there's plenty of evidence to challenge claims of alleged oppression (certainly enough to cast reasonable doubt on it being black and white, but also on it occurring at all on a systematic level). Then there's the fact that two wrongs don't make a right, and even if there was systematic oppression of women the young men of current and future generations are not responsible for it.

You make a very good point here. I couldn't agree more.

I would generally agree with you, but the problem there becomes "Capitalism" (even if that really isn't what we have, that is what everybody believes that we have, and that is how employers justify their actions). I certainly think that our economy needs to be rethought. I'm not sure that Capitalism would really work even if it was pure, but it would probably be better than what we have now. I'm beginning to think that it isn't the ideal system at all.

I don't think any females have left IRC permanently because of me. I arguably chased Moosader away, but that wasn't because I was harassing her in any way. At one point she was calling me her "Canadian BFF" or something (not for realz though). She just didn't like to face the truth about Feminism and ragequit. She still pops in on rare occasions, but she has her own channel and community, that is based around her and worships her, and at this point it's probably bigger and more active than ours so it's not really a surprise that she doesn't hang around much with us. IIRC, we've already pretty much "made up", but she has decided that she just can't handle me (for now).

The others are still more or less present, albeit they lurk a lot. Their circumstances were very much the same. It wasn't that I was harassing them really, but that my "abrasive" sense of humor and the attention that I gave them (and I was not and am not alone in doing so) made them uncomfortable, and that they choose to remain silent or run away instead of communicating their discomfort. I have since had (I think) pleasant, peaceful, and mutually beneficial conversations with all of them, but they still remain somewhat cold to me for much the same reasons as Moosader: they don't like to have their bubble popped.

As a rule I don't get banned because my actions are not malicious. They may be politically incorrect, controversial, and provocative, but there's nothing inherently wrong with any of that. In fact, there's a lot right with it. I have been threatened with kicks, bans, muzzles, and beatings (Tomasu), but they were not justified. Generally it was moderator abuse in the spirt of being a white knight. I don't really remember my first days vividly so it's possible that Matthew was occasionally justified in throwing around his supreme rod of judgement, but I'm not willing to concede to that point. I'm sure his judgement has been compromised from time to time. Being a moderator isn't easy when you have a hand in the fight.

I started out brief. Then a few sheep decided to cast doubt on what I had said and personally attack my character so I was forced to defend myself. I'm not sorry.

She may never get this response since as you saw for yourself she doesn't read these boards anymore. She left for a reason that I guess we never really thought to mention yet... She just doesn't use Allegro anymore. Anyway...

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious why...

/msg Moosader Since I make reference to you in this post I guess it is fair to at \
least alert you to it so you can challenge my assertions, in public or private, \
if you feel so inclined: https://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/614026/998634#target.

I was speaking for you [by name even] and felt it was appropriate to alert you to it to give you an opportunity to speak for yourself.

I am so sorry. I didn't realize your IRC client set off a civil defense siren in your apartment. Fuck me (not literally, of course..).

I see your point. I'm not sure why I didn't see that before.

I really didn't expect you to participate in the first place. I was rather surprised by your response, but I welcome it.

I guess this is why I thought it appropriate to bug you "after midnight". You clarified your position for me and others. Thank you.

{"name":"You-must-be-new-here.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/5\/6507988bc75bbdd80fd3504e9a17b965.jpg","w":311,"h":311,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/5\/6507988bc75bbdd80fd3504e9a17b965"}

If the OP is dissatisfied with the results of his query he can interrupt the debate. His OP is what sparked the debate, and is relevant towards it. Most of all, the OP is subjective, and all we can do is provide support. The derailment is relevant to the OP as well.

Ouch. I'm not sure what goes on there, but it sounds demeaning.

Maybe I'll check it out. Thanks.

{"name":"Yes_ye_syes.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/e\/3e3db8341468b799762366baabffb987.gif","w":500,"h":281,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/e\/3e3db8341468b799762366baabffb987"}

For the record, I have the utmost respect for Rachel. At least, outside of gender debates... And perhaps this thread.

Meh, and what are the demographics? Are there actually more females there than here? I've been in communities with exactly the same set of rules and there are not many females there. We can be (and frankly should be) the most angelic friendly people and still not have a single female here.

We all know who did it. It's just downright embarrassing to be a part of the same community, and if/when I ever get ban powers, I'm using them immediately.

We need to think about how toxic people are handled here. I know a.cc is matthew's baby, but it's the defacto forum for Allegro.

It's hard to decide who is "toxic" and who is not. You also got slightly annoying in the al_draw_prim thread for example, when you tried to place sentiments on SiegeLord which he (as far as I could tell) never had And I guess almost everyone may annoy someone else at one point or another

And I don't know, bambams has abstruse views about women, but on other topics he's usually insightful and there was a lot of fun on allegro.cc thanks to his stories. So I wouldn't call him toxic. (I really don't understand why he doesn't seem willing at all to re-think his nonsensical believes and do some research on the topic at least, when it clearly interests him so much.)

@Rachel I now noticed the second part of your reply, about the nerd stereotype. It's a bit funny, because I feel you are making some unwarranted assumptions about me and others here. I'm not (only) a hobbyist, I'm one of those "I'm getting paid a lot of money to do this" guys, in a very large company, where all my direct programmer colleagues are over 30. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here who contribute to Allegro here are also "getting paid lots of money". Programmers with good C programming skills don't come cheap these days.

Now, I'd didn't say that there were no "non-nerd" programers. But, experience is that wherever I went, the good programmers I met tend to be "nerds". Those "nerds" usually tend to mellow as they get older and/or get married and/or have children, but still... The "non-nerd" programmers I met usually were writing mediocre code, without care for standards, quality, documentation, unit tests, ... They lacked programing skills because they lacked a passion for their job.

Programming, and especially low-level programming, when done correctly, is repetitive, mentally exhausting and difficult. The best programmers tend to be those who have the passion and deep interest to overcome these hardships.

And that's what I think we have to teach girls: it's OK to be so passionate about one thing. It's OK to be dedicated to developing your skills. It is OK to be a "nerd". Because, you will become a master of your art and make things happen that other only can dream of.

This is the discussion that you're missing out on by holding such a faulty view of Feminism:

I don't agree with her on "equal rights and privileges" simply because I don't believe that it is possible for women to hold equal responsibilities to match. And even if it is possible, I don't see women accepting those responsibilities anytime soon. I am in favor of fair treatment of everyone, which doesn't not necessarily mean "equality" by strict definition.