rings
Elias

I'm thinking about buying this for €1370 (about $1906). The ring is 18 carat (75%) white gold. The diamond in the middle is 0.28 carat, and there's seven small 0.15 carat diamonds on either side.

{"name":"608374","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/5\/150282f6b1632919445496844a91da29.jpg","w":640,"h":480,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/5\/150282f6b1632919445496844a91da29"}608374

What kind of engagement rings did others here buy? Am I being too cheap? (Supposedly it should be worth 2 month incomes...) On the other hand, this will probably be the most expensive single item I bought in my life so far, neither my computers nor phones were ever more than €1000 and I never needed a car yet.

Thomas Fjellstrom

The whole diamond ring thing is a scam. I think she'll be happy with an even much simpler ring. Get her what you want to get her. Not what De Beers wants you to buy.

Karadoc ~~

I think this is a fairly personal question, and it depends on you and your relationship with your partner. It can be very different for different people.

For me, I've been with my partner for a bit over a third of my life and we don't intend to marry at all. If we did decide to marry, I don't think there would be any engagement ring at all. Those kind of social conventions are not an important part of our relationship or a part of who we are as people. So for me, the correct price to pay for an engagement ring would be $0 - but not everyone is like that.

Onewing

The only sentiment you've provided is "most expensive single item I bought in my life so far", stating "I am willing to spend more on this than anything else I've ever considered," which I think is a good approach to your confidence on the buy...which also means you can go about €369 cheaper. ;)

The rest is, of course, completely personal. Does she like white gold? Do you think she will be excited to have this or is it not enough? Have you talked to any of her friends about it?

As long as you feel like you're not straining the bank, it's a good buy. But, if this is 2 month's income...I hope you've saved up a nice reserve!

Delivery is the most important part. You could probably sell an onion ring with the right approach. ;)

Jonatan Hedborg
Elias said:

Supposedly it should be worth 2 month incomes

That literally comes from an ad campaign from De Beers. But hey, if it makes you and her happy, go for it.

SonShadowCat

Don't get something too expensive. She's just going to take half your assets in a few years, anyway.

Chris Katko
Elias said:

Am I being too cheap? (Supposedly it should be worth 2 month incomes...)

That's because:

Quote:

The idea that a man should spend a significant fraction of his annual income for an engagement ring originated de novo from De Beers marketing materials in the mid-20th century, in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds. In the 1930s, they suggested that a man should spend the equivalent of one month's income in the engagement ring; later they suggested that he should spend two months' income on it.[32] In 2007, the average cost of an engagement ring in USA as reported by the industry was US$2,100.[33]

If you're wife loves you, price tag shouldn't mean jack all. That being said, my wife's cost ~$400 and she loves it more than anything else physical on this Earth.

It's a personal decision. So talk with your SO about it, keeping in mind you've both been raised by a marketing campaign, and if you still really think having a gigantic, expensive, shining sign that says "please rob my wife at gun point", go for it.

Thomas Fjellstrom

I think its more about what the ring says, than what the ring is worth.

also:

Nicky Oppenheimer, chairman of De Beer's said:

Diamonds are intrinsically worthless

furinkan

Preemptive congratulations!

EDIT:

Also @Chris K: ;D

EDIT2:

SonShadowCat, and everyone else made me laugh too. :/

Johan Halmén

How much is she going to spend on you?

Yodhe23

As others have said, you are getting ripped off. But it's your money do what you want with even if it is buying a ring that is only worth perhaps $500 at most.

De Beers chairman Nicky Oppenheimer said it best: "diamonds are intrinsically worthless, except for the deep psychological need they fill."

Vanneto

What? That puny thing? Man, do you love your woman or what? A real ring should cost you an arm, a leg and at least a years worth of salary. Start thinking about a payment plan.

But seriously, think about some important things that money could buy. Not some vain shit that wont matter in the future. If it's a shitty brass ring or made from platinum it makes no difference. The love is still there. Don't be a cheap ass if you feel it would hurt the relationship, but don't overdo it simply because your euphoric from having finally found a girl. Use reason as your guide.

Matthew Leverton

Unfortunately most women--even those who are otherwise not materialistic--really want an expensive ring, and if you don't give them one, it's something that they will bring up the rest of your relationship. So from that perspective, $1900 is definitely worth it if makes her happy and avoids ridiculous lifetime arguments.

I wouldn't take the whole "two months" thing seriously. I'd just pick something in the style that she likes. While I would begrudgingly buy a ring if I were to propose to someone, I would definitely ask her outright what kind she wanted and how expensive she expects it to be. But that's just how I operate; I don't care about the surprise factor.

Thomas Fjellstrom

I've heard there are Jewelry stores that will give you a loaner for the actual surprise, but then you can then go buy/select the real ring with your fiance after. If you're into the surprise, that seems like the best route.

Chris Katko

Unfortunately most women--even those who are otherwise not materialistic--really want an expensive ring, and if you don't give them one, it's something that they will bring up the rest of your relationship. So from that perspective, $1900 is definitely worth it if makes her happy and avoids ridiculous lifetime arguments.

When it comes to women, it's much better to phrase it in a way that says you'd prefer to spend that money on them in ways that will last a lifetime.

Also bringing up the horrific and still important issue of blood diamonds can make one rethink how valuable a rock is if it means people are raped, murdered, and enslaved and it's still going on, right now on the other side of the world.

The most important part is, if you're going into it from a perspective of "I want to be cheap", it's going to show. But if you're honestly going at it from a perspective of, "I want to focus on what truly matters in our relationship more than some silly rock." It'll show too. If you're honest and open in your relationship, she's going to care more about the context than the actions. Who you are, and what you're trying to accomplish matters more than the things you buy her.

So if you really think spending $2,000 on a ring is okay, and you've discussed it with your SO, that's fine. But if you don't like the idea of spending that much, figure out what you think is a reasonable price, discuss it with your SO, and spent that.

Personally, I've always stressed I'd rather have a real "good marriage" than a failed glamorous marriage, and my wife really tuned into that. But that's also her personality. It's not like I made her flip-a-180. Her ring isn't crazy, huge, and exotic. It's simple, pretty, and fits her personality perfectly.

Elias
Vanneto said:

That puny thing?

She couldn't wear a big rock because she's a flute player and needs some finger mobility. So yes, have to pick a puny delicate one :)

Looking at Wikipedia, seems De Beer's market share is below 40% nowadays, so the whole blood diamond issue should be a thing of the past. And looks like synthetic diamonds can be made for cheap now as well.

But yeah, there basically won't be much resell value in the ring. I hope she'll wear it for many years anyway so shouldn't be a big issue :)

Yodhe23

"Looking at Wikipedia, seems De Beer's market share is below 40% nowadays, so the whole blood diamond issue should be a thing of the past."

IT ISN'T A THING OF THE PAST.

However it does mean that you should perhaps think of getting a secondhand/reconditioned ring instead.

Elias

I think it is. Those mines should be normal mines like any other.

As of 1 July 2013, there were 54 participants in the KPCS representing 81 countries, with the European Union counting as a single participant. The participants include all major rough diamond producing, exporting and importing countries.
[1]

Yodhe23

You are entitled to think what you like, but I suggest doing a bit more research than wiki, as it is certainly an ongoing issue. Certainly in the last ten years there has been a lot of international publicity and pressure, but a significant portion of diamonds still have people's blood on them. Certainly ask for the providence of the diamond, and its' history (if they can't provide that, then go somewhere else).

beoran

I just got one out of 18 carat white gold in a shape that I knew she liked. There was a tiny diamond in there, but not too much so it didn't cost an arm and a leg. I bought it because I knew it was something personal. And because I knew that we'd need the money harder for furniture, kitchen equipment, etc. I did ask my love in an unusual and romantic location. That's far more important than the ring, IMO, the setting. Don't do it in a cliché place like a restaurant, try something a bit more unusual. :)

Polybios

If you're the kind of people who like such things, you could also make it yourselves. There are goldsmiths who offer courses for couples or who offer to guide / supervise you.

StevenVI

It's a personal decision. So talk with your SO about it, keeping in mind you've both been raised by a marketing campaign, and if you still really think having a gigantic, expensive, shining sign that says "please rob my wife at gun point", go for it.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I do not think that you are being too cheap, and would be rather cautious about going any higher myself.

I can't find a picture at the moment, and it was six years ago now, but I believe that I bought a ring with a .75 ct center stone and other side stones bringing it up to 1.05 ct total, in 18k white gold.

I paid a little bit less than you did ($1700 maybe?), though bear in mind that the center diamond wasn't perfect. I assume you know all the junk about how to pick a diamond, so I won't repeat it here. Aside from a house and a minivan, the engagement ring is still the single most expensive purchase I have ever made.

I think that the two months' wages line is just something that jewelry sellers tell kids to get them to cough up more cash.

When I bought the ring, I was probably living below the poverty line as a TA in grad school. I made $11,300 for 9 months of work, and according to the marketers, I should have spent about $2500 on the ring. Doesn't that sound absurdly high, especially for someone with such a low income?

Compare that to now, where I'm absolutely rolling in money. I can't even find a ring that costs more than 1/3 of two months' wages. And I don't think my bank would let me make such a large purchase even if I wanted to, without jumping through many hoops. At this extreme too, that's quite ridiculous to try to spend that much money on a single item.

Elias

Yeah, it's hard to find more expensive ones which still are delicate looking. If I want a 1.0 ct diamond it's very easy to spend a lot more though.

The 0.28 one in my case is rather small, but the total with the 14 tiny ones would be 2.38. So yeah, it's really hard to get an idea about their actual material costs. There's no doubt the jewelery store will earn a lot :)

I'm not sure what my bank would say, but I'm already in the process of trying to siphon enough money out of ATMs. There's a daily limit of 400€ and a weekly limit of 1200€, so by next week I should have enough.

Thomas Fjellstrom
StevenVI said:

Compare that to now, where I'm absolutely rolling in money. I can't even find a ring that costs more than 1/3 of two months' wages. And I don't think my bank would let me make such a large purchase even if I wanted to, without jumping through many hoops. At this extreme too, that's quite ridiculous to try to spend that much money on a single item.

The Jewelry store would be happy to get you on a payment plan!

NiteHackr

Been married 29 years now, I never bought an engagement ring. I got her a nice one for our 10th anniversary, but otherwise. If you look up the history of these things, the whole idea of an engagement ring was made up by the jewellery industry. They tried to get some other ideas to catch on as well that didn't.

I personally don't even wear a wedding band anymore, bothers my finger. My wife on the otherhand has a ton of them on hers. ;D :)

Karadoc ~~

Your wife wears a ton of wedding bands?

NiteHackr

Your wife wears a ton of wedding bands?

Rings. Wedding band, 10th anniversary diamond ring (10 diamonds) and a couple others. ;)

Me on the other hand (pun!), I don't like to wear any jewellery at all. Not even a watch. I am sensitive/allergic (or something) to nickle, so I break out if I have anything with nickle in it on me and I have never really cared for rings, necklaces etc...

relpatseht

Moissanite. Superior or equal to diamond in all optical qualities. 9.5 hardness. No cleavage planes.

bamccaig

I suggest you get a fake diamond to save money since the whole thing is a scheme and most people couldn't tell the difference anyway. ::) Just make sure you tell her it's fake (after, in private...) so she knows too. I also agree with Chris that you don't want to paint a target on her finger for thieves and robbers... So even if you do go fake don't get something that looks like it would be worth cutting a finger off for.

I am sure the whole "blood diamond" thing is still a problem as I don't see that actually being fixed. The diamond industry isn't unique in that sense.

Diamonds really are pretty much worthless. Don't waste a ton of money on one. It just puts more assets in her hands to walk away with. ::) While we're on the subject of divorce, look into getting a prenup. >:( It may seem like you don't even care at this stage of the game, but I'm sure any guy that has been through divorce will tell you to care. Spend the money you save on the ring on a lawyer. :P I imagine if you really want a relationship to last that's the best investment you can make. ;D Of course, there are women that would be "offended" by it, but I'd just run the Hell away from them.

Derezo
bamccaig said:

I suggest you get a fake diamond to save money since the whole thing is a scheme and most people couldn't tell the difference anyway. ::) Just make sure you tell her it's fake (after, in private...) so she knows too.

She is probably the last person he wants to know it is a fake! ;)
I'm all for slummin' it up, but I certainly understand Elias' desire not to do so. I've made far worse financial decisions on far more fickle prospects.

Congrats, Elias. I think it's a nice ring. ;D

Gideon Weems

Apparently, there's a "family ring," and apparently, I'm in the running to receive it. The first I heard of this was on my most recent trip with family, and the topic only came up by pure chance on the return flight.

I would much rather present my wife-to-be with a wedding ring that had been passed down through generations of successful marriages than one from the local Rings and Things--though I do like that name for a jewelry store. I made it up myself, just for that sentence, and yet I am somehow tempted to go out and found this chain. Note to self: Rings and Things will feature jewelry so cheap, "you'd think you were buying onion rings."

My point: You might want to ask around.

Oh, and don't listen to us computer nerds and our anti-ring heresy. You need to make your girl happy. Good luck! :)

bamccaig
Derezo said:

She is probably the last person he wants to know it is a fake! ;)

She'd probably find out eventually, and if it were me I'd rather she found out from me. :) Frankly if she cared then that would set off alarm bells.

Elias

Ordered the ring. Unfortunately it will take them 6-8 weeks to make it. I guess they have yet to buy the diamonds for it or something.

Anyway, I realized I have a big problem now to figure out in the next two months - where/how do I actually ask her? It won't be unexpected to her, but she still wants it to be a surprise, and also something unique...

Chris Katko
Elias said:

Anyway, I realized I have a big problem now to figure out in the next two months - where/how do I actually ask her? It won't be unexpected to her, but she still wants it to be a surprise, and also something unique...

Pretend to break up with her. That always goes over great.

bamccaig

Honestly, the proposal doesn't matter very much. The most important thing is probably just being genuine. The problem with complex or clever proposals is that there is an increased risk of failure.

The best proposal that I have heard of was on YouTube. A group of friends were hanging out on a small rooftop, maybe 2 or 3 stories high. A guy stands up on the roof's edge and says his whole proposal build-up speech and asks his best friend to throw him the ring. The throw is bad and trying to catch it he falls off of the roof. The bride-to-be naturally panics and rushes to the edge to check on him. She finds him laying on a big air cushion with the words "Will You Marry Me" or whatever in big letters laid out next to the cushion.. When I first saw it I thought it was epic, but watching it again I think there's no way that it wasn't scripted. It most likely wasn't a surprise at all. The bride-to-be almost had to have been in on it. Not only that, but it is legitimately dangerous. Imagine if it was real, and the stunt had gone wrong, and he missed the cushion and died or was permanently handicapped. Not only would it have been a tragedy, but it would probably have permanently broken the bride-to-be's heart too (if she was worth marrying).

Feminism has really fucked our society up. It used to be that a woman would be flattered and overwhelmed by a proposal and I think that's probably the way it should be. Just as the ring shouldn't really matter for shit, neither should the proposal. If she really loves you then you could completely fumble the proposal and she'll just enjoy your effort, laugh at your failures, and still say yes.

I say just go for it. Don't over-think it. Life is not a movie. Perfect rings and perfect proposals are a subject of fantasy. In the real world we should just appreciate what we have. If you have a brilliant idea for a proposal then great. If you don't then don't sweat it. It doesn't really matter that much. It will all fade in time regardless. Try to just appreciate what matters.

And good luck. :)

Karadoc ~~
bamccaig said:

Feminism has really fucked our society up.

What a fucked up thing to say. Being subordinate is not a prerequisite for being flattered by a proposal of marriage.

Feminism has been great for society, for everyone. And it isn't over yet. It's going to get better. Women have more power and autonomy than they use to, but that's only part of the story. Feminism reduced society's expectations and conditions on people of all genders. People have more freedom to choose the paths they want to choose in life, regardless of their gender. Women don't have to be the carers and nurturers, and men don't have to be the leaders and workers. Men don't have to be macho, and women don't have to be men's property. Breaking down those boundaries increases the productivity and happiness of our society as a whole.

SiegeLord

Feminism has been great for society, for everyone.

Say what? There's plenty of people that would disagree with that. How about these two guys or Ben Noordhuis of node.js? Breaking down boundaries? Like those of mathematical logic?

Feminism is insanity, as far as my observations tell me.

Derezo

There are different degrees of "feminism". I'm all for everyone being treated equal and fair, but many proponents of feminism take it too far. Women have it pretty fucking great in the US, Canada, and (most of?) the EU.

I think feminism often tries to disparage some of the differences between men and women, maybe because of unpleasant realities associated with the women's side of those differences, but I don't know.

I think it's better to promote, focus and apply our differences. There are certain things that are a woman's responsibility -- like making babies -- and others that are a men's responsibility -- like killing things.

One giveth, and the other taketh away ;)

Thomas Fjellstrom
Derezo said:

There are certain things that are a woman's responsibility -- like making babies -- and others that are a men's responsibility -- like killing things.

I think the first is accurate, the second not so much ;)

bamccaig

Women have almost ALL power and that's still not enough for them. It has been said that women control 80% of spending (directly and indirectly), women have basically all reproductive power, women aren't nearly as independent as you'd think when you factor in the sexist assistance provided by government specifically to women, and the favoritism applied to them in education and the workplace to appeal to Feminism politics.

Not only are women predominantly in control of the choice to have sex or not (basically if she's healthy, and maybe even if she's not, there is a line up of men wanting to fuck her), but women also have more options for birth control, most of which are completely unverifiable by a man, and in the event that a woman does get pregnant she is basically 100% in control of whether she keeps the baby, whether she allows the father to be involved, and whether the father is forced to provide for the child (irregardless of whether the father gets to be involved in the actual raising of the child). Nearly the only choice that a man actually has is whether to wear a condom or not, which a woman can at least easily verify. And those aren't bulletproof and can fail rather easily.

Where I live a single mother that doesn't work is effectively paid as much or more than a man working full-time at a skilled trade. Even women without children are often provided assistance in ways above and beyond what we offer men (i.e., typically men are the vast majority of homeless). Instead of seeking "equal opportunity", Feminism seeks "equal enrollment" and "equal employment". In other words, it isn't enough that women are equally able to apply for a position and that the position is filled without discrimination against gender. Instead, slots are reserved specifically for women (i.e., discrimination against gender). Even if a much better qualified man applies, and even if no qualified women apply, only a woman can hold that position. In some cases, it is a requirement to have a specific quota of women in a particular program or department in order to satisfy requirements so even if there aren't qualified female applicants they need to be hired anyway instead of leaving those positions unfilled.

Expectations really haven't changed much for men in our society. Men are still expected to work full-time and provide for their family most of the time. Women generally have the choice whether they want to work or not. Men are required to provide for their families by law, whereas women are typically not held equally responsible for their families. Which is to say that if a woman is working and earning an income the law in most jurisdictions will not require her to use it to provide for her starving family. She has every legal right to use the money for herself. Legally, the man/father is generally responsible for providing, and can be punished for failing to do so. Where the law doesn't enforce it, society does.

Women are generally given custody of children, even if a reasonable person would find them unfit to be mothers, or even if the fathers are more fit. Fathers are generally lucky to get weekends or visitation rights. Mind you, fathers are generally forced to pay large portions of their income towards "child support" to provide for the children they have limited access and control over, and the law doesn't even attempt to restrict the usage of women's use of these funds (i.e., women can spend it on themselves instead of the children).

Feminism is a lie. It has nothing to do with equality. It has everything to do with female privilege. There are examples of women accomplishing equal roles to men long before feminism came along. Families are complex structures. Women that choose to focus on their careers or otherwise pursue "male" roles in society generally will have to miss out on traditional "female" roles (like mothering and caring for children). Or else they'll try to "have it all", and generally their employer and government (i.e., male tax payers) will have to foot the bill.

Women are not men, and men are not women. They are not "equal". There are and always will be differences between us. Roles more or less formed naturally for the betterment of society, and it does a great disservice to our ancestors and our present society to portray this as an oppression of women. Women are not and were not oppressed by men. The reality is that basically all societies go out of their way to provide for and protect women. Does that mean that they have had complete freedom? No. The real brainfuck is realizing that men didn't and don't have all that much freedom either. Certainly today they have a lot less freedom than women do.

{"name":"horrified-rage-face.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/5\/b5d1e4976b224e56f7d8e76d03aa9b00.jpg","w":500,"h":300,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/5\/b5d1e4976b224e56f7d8e76d03aa9b00"}horrified-rage-face.jpg

Feminism isn't even consistent. It says that women are just as capable as men are one minute, and then says that women deserve special assistance the next! It says that women can earn their own living one minute, and then says that men still need to pay the bills the next!

When women are questioned on university campuses about what types of men they would date or find attractive, the vast majority of them describe the male stereotype: strong, confident, pays for the woman, shows her a good time, asks her out instead of the reverse, etc. When asked about how they feel about "nice guys" or men without money they always say they find those men unattractive and would never date them.

For all intents and purposes, the roles are still in place. The only difference is that women now have the privilege of crossing role lines when and if they choose to, whereas for the most part men are much more constrained. Even if a man wanted to play a stereotypical female role, he obviously can't have the baby, and in so far as he could be a stay at home father that would only be possible if his wife happens to earn enough to support them and herself chooses to let him. In general, even if those conditions were met, you would still find that such a man is not respected by society, or his family, for doing so.

While it's true that men have traditionally held the top jobs in our society, it is also true that men held and continue to hold all of the bottom jobs too. The really tough, dangerous, an unglamorous jobs are essentially all men. You don't see feminists fighting for equal employment there!

Feminism teaches us that women were oppressed and it's easy to believe it, but if you do a little research you find it to be much less black and white. Society did not oppress women, and there was never a conspiracy within society to do so. There were never any secret meetings of a "Patriarchy" to design a system where women suffered. The reality is that women have enjoyed relative luxuries for centuries.

Feminism is not great for everyone. Arguably, it isn't even good for women. It basically teaches them to try to be men, but they are not men. Our society has essentially become hateful of men. Men are no longer respected. In popular media, they are always represented as lazy, irresponsible, bumbling slobs or abusive animals.

Turn your media devices off and maybe turn your brain on.

l j

Those are quite some broad statements.

Women have been opressed in some times and some places, but certainly not always and everywhere, even this whole feminism thing isn't new, people claiming otherwise tend to be ignorant and sometimes even on purpose.

Yodhe23

Bamccaig, what a load of diatribe.

Karadoc ~~

What we have here is a typically example of a group of men talking about what feminism should be like.

I don't really want to have a big debate about this, but I do want to just put forward a few things that I see as key points:

  • Everyone posting in this thread is male (as far as I know). That means we have no direct experience with the problems feminism was born to address. And it would be presumptuous of us to talk about what women want.

  • There are different flavours of feminism. Most people in the know talk about 'waves' of feminism. Each wave has a different social context, and a different expression, but the core goal has always been to boost the power and privilege of women because it is less than that of men.

  • There are some feminists who are anti-men, but that isn't what feminism is.

  • Despite the huge advances made due to feminism in the recent past, women are still under-represented in positions of power, and under paid relative to men. Unless you actually believe that women somehow deserve to be subordinate, this suggests there is still a residual problem.

Regarding the last point, obviously the situation is different in different countries. But even in relatively progressive countries, there is still typically a significant imbalance. I happen to have some statistics on hand for Australia, from our most recent census (2011):

  • The work-force participation rate of women is 20% lower than men.

  • 91.6% of corporate board directorships are held by men.

  • In parliament, men hold 75% of lower house seats, and 62% of senate.

  • In universities, 68% of senior lecturing positions are held by men, and 73% of positions above senior lecturer are held by men.

  • Men make up 84% of the bench of the Federal Court of Australia.

  • The average non-managerial hourly earnings of women is significantly below men in all work sectors. (i.e. women get paid less for the same kinds of work.)

To me, this data strongly supports my claim that women are still under-represented in positions of power, and under paid relative to men. This is not some kind of conspiracy or anything like that.

But even with all that money & power stuff aside; as I said in my earlier post, feminism don't only help women. It helps to relax societies expectations and pressures on men as well. It gives more freedom for everyone to be an individual, rather than be pigeon-holed based on their apparent gender.

bamccaig spoke about women living in 'relative luxury' - but that's just his own opinion. The very existence of feminism suggests that many women were not happy with their position, so apparently it wasn't luxury. If women want to give up their male-funded subservient lifestyles in order to earn their own living to support themselves and their families, then I think that's great. I'm sure people like bamccaig will still be able to find some women who are willing to fulfil more traditional gender roles, and that's fine too.

Jonatan Hedborg

Karadoc ~~: I'm glad there is at least a few people who aren't misogynistic assholes here. :-*

Thomas Fjellstrom

I'm glad there is at least a few people who aren't misogynistic assholes here. :-*

I think most of us just would rather not to get into these sorts of arguments, especially if you know its just going to attract a few misogynistic assholes what won't ever change their mind (and seem to get worse as time goes on).

Slartibartfast

I happen to have some statistics on hand for Australia, from our most recent census (2011):

While I don't dispute there is some disparity, I really really dislike those statistics you brought up because similar statistics are often cited and to me they appear meaningless to the point of being lies (i.e. the statistic is technically correct but there is too much missing data so it is also meaningless and is used to create the false impression that they imply some discrimination).

Quote:

The work-force participation rate of women is 20% lower than men.

How many more women choose to be "stay at home moms"? Maybe it is 30% and so women are actually over represented?
Maybe women choose different career paths which are less employable (like artists)?
How can I treat this statistic seriously when there's so much missing information?
A slightly better statistic to see is "for each position (not sector), what percentage of men/women are unemployed (of those actually seeking jobs)". Ideally I'd have some measure of their aptitude as well, but I'd like to see someone measure that :)

Quote:

91.6% of corporate board directorships are held by men.

What percentage of women attempts to become board directors?

Quote:

In parliament, men hold 75% of lower house seats, and 62% of senate.

When questioned, most women say that they'd rather vote for men than women. This is a societal discrimination, in much the same way that people tend to vote for taller people, however I'm not sure what people want to do about it (maybe disallow politicians from showing themselves, so you can't know who is taller than who).
Another missing piece of data is what percentage of women actually make an attempt at holding governing positions, how many women are into politics? Maybe men make up 80% of politicians and so women are actually more likely to be voted into office?

Quote:

In universities, 68% of senior lecturing positions are held by men, and 73% of positions above senior lecturer are held by men.

This is as pointless as the 20% less representation statistic. How many women apply for lecturing positions? How many attempt to get senior status?
You'll agree that men and women tend to choose different subjects in universities, do women tend to cluster under fewer subjects (causing them to be eligible for less of the open teaching positions)?
Also, maybe its just a language thing, but why focus on lecturing positions? The positions that matter in a university are the research positions.

Quote:

Men make up 84% of the bench of the Federal Court of Australia.

What percentage of law practitioners are women? How many of those choose their family over their career and so do not advance their career far enough to become judges? How many are considered but refuse the offer?

Quote:

The average non-managerial hourly earnings of women is significantly below men in all work sectors. (i.e. women get paid less for the same kinds of work.)

Working in the same sector is not enough, working in the same position is how you make a comparison, because different roles in the same sector get different salaries, and generally the more effort you put into your career (over your family for example) the better a job and salary you will get.
It is also my observation that generally women are less prone to ask for raises, and negotiate for them less ferociously, giving them a lower salary due to their own failures.

All of that said, I do still believe there is some discrimination against women (some against men too), it is just that these kind of half-assed statistics with tons of missing data get my blood boiling whenever I see them (and I'm already ill right now).

Thomas Fjellstrom

What percentage of women attempts to become board directors?

What percentage decide not to because of the incredible amount of pressure not to?

Arthur Kalliokoski

What percentage decide not to because of the incredible amount of pressure not to?

Well, if they don't have the balls to ignore the pressure...

SiegeLord

What percentage of women attempts to become board directors?

My perception of this issue is that it is an anathema to a feminist (or more generally, one of the privilege olympians) to consider a sex/race dependent preference for occupation. Their hypothesis, as far as I can tell, is that in a perfect world a woman would not be allowed (on average) to desire any job less than a man (on average).

EDIT:

Quote:

Working in the same sector is not enough, working in the same position is how you make a comparison, because different roles in the same sector get different salaries, and generally the more effort you put into your career (over your family for example) the better a job and salary you will get.
It is also my observation that generally women are less prone to ask for raises, and negotiate for them less ferociously, giving them a lower salary due to their own failures.

Here's a nice recent article about confounding variables and these pay gap statistics: http://qz.com/182977/there-is-no-gender-gap-in-tech-salaries/ . It seems very hard to control for these things, but the feminists seem to pick the statistics that control the least for them and thus suit them better (and obviously they'd accuse me of doing the same thing). The running hypothesis seems to me, again, that it is impossible for a woman to be worse at a job than a man given the same job, education, hours put into it. I really don't see why we need to assume that kind of hypothesis (although proving or disproving it would be just as hard as proving a wage gap).

l j

The obvious solution is to breed as to completely eliminate all differences between the sexes except for the sexual organs. 8-)

It was only a matter of time until this topic was going to head into this direction.
Anyway, buying jewelry requires resources > raising children requires resources > man with resources is a safer partner for the health of the children.

Thomas Fjellstrom

Well, if they don't have the balls to ignore the pressure...

I see what you did there... But either you're being facetious, or you've missed the point. It's not the same pressure men get. Men who are in charge get called manly and powerful, women in the same positions who act similarly get called bossy and even bitchy.

Jonatan Hedborg

I see what you did there... But either you're being facetious, or you've missed the point. It's not the same pressure men get. Men who are in charge get called manly and powerful, women in the same positions who act similarly get called bossy and even bitchy.

It's useless to try to talk about the effects of privilege and structural problems with people who can't recognize their own privileges, or accept that such a thing exist.

Matthew Leverton

This is a very complex issue that one-off statistics don't do justice.

We live in a free market. Unless there is some global conspiracy here, the pay is fair by definition. If Company A mistreats women or pays them unfairly, then Company B in the same marketplace would hire them to get a competitive advantage.

Men work more hours, are more likely to travel for work, and are more likely to climb the ladder due to working without ever taking extended breaks (to raise children). It's only common sense that they would make more money on average than women.

So if you want things to even out, then pass laws that exactly 50% of husbands must take primary care of their children, or that all families must pay for third-party child care, etc... Otherwise, you'll continue to have pay gaps.

StevenVI

It is also my observation that generally women are less prone to ask for raises, and negotiate for them less ferociously, giving them a lower salary due to their own failures.

Indeed, this is the feeling that I get as well when I talk to my coworkers. Recently the company I worked for was acquired, and everyone was offered a job with the new company and an x% raise. Some of us negotiated for higher, others were happy with the x%, even if they hadn't actually gotten a raise in a few years.

Bear in mind that I don't have too many data points on this, and it's just anecdotal. But I do regularly get the impression that the women I work with are getting paid much less than I am.

Thomas Fjellstrom

We live in a free market. Unless there is some global conspiracy here, the pay is fair by definition.

Well theres two problems there. First, we don't live in a free market, and second there is something that appears like a conspiracy, except not many people these days would admit to being sexist on purpose. That is however an unfortunate thing that many people still suffer from. People are also still racist and homophobic. I doubt that'll change.

Quote:

So if you want things to even out, then pass laws that exactly 50% of husbands must take primary care of their children, or that all families must pay for third-party child care, etc... Otherwise, you'll continue to have pay gaps.

I think that's silly. If a woman does the same work, she should get the same pay. If she takes years off work due to having a kid, she should probably not get paid for that time off. Much like a man who takes years off for whatever reason.

A woman should not get less just because she is capable of getting pregnant.

NiteHackr

Here you go, problem solved. :D

video

Edgar Reynaldo

I have to say I agree with bamccaig almost 100% about what he said, but there is also a pay gap and a culture of male dominance physically and of female submission. Do what you're told or I'll beat you again, etc... females of today are ahead in many many ways, claiming lots of rights in the last 100 years, but are still behind in others.

But again, bamccaig has a lot of it right. Men are fodder and women hold sexual power supreme with exceptions - they decide when and where and with who and how many partners they have. Women rarely have a shortage of willing partners, but nice guys and po' broke' fools like me don't stand a chance. Maybe one day when I'm rich with programmer pay women will start paying attention to me again. Sigh. :P

Elias

That means we have no direct experience with the problems feminism was born to address.

Yes, but some of us have a brain and therefore can form an opinion about something we have not personally experienced. Often even a better one than people who are directly affected since (in general) the judgment of those may get impaired by a conflict of interest.

NiteHackr said:

Here you go, problem solved.

But destroying US currency is a crime...

Anyway, luckily my girlfriend is not feminist :) She's always been top of her class in school/university, so she's always been better than males as well as females. And I guess in her fields (flute performer, teacher) there isn't really any perceived disadvantage for women. (In fact the flute class in her final year has 100% females...) And it's also clear to us that neither of us will be able to take more than 3-6 weeks off work once our first child is born.

bamccaig

There is no good evidence to suggest that women are paid less for being women. They might get paid less for doing a worse job, for having less experience, for working fewer hours, or for being less aggressive when negotiating, to cite a few examples, but there's no evidence to suggest that employers explicitly pay women less because they're women. In fact, in many cases, when you actually look at the data without bias you find that in our day women are actually often paid slightly more than men when you factor in all available data points. It shouldn't surprise you. Companies are forced to hire women to appease Feminist politics. It makes sense that they'd have to overcompensate them too. The last thing you want in our political climate is the publicity of a woman claiming she's being discriminated against by your company!

As for a "culture of male dominance and female submission", that isn't cultural, that is physiological. It is human nature. There's nothing wrong with it. That is how we are most happy. Women should not feel ashamed for being submissive, nor should men be shamed for being dominant. When you ask women what they like in an open environment they will almost always answer that they like dominant males and like to themselves be submissive (there are exceptions to every rule, but they're in the minority). You can even do this in the context of a discussion about feminism, and most women that claim to be feminist and believe in feminist ideals will still say that they prefer dominant men and themselves to be submissive. When you point out that it's a little bit contradictory they just excuse it with nonsense (either shamelessly admitting hypocrisy without it affecting their beliefs, or arguing that it isn't a contradiction because feminism is good and right and obviously correct just because i.e., bullshit). If anything, Feminism is oppressing women and girls by convincing them that they are something that they are not. Feminism does not fight for the needs of all women or girls. It is a small minority deciding what is right and good for the rest of them. It is more or less a political force now (i.e., not activism, but politics i.e., government policy).

Women and girls are not born believing they are oppressed or that it's wrong to be submissive. That is an idea that society is drilling into them and us from day one, and an idea that has only been taught to us for the last 60 years or so. It's a real shame because it isn't something that we understand well (clearly) and there's good evidence to suggest that it is basically confusing everyone and contrary to our very nature. Which is why you have manginas as we've seen in this thread throwing around words like "misogynist" without even understanding what they're arguing about. And why women believe in one thing and practice the complete opposite. The default stance of people in our generation is, "of course women are oppressed!" and "of course women are just as good as men at everything!" They haven't actually given it much thought or done any research on the matter. It is what they were taught to believe, and taught that it is heinous to question (where have we seen that before), and so they believe it. They can't offer you any reliable evidence to support it. Only subjective opinions and tainted data.

The main thing to keep in mind is that gender is not black and white. Biology is not a perfect process. That's why we have transgendered people, and homosexual people, etc. There are always exceptions to generalizations (that's what makes them generalizations), but generalizations are still useful and good ones apply most of the time. There are women that will absolutely surprise you with their abilities in male-dominated activities. They are a minority, however, and in my experience there is usually evidence of a grey-area gender (they are most often clearly female by anatomy, but from my observations are disproportionately homosexuals, which suggests that their biology isn't purely female[1], and that it isn't their female biology that allows them to compete with males).

Long before feminism came along there were women in male positions. Certainly some things weren't always socially or legally accepted, and occasionally there were some unjust laws and social standards, but it most often wasn't out of malice, but mere ignorance. We're talking about people that believed in witches and other nonsense. You have to remember that we have thousands of years of accumulated knowledge, much of which our ancestors did not (our knowledge has grown exponentially in the last 200 years). It's hard for us to really appreciate what it was like for them or what made them arrive at the decisions that they did. This becomes even more clear when you realize that we still have a vast majority of people with ridiculous ideas and beliefs and generally still living in the dark ages. You really can't say that all 9 billion of us are on the same wave lengths. Powerful world leaders essentially herd the entire population like sheep by manipulating the media and economy and censoring or silencing free speech and free thought.

As a rule, a person is needed to tend to the house and children, which used to be a full-time job (and still can be). It used to be that a woman that wanted to do a man's job instead would likely have to sacrifice having a family, as well as sacrifice the support and protection a man would ideally provide. However, it isn't really in the best interests of a community to let women do this. That essentially wastes the reproductive capacity of those women. Certainly there is an argument for freedom and choice, but at the same time we are also animals and our survival depends on biological certainties. It also goes against our nature to allow a woman to struggle. The community would be coerced to support her, but that isn't really fair to the community since she wouldn't really be fulfilling her role in return.

When push came to shove it was the men that we all looked at to get us through it. That is still very much true today. If Feminism was really interested in literal "equality" then it would be fighting for equal responsibilities for women too. They don't want that. Who in their right mind would fight for responsibilities when you can get the rights and privileges for free? Most Feminists oppose the responsibilities, and the ones that don't are generally unaffected by them.

It seems to me that most Feminist activists do not have real jobs themselves. The activism is their job. In other words, the fight can never stop because they'd lose their job. So even if Feminism accomplishes everything it set out to do (for all intents and purposes it had decades ago by first and second wave standards) the movement isn't going to stop because that is just what these women do for a living. They will always be able to invent more and more "inequalities" to fight against because they aren't actually based on logic or reason, and if you think about it women controlling the majority of the money basically empower them to. The Feminist activists that aren't getting paid well for the activism generally have [ex-]husbands to support them (shhhh, don't tell anybody!).

In my opinion I think that things were actually more equal in the days of yore. It wasn't perfect, and there was room for improvement, but this isn't perfect either. This may be less equal than it has ever been. Men still have all of the responsibilities that they ever had, but society doesn't respect or appreciate them anymore for it, and now all of the power and privilege has been shifted to women that have no responsibilities. That doesn't make any sense. With power comes responsibility. That is how it is supposed to work. The system we have built now is completely imbalanced and essentially completely unfair. Men just need to wake up and smell the coffee and get with the program before the damage is irreversible (though that ship may have already sailed).

References

  1. Studies have apparently shown that lesbian brain scans more closely resemble those of heterosexual men than heterosexual women.
Edgar Reynaldo

Okay, well I agreed with you on the earlier post, but this time you've gone a bit over the deep end I think.

Dominance and submission are not hard wired into the male and female brain. I for one, am perfectly fine being on equal footing with women. I don't feel the need to dominate / control / manipulate / coerce / etc. I want an equal partnership, especially in relationships. It's never good when it is all one sided.

bamccaig said:

Long before feminism came along there were women in male positions.

No, this is pretty false. Women have not had access to positions of political power other than by being born into royalty for quite a long time. There has long been male privilege over women. It's only recently the tables have turned. It's hard for men to get used to women in positions of power. Men have been in charge for so long they don't know what its like to be subordinate anymore and it scares them. It's a threat to their masculinity. Women have been and are still being treated like property all over the world, but things have gotten a lot better.

What do you think of this poem and journal article from deviantArt? -

I need feminism because
It’s acceptable to call me a slut.
I need feminism because
It’s okay for a guy to slap my butt.
I need feminism because
It’s my own fault if a man rapes me.
I need feminism because
I should look good for men to see.
I need feminism because
People think it means ‘anti-man’.
I need feminism because
I can’t do things that men can.
I need feminism because
Girls think it’s cool to shame each other.
I need feminism because
The world has higher hopes for my brother.
I need feminism because
My femininity makes me ‘weak’.
I need feminism because
If I act masculine I’m a ‘freak’.
I need feminism because
My boobs are my ‘best quality’.
I need feminism because
I believe in equality.

The journal has received over 12,000 comments and the poem itself has received over 4,000 comments by now.

I agree with some of it but I am really more egalitarian than masculinist or feminist.

I thought of writing a poetic retort called I need masculinism about how women have so much more privelege than men in some areas like in bam's first post but then I'd sound like a chauvinist. :P

Edit
To appear somewhat on topic, I have this ring that I would like to be able to give to someone. It's not an engagement ring, more like a sweetheart ring. Not super expensive either. It's by Stauer, and they specialize in mineral and synthetic stones. http://www.stauer.com
{"name":"tanzanite_ring_2_by_nemonameless-d50sexk.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/8053480686f46e8f2d9804d0b3ade6b2.jpg","w":900,"h":1023,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/8053480686f46e8f2d9804d0b3ade6b2"}tanzanite_ring_2_by_nemonameless-d50sexk.jpg

beoran

In cases of gender there is real discrimination, but also "perceived" discrimination, which is the overreaction caused by heightened sensitivity due to the real discrimination. Of course, the people discriminated against will try to fight back, but quite a few will end up going off in the deep end. "Will to power", as Nietsche would say. The result is that in many countries in the world we have screwed up laws that are intent to "protect" women, but end up being injust to men, and bascially cause problems for both genders. The reaction to such injustices from men is predictable, but in a sense, not really helpful in solving the problem. What is needed is more mutual understanding between men and women.

I think the fundamenal error is "equality thinking". Equality thinking is a oversimplified view of reality where everyone should get equal treatment simply because they are humans. However, people are all diffferent, even if their gender is the same. What is much more important than striving for equality is striving for justice and fairness. People should be treated justly and fairly, based on their personal characteristics. This may mean inequal treatment in some cases, as long as the difference in treatment is due to objective and relevant reasons.

For example, with regards of employment, gender, color or orientation are in most cases irrelevant. Moreso, whether you asked for a raise or not is also irrelevant. What should matter to a reasonable, fair employer is the difficulty, quality and quantity of the work done by the employees seen over the whole of their carreer with that employer. However, the problem is that most employers don't even apply such reasonable approach with their male employees, nevermind the female ones...

Karadoc ~~
Elias said:

Yes, but some of us have a brain and therefore can form an opinion about something we have not personally experienced. Often even a better one than people who are directly affected since (in general) the judgment of those may get impaired by a conflict of interest.

Not just some of us, Elias, but all of us. That's exactly what we're all doing. The material point though is that those opinions may not be well supported by facts, and it would be a mistake to presume we are smart enough to speak for the good of the female population. Opinions are good, but we should take special care not to overreach with limited knowledge and experience.

We live in a free market. Unless there is some global conspiracy here, the pay is fair by definition. If Company A mistreats women or pays them unfairly, then Company B in the same marketplace would hire them to get a competitive advantage.

In some sense, you're right. Women have the legal rights to do the same things men do, and so there's no explicit barriers stopping women from getting equal pay and so on. But on the other hand, laws are market pressures just a small part of what regulates people's behaviour.

Lets take a moment to consider why there are almost zero women on allegro.cc. Women and men have equal access to the site, so I guess the obvious answer is that women just don't want to be here. I think that much is clear, but that's just a shallow explanation. Women not wanting to be here is the symptom. What is the cause? Maybe it has something to do with how women are treated here.

Women on allegro.cc are treated like they are some kind of strange and exotic creature. They get heaps of unsolicited attention, and they get stereotyped, and their motives get questioned. They hear discussions about how they are hard wired to be submissive, and they are told how to act - either implicitly or explicitly. Men are treated like normal people, with their own interests and responsibilities. Men speak for themselves, and are treated as individuals. Women are treated as though they are an ambassador from a foreign world. When they speak, they are taken to be speaking for all women. They carry the burden of implicit expectations about their interests and lack of programming ability based solely on their gender.

I don't think it is at all surprising that there are no women here. If I was a woman, I wouldn't want to post here; and if I did post here I'd take careful steps to conceal my gender; because if anyone found out then my stay here would become unpleasant. There is no rule or condition on allegro.cc that says people should be male. But the social conditions in here are not welcoming for women.

There are fewer women than men in the game-making business anyway, but allegro.cc certainly skews the ratio a lot further. At this point, it's probably worth taking a moment to read this, which is a small collection of tweets about why there are more men than women in the games industry.

These are not market issues or legal issues; they are social issues. And these same social issues apply all professions, to varying degrees. Women can choose to work hard, but they are expected to fail and are treated with less respect. They can be promoted, but they have to be significantly more qualified than men to 'stand out', otherwise they are assumed to be mediocre. The people in the top jobs are men, and they promote people who are similar to themselves -- men.

...

A lot of these issues are subtle. But the main thing that motivated me to post on this topic in the first place was bamccaig's comment that feminism has fucked up society. That comment was not subtle. It was an outrageous unprovoked attack on a movement which has brought significant improvements to the lives of more than half the population (in the countries affected). Regardless of whether you think we've reached gender equality, only the ignorant or sexist would think that feminism has fucked up society as it stands currently. (and it's pretty easy to be sexist if you're ignorant.)

Thomas Fjellstrom

Karadoc ~~ +1

Vanneto

The issue of women here reminds me of a post on reddit about women in e-sports.

Jonatan Hedborg

Karadoc ~~: Well written! I'm amazed you manage to read the posts in this thread without getting a rage-induced stroke.

pkrcel

I was about to post some personal experiences but those do NOT add anything so I've ditched it.

Thou I'd like to add...

While Bambam's could be agreed on some points, as there WAS (and prolly there IS still) a skewed up idea of feminism which did and does more harm than good to female all over the world because throws away the evident gender differences and professes an all-levels-of-equality ideology that trashes those differences which are a value and on which we should build upon our social threads ...

...on the other hand he stuffs his arguing with some gigantic BS statements that make the most dismiss them without further reading.

Karadoc++ also by me (thou I do not agree 100% on his terms as well, but here's the aforementioned personal experience that kicks in).

One last thing: what the hell happened to women on a.cc? ???

Dizzy Egg

I think Karadoc~~ makes the strongest point with backed up evidence; we do treat women differently, because their purty and they smell of strawberry after a shower.

SiegeLord

Maybe it has something to do with how women are treated here.

Where's the evidence? I don't think that's the reason. Even in the most feminist programming communities (they have a code of conduct and people are actively banned for being 10% as sexist as bamccaig) I've been in the male to female ratio was still extremely skewed... I like how you're trying to figure out the reason why there are few females on this site, and yet you focus on the pro-feminist point as the sole topic of your post. Kind of feels like you don't want to actually find the answer to the question.

Now I know for a fact that bamccaig alone has been responsible for some females leaving the IRC, but that's bamccaig. I don't really get how he's still not banned in more places.

Quote:

If I was a woman, I wouldn't want to post here

I don't know, maybe it might be a mistake to presume we are smart enough to speak for the good of the female population.

Thomas Fjellstrom
SiegeLord said:

Where's the evidence? I don't think that's the reason.

Thing is, people already know engeneering and most tech circles are highly dominated by men, and the men tend to be chauvinistic. They are seen to be actively hostile to women. If you were a woman, would you want to get into the business?

I've also read about a phenomenon where girls are taught from a very early age that math and science isn't for girls. They are equally capable of math and science but they are convinced that they can't do it and its too hard.

I also (used to) hear "You're just a girl" a lot told to girls when they have problems, rather than actually helping them. I'm sure that helps bias the population.

SiegeLord

All fair points, but nothing to do with allegro.cc's treatment of women.

Thomas Fjellstrom
SiegeLord said:

All fair points, but nothing to do with allegro.cc's treatment of women.

I think its more or less the same thing. The few that are into allegro and games don't get treated as equals (because they are "just girls") and don't want to hang around.

Elias

But the social conditions in here are not welcoming for women.

So what are the social conditions which make an online forum welcoming for women?

Matthew Leverton

Lets take a moment to consider why there are almost zero women on allegro.cc. Women and men have equal access to the site, so I guess the obvious answer is that women just don't want to be here. I think that much is clear, but that's just a shallow explanation. Women not wanting to be here is the symptom. What is the cause? Maybe it has something to do with how women are treated here.

Why do you say there are no women? Many of the people here have gender neutral usernames. What does it say about you that you assume all programmers are men?

I was going to say something about the "men's club" environments. Yes, it's unhealthy, and yes it scares away women. But I really don't think it has a major effect on the total number of women in the programming field... although it definitely changes where they work. But it still isn't fair, and it is embarrassing as a man to be associated with that.

Programming is by and large dull work that isn't attractive to the average woman. Yes, as a generalization, women and men enjoy different things! Where are the 15 year old women hackers? Sure they exist, but they are dwarfed in number by men. To close the gender gap, you have to start younger. You have to make it attractive to women before they become adults. You can either make programming less impersonal (how?) or train young women to enjoy these sorts of activities (how?).

It's not like a man or a woman can go to college and decide to be a programmer and then be on equal footing with their peers. The best people in the field are self taught and have been doing these things for many years before entering the workforce.

To look at the end result of gender gap and just assume something horrible and evil is the cause ... well, that doesn't sit right with me. I get tired of hearing that there need to be more black quarterbacks in the NFL while nobody complains that there hasn't been a white cornerback in 30 years. Or that we need more female programmers, but nobody worries about the number of male secretaries or nurses, etc. :P

SiegeLord

The few that are into allegro and games

Why are there few of them? Is it allegro.cc's fault? As I said, even in the most female friendly communities I've been in there have been fewer females than males. It's just blatantly false and libelous to say that allegro.cc has few women because they are treated badly at allegro.cc.

A statement that has a greater chance of being correct would be that allegro.cc has fewer females than average (the average being dismal) but that's hardly the way it's been put.

Thomas Fjellstrom
SiegeLord said:

It's just blatantly false and libelous to say that allegro.cc has few women because they are treated badly at allegro.cc

I think the reason we have almost 0 regular non lurker female members because they are treated badly.

I think if that wasn't a problem we might actually have a few known regular women posters that are actually into games. As it is, theres essentially 0.

SiegeLord

I think the reason we have almost 0 regular non lurker female members because they are treated badly.

And I think it's because the average number of them is so low than random fluctuations reduced that number to 0.

Simon Parzer

Maybe the site needs more pink. I'm sure the grey backgrounds don't sit well with female posters.
I love how in these debates on principles everything gets generalized eventually, no matter on what side you are. We are talking about "women", some mysterious abstraction and they apparently are "treated badly". Where are the examples?

Dizzy Egg

Every post they made, I replied with "yeah yeah yeah, whatever, show us yer boobies"

Elias

I'd say allegro.cc is hostile in general (the world is), but at least non-discriminatoryly so :)

Bob Keane

Maybe the site needs more pink.

Also more unicorns. I think women don't visit the site because they don't want to associate with grown men who still live in thier parent's basement.

Slartibartfast
Bob Keane said:

I think women don't visit the site because they don't want to associate with grown men who still live in thier parent's basement.

Man, my parents don't even have a basement!

Elias said:

I'd say allegro.cc is hostile in general

Allegro is pleasantly hostile.

beoran

Actually I don't think it's that pleasant. I think we should try to be more welcoming to everyone here. While I don't mind abstract gender discussions, if anyone posts here, they should be treated with respect regardless. Even clueless newbies should be helped, the fact that they ask means that they want to become "clued", so to speak.

I feel we are, as it is, understaffed for the development of the main Allegro library. Allegro 5.1 already is getting quite nice, but there are still some missing features (haptics, IME), and a lot of bugs that have to be ironed out before we can go to 5.2.

Since about half a year or so, SDL is commercially supported by Valve, and so it's no wonder that it gets all the attention. But Allegro also has a bit of an "unprofessional" stigma I'd love to get rid of. While I really think the Allegro API is better than that of SDL on a technical level, we really should think all together on how to also get more wide interest for Allegro, lest I fear we fall by the wayside. That may include becoming more welcoming to others.

I'll probably start another thread on this though if there is enough interest.

NiteHackr

How in the fuck does a conversation about rings turn into a load of bullshit spewed out by a bunch of idiots that don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about?!

I'm been married 29 years now, my wife loves me, I love her. I have never beaten her in my life. She serves me, I serve her.

You people over analyze everything with a liberal amount of bullshit thrown in for good measure.

beoran

Hey I'm married too. With child. :) But anyway, this thread is completely derailed already as it stands. I should just leave it alone as it is, but still... :P

NiteHackr

That's awesome beoran!
How long have you been married?
We could never have a child sadly. :(

beoran

Well, less than 30% of your duration, I guess. I don't quite know what to say to you on the point of children, but you have my sincere sympathies.

Derezo
NiteHackr said:

I have never beaten her in my life.

This reminds me of when I was a kid and we broke a window with a rock and ran off. The police found us and said "Hey guys, where are you coming from?" and my friend immediately said "We weren't the ones throwing rocks!!"

;)

Dizzy Egg

LOOOOOL ;D ;D ;D

Elias

but nice guys and po' broke' fools like me don't stand a chance.

Oh, forgot to reply to this earlier, I'm living proof that's not the case :) The problem really is just how to make her find you. (In my case only per chance, probably small enough of a chance that you could call it a miracle, but still...)

To appear somewhat on topic, I have this ring that I would like to be able to give to someone.

I think it's a nice ring. I also gave mine (cheap) earrings for her birthday a year ago, back when we barely knew each other and I had no idea what would be appropriate. But I think she was happy about them :)

Derezo

I fell in love last summer. It didn't last.

I've thought about her every day since.
Even when I'm fucking someone else, there she is... :'(

Edgar Reynaldo

At least you're fucking someone else... :P :P :P

Felix the Ghost once told me love lasts about two years, and for the most part he was right. The strongest of the feelings do fade at some point. Or at least un-returned love lasts two years. :P

Dizzy Egg
Quote:

At least you're ****ing someone else...

Amen to that brother!

bamccaig

Dominance and submission are not hard wired into the male and female brain. I for one, am perfectly fine being on equal footing with women. I don't feel the need to dominate / control / manipulate / coerce / etc. I want an equal partnership, especially in relationships. It's never good when it is all one sided.

Well technically it's not hard wiring. It's more like software. Women naturally have hormones that make them emotional and weak, and men naturally have hormones that make them strong and generally less emotional. That is our natural states. If you pump a man's body full of female hormones he will develop breasts and become an emotional little bitch! :D The fact is that this is how we are meant to be. There's nothing wrong with it. There are benefits to both. Neither is superior. They are equally necessary.

While you could theoretically reprogram us, it isn't wise to tamper with nature because we really don't understand it very well. To some extent they do with women's birth control, albeit I'd argue that they cause unknown "bugs" in doing so. The reliability of that as a contraceptive might outweigh the "bugs" for most people, but nevertheless it's a risky business. I suspect that women's bodies are put through a lot of unnatural processes and strain from the hormonal tampering that modern medicine does. Most people probably don't even think to attribute these side-effects to the birth control.

An "equal partnership" isn't really possible. Somebody always has to surrender or else the relationship cannot work. Compromising is basically surrendering, and successful relationships are built on compromise. That isn't to say that the man is dominant so he always wins. It is very much a balancing act. That said, women naturally do not want to have too many decisions to make. They find it unattractive when men are push-overs. They expect to be told what to do much of the time. I know, it's contrary to what you've been taught, but go ahead and ask them in an unloaded fashion and be amazed. Of course, they don't want to be slaves. They are still free to do as they please in our modern society[1]. However, within the context of your relationship, they expect the man to take charge most of the time.

Dominance is not abuse. Submission is not being victimized. It is a form of cooperation. It is a kind of balance and "equality" between the sexes. Each plays a role in the relationship and each others' strengths and weaknesses combine to form a whole.

This is also how dominance and submission work with wild animals. An alpha wolf is not abusing his subordinates. It is in their best interest to cooperate, and since he is most dominant and likely the strongest he is most capable of providing for and protecting the family. It benefits all of them, and without that relationship they would be unable to cooperate effectively and would be worse off as a result.

Being the "top dog" is not all it's cracked up to be. You may get to make the decisions and have the most privileges, but you also carry the heaviest burdens and responsibilities. It is not "easy" being top dog, and it would be even harder or impossible for a less capable individual to do it. A weak alpha will fail and the family will struggle, suffer, and probably die as a result.

No, this is pretty false. Women have not had access to positions of political power other than by being born into royalty for quite a long time. There has long been male privilege over women. It's only recently the tables have turned. It's hard for men to get used to women in positions of power. Men have been in charge for so long they don't know what its like to be subordinate anymore and it scares them. It's a threat to their masculinity. Women have been and are still being treated like property all over the world, but things have gotten a lot better.

People in positions of power were not given them. They fought for them. They seized them. This is essentially a character trait that is unnatural for most women (and many men). Of course, those people in power probably broke the rules to get to where they are. It isn't a fair game, and it's not just women that lose the fight. When women choose not to pursue powerful positions, or fail to take them, that isn't discrimination against them.

What do you think of this poem and journal article from deviantArt? -

I need feminism because
It’s acceptable to call me a slut.

It's acceptable to call men all kinds of heinous names too, whether they are deserving of them or not. Cry me a river. That's not necessarily discrimination, and it's certainly not unique to women.

"Slut" is a term generally reserved for women that exhibit behaviors that are harmful for society. Sex is a beautiful thing, but sex with lots of partners you barely know is risky, and it lacks the intimacy and cooperation that is necessary for our mental health and survival.

Women that sleep around a lot are less valuable. If you don't think it matters then let's all get together and pass your wife around (if she consents, of course!). I don't imagine you'd like that very much.

Slut shaming is essentially society's way of discouraging bad behavior. Of course, as with all words, it can be used and abused. Sticks and stones, etc. Women are probably equally guilty of using it as men are, if not more so.

I need feminism because
It’s okay for a guy to slap my butt.

I need feminism because
I should look good for men to see.

I need feminism because
Girls think it’s cool to shame each other.

None of these are men's fault. All of these are natural behaviors, and typically women are more responsible for them than men are. Feminism does not do anything to address these things.

Butt Slaps

Nobody can decide if it's OK for a guy to slap a girl's butt except for that girl. It's her responsibility to tell them it's not OK. A lot of girls do not object, and even want and encourage it. Feminism can't stop this because ultimately women get to choose for themselves if they will allow men to slap their butts, and the men don't know until they try! To make matters worse, there probably are women that don't want it, but don't tell the men that they don't want it. This is not the men's fault. This is female nature. Feminism cannot fix that.

Feminism has succeeded in creating a society where a man is essentially guilty no matter what he does. Women are confusing. They are contradictory and illogical. If a man doesn't "slap the girl's butt" (or take similar, equivalent, spontaneous initiatives that individual women might object to, like kissing them, copping a feel, etc., without explicit permission) then many girls would not find the man attractive. Most women don't want an explicit dialogue of asking and getting permission for these things. That is a complete turn off for them. They want the man to take the initiative without knowing if he's allowed. The contradiction is that women have the ability to decide that they didn't want that interaction with specific guys and condemn them for it with real world consequences.

They can press criminal charges, or seek more localized consequences like being expelled from a school, or fired from a job, or kicked out of an event, group, or business, etc. It is a contradiction because women still do want men to spontaneously interact with them in these ways without knowing if they're allowed, but the women reserve the right whether to welcome it or condemn it. The men have absolutely no way of knowing which one it is until they try, and it differs on a case by case basis (the same woman might welcome or condemn a particular action from different guys or even the same guy depending on how she feels about that particular case in the moment). Since men cannot know how the woman will take it they are left with two unappealing choices: either don't act and probably lose before the game starts, or act and risk condemnation for the reward. It is lose-lose for men.

It is not men's fault that women's desires are contradictory.

Aesthetics

Attraction is an automatic function of human nature and not something that people can control. It's true that women are generally judged on aesthetic beauty because that is the primary way that men identify valuable partners. It isn't one-sided though because women are equally critical of men, but in different ways. While men are mostly focused on physical attractiveness, women are mostly focused on material wealth and power. When surveyed about how attractive a particular man is women's rankings go up the more rich and powerful they perceive the man to be (almost regardless of how he looks or what his other qualities are). It isn't a conscious choice for the women any more than it is for the man. This is naturally how we are wired.

Of course, women take it above and beyond what men like. Women compete with each other and take it to unnecessary extremes in ways that men often don't even like. Make-up, high-heels, breast/ass size enhancements or implants, revealing clothing, etc. A lot of it is unnecessary and even counter-productive, but they learn what men want from other women that don't understand men either, and mostly by industries built around exploiting women's obsession with their appearance and inability to understand men.

Personally, I don't prefer women in make-up, high-heels or other flashy footwear, with excessive breasts/ass, or wearing tight or revealing clothing in public. Sharing that with the rest of the world reduces her value in my eyes. I'm not alone because it has been documented that many men find women that are hiding their bodies more attractive than women that are revealing them.

The amount of trouble that women go to to be attractive to men is counter-productive and completely not men's fault. Most men do not want that from a wife. If at all, they want that from a drunk slut whose name they don't care about. Most men want to keep our women to ourselves, and want to make wholesome wives and mothers out of them.

Insert: I forgot to address girls shaming each other, but it should be obvious to any person with critical thinking how this isn't men's fault and how Feminism does not address it.

I need feminism because
It’s my own fault if a man rapes me.

It's not that it's a woman's fault if she gets raped by a man. It's that it can be extremely hard to catch rapists or prove that rape occurred, and women are basically asking for it and refuse to accept any responsibility for their actions. I know, I know, the manginas are going to come crying to the rescue, "you're a rape apologist, it's never a woman's fault if she gets raped, no matter what she does it isn't her fault." Waa, waa, waa.

If you wear an overtly racist T-shirt in a poverty stricken neighborhood primarily inhabited by the targeted racial minority and get assaulted or killed it is generally wrong for the attacker to have assaulted or shot you, but you're still responsible for provoking the reaction.

The problem with women, and Feminism has pushed this to the extreme, is that they don't accept any responsibility for their actions. And society doesn't hold them accountable so why would they? Well, fuck you then. It is what it is. Go cry to somebody else. It is wrong to rape a woman that dresses provocatively, or drinks to the point of losing control of her faculties in public, but she is still responsible for making herself an easy target. Life is not fair, the world is not a safe place, and we cannot protect women from it without quarantining them from it. And they won't let us do that anymore.

I need feminism because
People think it means ‘anti-man’.

Feminist politics ultimately harm men and its outspoken activists are openly hateful towards men. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, etc. Feminism is a forever tainted movement. Even though there are people that identify as Feminists that don't hate men, the movement itself is very much anti-man, and that can never be erased. Feminism is forever ruined by the current "wave", and the damage that is being done may significantly hinder further progress towards addressing actual artificial inequalities. It would be wise for women to separate themselves from the word and for people of all demographics to form a new movement with unbiased agendas.

I need feminism because
I can’t do things that men can.

Feminism will not change this. Women are not men, and generally there are physiological differences between them that cannot be changed. Men cannot menstruate. Women cannot ejaculate sperm. For some less obvious and more controversial examples, men are generally faster, stronger, and arguably smarter than women. That last point is difficult or impossible to prove, but the inverse is equally difficult or impossible to prove. The other points are pretty well established facts that only stupid people debate.

I need feminism because
The world has higher hopes for my brother.

Feminism is not good for her brother. Feminism is harmful to men. Feminism is essentially turning her brother, and all men, into slaves to the system. 100% of the responsibilities and ever declining percentage of the corresponding privileges.

I need feminism because
My femininity makes me ‘weak’.

Weakness is a subjective measurement, but the weaknesses of femininity cannot be erased with politics. Women are generally weaker: physically, emotionally, perhaps mentally. They have strengths though where men have weaknesses. The best way to overcome the weaknesses of women is to pair them with men that supplement their abilities. They both have strengths and weaknesses, but being together can help to make up for those weaknesses by sharing each others' strengths.

Feminism has the opposite effect of bringing men and women together. Feminism has a tendency to put men and women at odds with each other. The ways that Feminism attempts to "rectify" women's weaknesses are by applying biases to the system to make up for what women lack. That doesn't make women stronger. It generally impairs men to bring them down to the women's level, or forces the system to turn a blind eye of ignorance towards women's weaknesses to sweep them under the rug. The first rule of women not being as good as men at something is you don't talk about women not being as good as men at something(tm).

Men are not idiots. They know when the women aren't pulling their weight and as a result they lose respect for women and the system, which is the exact opposite outcome to what Feminism is supposed to be intended to achieve. We may not talk about it when women are around, but when the women aren't around freely discuss it amongst ourselves. This is not a failing of men. This is a failing of Feminism and women.

You should be hopefully picking up on a theme here, but your mangina might be cramping so I'll repeat it anyway: these "weaknesses" of femininity are not weaknesses at all. Women are different. Different is not bad. They are exactly how they are supposed to be. The problem is Feminists trying to convince women and society as a whole that women are like men instead.

I need feminism because
If I act masculine I’m a ‘freak’.

Feminism cannot make it OK for you to be something that you are not. Women being masculine and men being feminine is more of a transgender issue, which Feminism is generally not fighting for (i.e., trans-gendered women are not "real" women according to many Feminists, and their issues don't matter to the movement). Even though Feminism actually encourages women to be masculine, Feminism is very anti-masculine (nobody ever said that women had to make sense). Not only is Feminism generally lose-lose for men, it is generally lose-lose for women too.

Women that act masculine are generally well accepted to a point: "tomboys". Most guys love this kind of girl. They actually make a little bit of sense! They like to do the things that boys like to do, and they do a lot less of the stupid shit that girls do that guys hate.

Of course, there are always people that are intolerant of people that are different then them. A lot of the things this girl is writing about sound less like social issues and more like teenage angst. Other girls may not like tomboys because they are essentially opposites, and the tomboys are probably rather threatening to regular women.

Of course, there is a point where gender begins to blur and it's no longer a woman that is acting masculine, but a transgendered-man with tits. This is a grey area for most people. I have come to realize that these people should be tolerated, accepted, and respected like any others. Still, by definition they are in a way freaks of nature. That doesn't make them bad or wrong, just different.

I need feminism because
My boobs are my ‘best quality’.

Men are generally nowhere near as shallow as media make them out to be. That said, men are naturally programmed to need sex, and sex happens to be one of the most valuable uses for women by men. It's not really surprising that we would hold sexual qualities in high esteem. That said, sex is a temporary need. Once it is met and our brains are cleared we can appreciate all of the other qualities of women.

Of course, women also have a tendency to emphasize their sexuality. This more or less traces back to the point about aesthetics above. If women emphasize their sexuality above their other qualities then naturally men are going to focus on their sexuality. If women emphasize their other values then men will be able to better appreciate those.

Both men and women are inherently valuable to one another in different ways, and there's nothing wrong with that. In the best case, we find a pairing that allows a balanced mutual gain.

Of course, Feminists have a tendency to try to promote values in women that men already have themselves. It shouldn't surprise anyone when men can't appreciate those as much, particularly for qualities that are stronger in a particular man than they are in a particular woman or women in general. If a man already has that then why would he need women for it?

Insert: Often these conflicting qualities also challenge gender roles and emasculate men that are weaker in a typically male-dominated quality. Most men will not find it attractive for a woman to be physically stronger, faster, or smarter than them. That doesn't make it wrong for women to be stronger in these areas, but it might make those women unattractive to those men that are sensitive to their own weaknesses in areas where they should stereotypically be stronger than her. For example, most men do not find body-building women attractive. That is not a quality that we seek from women. They are capable of manipulating their bodies to build more muscle than the average man has. It generally will not attract men to them though, and in most cases is probably a turn off (which is natural and normal and not wrong).

I need feminism because
I believe in equality.

Feminism does not promote equality. Feminism promotes inequality favoring women. If you care to refute this claim then please show me concrete evidence of how it is benefiting men. The superficial claims made so far in this thread are unsubstantiated, insignificant, and vague.

The journal has received over 12,000 comments and the poem itself has received over 4,000 comments by now.

Popular ideas are not necessarily right ideas. Feminism is in fashion right now. Women are cheered on for it, and men are praised for supporting it. That doesn't make it right or valid. It just makes it popular and politically correct.

I thought of writing a poetic retort called I need masculinism about how women have so much more privelege than men in some areas like in bam's first post but then I'd sound like a chauvinist. :P

This is a prime example of the harm that Feminism does. It is essentially censoring your freedom of expression for fear of condemnation. I choose to be unafraid of what people think of my ideas. Being wrong is great because you learn something and better your ideas. Being right is great too because you teach somebody else something and better their ideas. The goal of the sharing of ideas should be to identify the better ideas and improve our collective knowledge.

* * *

This post is already quite long so I'll take a break and wait to respond to the other new posts. >:( Hopefully Matthew doesn't lock the thread before I get a chance.

References

  1. In past societies it is easy to argue why women would not have such a freedom. Men and women very much depended on one another. If the woman gets herself kidnapped, killed, or just runs off, the man would have a hard time taking care of the house and children on his own. An argument could also be made for why that should still be the case today, albeit it's a weaker one. I doubt that anyone else here is capable of thinking of this objectively, which probably explains why it's in the "footnotes". The reason why the restriction is placed on the woman and not the man goes back to dominance: the man is stronger and more capable of taking on the responsibilities for the family. It isn't a perfectly fair situation, but it is a mutually beneficial one (except in cases of abuse, but there were generally exceptions for those cases even in ancient societies).
Matthew Leverton

And with that great wall of text, we now know how bambam spent the night of Tuesday, March 25th, 2014.

While I agree with what you start off saying, you lost me at the butt slaps, and I saw it still went on for another few chapters, so I gave up.

You can say more with less. You know if you post something that long, people will only quote your most outlandish statement and forget about anything sensible you may have accidentally said. 8-)

Thomas Fjellstrom

Matthew, this site badly needs some +1 buttons ;) There's a few posts in here I'd thumb up (one is your last message), but I can't :(

Elias

Matthew, this site badly needs some +1 buttons

Please no. Instead add a -1 button which I can click on every post suggesting a +1 button.

Dizzy Egg

Or, failing that, give bamerang a 40 paragraph limit.

SiegeLord

I just don't read those posts anymore. If you can't express yourself briefly, why waste everybody's time posting at all? Plus I'm sure it's the usual insane historical revisioninsm.

Vanneto

If Matthew and bamccaig team up and create some audio books from those posts. Man... I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Elias said:

Please no. Instead add a -1 button which I can click on every post suggesting a +1 button.

I'd settle for only a -1 button. Don't limit it to just posts suggesting a +1 button ;)

SiegeLord said:

I just don't read those posts anymore. If you can't express yourself briefly, why waste everybody's time posting at all? Plus I'm sure it's the usual insane historical revisioninsm.

I pretty much don't have the time to read through bambams posts anymore. And I never had the patience... Such wall. Many text. wow.

Paul whoknows
Quote:

-1 button

+= 1;

bamccaig

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:

video

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.

Chris Katko

What the hell happened in this thread? ???

You guys need to spend more time coding. 8-)

bamccaig

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)

video

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

type568

We want buttons, we want buttons!

And more poems from mabmab :P

Sometimes I read'em entirely, if the thought flow is interesting & i've an appropriate mood.

Michael Faerber

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.

SiegeLord

Give him a chance.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don't feel like swimming up a creek of manure to find the gold nuggets on the bottom :P.

Thomas Fjellstrom

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.

pkrcel

I should have read his post insted of watching the video.

bamccaig

Lets take a moment to consider why there are almost zero women on allegro.cc. Women and men have equal access to the site, so I guess the obvious answer is that women just don't want to be here. I think that much is clear, but that's just a shallow explanation. Women not wanting to be here is the symptom. What is the cause? Maybe it has something to do with how women are treated here.

Women on allegro.cc are treated like they are some kind of strange and exotic creature. They get heaps of unsolicited attention, and they get stereotyped, and their motives get questioned. They hear discussions about how they are hard wired to be submissive, and they are told how to act - either implicitly or explicitly. Men are treated like normal people, with their own interests and responsibilities. Men speak for themselves, and are treated as individuals. Women are treated as though they are an ambassador from a foreign world. When they speak, they are taken to be speaking for all women. They carry the burden of implicit expectations about their interests and lack of programming ability based solely on their gender.

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. :o 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. :P Only a few of them were ever regulars while I have been a member (which is almost 8 years).

The ones that I can recall off the top of my head are: wearetheborg, her sister Manjula, and SailorMoonChild.

wearetheborg and Manjula: As far as I know, neither one of them ever aspired to be a computer programmer or game developer. I remember them mostly being trolls (alongside their brother Yves AKA le_y_mistar AKA other names that I don't know or don't remember; who was a pretty notorious troll, albeit in my opinion he was pretty harmless and just fighting back against unjustified gang ups for the time that I knew him), albeit wearetheborg probably started out much more constructive. You might argue that I chased these girls off, but I think that Manjula mostly just got busy after becoming a mother. wearetheborg used to be a moderator, and at some point began to blatantly abuse those powers to censor ideas that she didn't agree with (I remember it during a gender debate like this one). I assumed she ragequit after having her powers revoked or being otherwise disciplined, but I don't remember if anything like that was ever public (or if it's against the rules to talk about now...).

SailorMoonChild: If I'm remembering correctly about who this is, she still joins the IRC channel occasionally[1]. She is a professional programmer, and I get the distinct impression that she is a rather competent one. She is one of the exceptions. :) I don't know if she was ever a regular poster here, but I think she had some kind of messy break up with one of the members and I got the impression that she was avoiding him (not necessarily because he had done anything wrong).

My short searches indicate that there have been various "are there any women here" threads over the years. In 2004 a Nicolle was mentioned, and I briefly remember her making a post or two while I was here, but she was predominantly a lurker or rare visitor by then. I recognized Sporus' avatar so I imagine she was still posting when I first joined, but I don't really remember ever getting into it with her either. I assume she just lost interest and left.

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.

If I was a woman, I wouldn't want to post here; and if I did post here I'd take careful steps to conceal my gender; because if anyone found out then my stay here would become unpleasant.

Everyone posting in this thread is male (as far as I know). That means we have no direct experience with the problems feminism was born to address. And it would be presumptuous of us to talk about what women want.

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]? :o

There is no rule or condition on allegro.cc that says people should be male. But the social conditions in here are not welcoming for women.

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.

Women can choose to work hard, but they are expected to fail and are treated with less respect. They can be promoted, but they have to be significantly more qualified than men to 'stand out', otherwise they are assumed to be mediocre. The people in the top jobs are men, and they promote people who are similar to themselves -- men.

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.

It was an outrageous unprovoked attack on a movement which has brought significant improvements to the lives of more than half the population (in the countries affected). Regardless of whether you think we've reached gender equality, only the ignorant or sexist would think that feminism has fucked up society as it stands currently. (and it's pretty easy to be sexist if you're ignorant.)

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.

beoran said:

In cases of gender there is real discrimination, but also "perceived" discrimination, which is the overreaction caused by heightened sensitivity due to the real discrimination. Of course, the people discriminated against will try to fight back, but quite a few will end up going off in the deep end. "Will to power", as Nietsche would say. The result is that in many countries in the world we have screwed up laws that are intent to "protect" women, but end up being injust to men, and bascially cause problems for both genders.

I agree.

beoran said:

The reaction to such injustices from men is predictable, but in a sense, not really helpful in solving the problem. What is needed is more mutual understanding between men and women.

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.

beoran said:

I think the fundamenal error is "equality thinking". Equality thinking is a oversimplified view of reality where everyone should get equal treatment simply because they are humans. However, people are all diffferent, even if their gender is the same. What is much more important than striving for equality is striving for justice and fairness. People should be treated justly and fairly, based on their personal characteristics. This may mean inequal treatment in some cases, as long as the difference in treatment is due to objective and relevant reasons.

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

beoran said:

What should matter to a reasonable, fair employer is the difficulty, quality and quantity of the work done by the employees seen over the whole of their carreer with that employer.

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.

SiegeLord said:

Now I know for a fact that bamccaig alone has been responsible for some females leaving the IRC, but that's bamccaig. I don't really get how he's still not banned in more places.

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). :P

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. :P 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.

References

  1. We still have 3 - 4 women in IRC, but two of them predominantly lurk, and the other two only visit for brief periods... Or until I chase them off. 2 of them are competent programmers, and I think the other 2 are mostly casually interested in it (I don't think either is a professional, and I don't think it's their primary hobby, but they lurk more often than chat so it's hard to remember). I'd say at least 3/4, if not 4/4, are at least geeky girls that belong there. They are all welcomed there, albeit I don't refrain from these kinds of debates if they or anyone provokes them, and as usual they generally can't handle it when it happens and leave. Notably, 3/4 identify as either lesbians or bisexuals (leaning more towards women than men), which I think speaks to my grey-area gender ideas mentioned earlier.
  2. It wouldn't come as a surprise me, and I mean that in the most sincere and respectful way possible. If memory serves I initially thought that you were, but at some point you convinced me otherwise (or at least said you weren't, and I took your word for it). Now you're filling me with doubts again...
Edgar Reynaldo

What's with the fucking dissertations? Enough already. This was supposed to be about a guy buying an engagement ring for his gal, not some damn anti-feminism vomit parade. :P

bamccaig

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. >:(

Rachel Morris

Bams linked me to this for whatever reason, but I'm not going to read the entire thread. First, let's read the first post since it apparently went off-topic:

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------

HI ELIAS! :D
Well, I've never bought an engagement ring. I, personally, wouldn't spend so much on jewelry, but I think that is up to you and your lady, and how much importance and sentimentality you both put on an engagement ring.

Have you asked her what her preferences are? Some women would rather have colorful stones, or non-diamonds, or even synthetic diamonds. I know it's hard to bring up without the hinthint sort of deal. I had a friend who bought his lady some sort of purple gemstone and it was a really lovely ring. <3

Do you know if you're going to ask in the U.S. or in Europe? That might help widdle down the amount of places you could possibly ask.

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't even read bambam's post yet, but I'm going to pre-emptively post this article:

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/ElizabethSampat/20140324/213806/Women_Dont_Want_To_Work_In_Games_And_Other_Myths.php

and this article: http://www.moosader.com/moosader/bne-women-in-computers/

That being said, I'm already aware that no minds will be changed, so whatever. I'm tired of having this discussion over and over and over.

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------

OK, now to read wtf bambams posted and then decided to bug me with after midnight.
Well, that was a load of shit, and not worth debating or commenting on.

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------

I will say, for the sake of my community, that it is not a Rachel-worshiping location. A lot of people in the community have respect for me, enjoy my company, and whatnot. I'm not even active very often these days, but people continue discussing various topics and hanging out.

Over the years, I have tried to build a community around some simple concepts:
1. Respect each other.
2. Nobody should feel alienated.
3. Let's learn.

1. I don't allow slurs or insults or flame-wars in my channel. You're plenty allowed to say "Well, shit", "Shitty fucking asses", etc. but not "What a fag", "That's gay", "Fucking cunts", or other gender/ethnic/sexuality-based insults because the latter clashes with Rule #2. Debate is allowed, cursing is allowed, but all-out fighting and vitriol between members is not, and neither are slurs.

2. Sometimes, people still feel alienated and leave, but I try to make sure that this isn't the case. I've been part of other programming/game development communities that were simply draining to be part of. Toxic environments. Brogrammer environments. Unconstructive environments. So my goal was to create a place where people were comfortable.

3. People trying to learn new things tend to get ridiculed in certain circles, but I discourage that mentality in my community as well. Ask questions, and answer if you can in a respectful way, otherwise let someone else handle it. And I think it works pretty well.

You make it sound like my community is full of 16 year old boys who are starved for female attention, when this is not the case. We have tweens, teens, young adults, and 30+ adults. People in straight relationships, gay relationships, are asexual, various other types of queer, married people, people with kids, etc.

Quotes from some members:

01:07 < aiguu> it's about game development
01:07 < aiguu> finding like minded people
01:08 < aiguu> I'd hangout in elysian shadows too if they weren't pricks
01:09 < attemptedhippo> Id hang out in #gamedev if they werent pricks

From the mouths of at least one male, and one I-haven't-asked-their-gender person.

As it is, I am not part of any other programming communities online. I have several social programming/game-dev groups I frequent (and even am on the board for) in Kansas City.

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------

Also: Quitting the debate does not mean "win-by-default".

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------

There are plenty of discussions about women in CompSci and Tech and GameDev online in various places. I can say that I'm somewhat annoyed that you (whoever de-railed it) has so little respect for Elias as to derail his thread about something very important to him, for such a stupid petty debate.
Start another thread, go post on Reddit, something. But really, it seems like you belong in /r/circlejerk the most, bams.

If anyone has a specific question for me, for some reason(?), please start another thread and link me to it. I don't really check the Allegro forums because - well, I haven't used Allegro in years. |:

Love,
--Rachel

bamccaig

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. :o Anyway...

Bams linked me to this for whatever reason...

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

(wrapped in an unrealistic, but understandable way because the site breaks..) said:

/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.

OK, now to read wtf bambams posted and then decided to bug me with after midnight.

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..).

Well, that was a load of shit, and not worth debating or commenting on.

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.

I can say that I'm somewhat annoyed that you (whoever de-railed it) has so little respect for Elias as to derail his thread about something very important to him, for such a stupid petty debate.

{"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"}You-must-be-new-here.jpg

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.

But really, it seems like you belong in /r/circlejerk the most, bams.

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

Maybe I'll check it out. Thanks.

Love,
--Rachel

{"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"}Yes_ye_syes.gif

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

beoran

@bamccaig
Well, I can see your point of view, but all in all, I think you're overreacting to some of the excesses. I agree that capitalism, may be responisble for many problems, but you're ignoring that feminism started in the 1880ies or so. Before that, in Europe, and now still, in many non-"wettern" culture countries, the situation for women was and is bad. Also, men and women do have physical differences, but you overstate their importance. Most of the social differences between men and women are caused by culture and education.

@ Rachel
Too bad you aren't using Allegro anymore. Allegro 5 is really great, if you have the time please check it out. I read some of the links you posted, but I think it's actually a bit simpler. In my experience, the "nerd stereotype" is often at least partially true for programmers. I know it is for me. And that makes sense. You see, good programmers love working and playing with computers, but all that time I spent in frnt of the computer doesn't tend to leave a lot of time to learn better social skills...

So to work as a programmer you'll have to spend hours in front of a screen and work with people who tend to have lesser social skills, who tend to be either intraverted or blunt or otherwise not so easy to work with. That is something that's not so attractive for anyone from any gender I think, unless you like playing with machines in the first place.

But, in most cultures around the world, women are expected to be sociable (by men and women alike!!!), and they are not encouraged or even dissuaded to enjoy playing with machines, where boys are encouraged to play with difficult toys even if it goes at the cost of them being less social. And there is the crux of the problem. We should teach boys and girls both that it's both important to be sociable, but also, that it's great to engage alone in diffcult, complicated or less sociable pursuits.

Now, we programmers can do our best to try and be a bit more sociable. But don't expect miracles from us. The job of a programmer will always be foremost a machine-centered job. If you want to become a programmer, no matter your gender, then this is something you'll have to accept...

SiegeLord
Quote:

You make it sound like my community is full of 16 year old boys who are starved for female attention, when this is not the case. We have tweens, teens, young adults, and 30+ adults. People in straight relationships, gay relationships, are asexual, various other types of queer, married people, people with kids, etc.

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.

(whoever de-railed it)

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.

Rachel Morris

SiegeLord - My community is not big; we have about 25 people regularly in the IRC channel now. People come and go, at one point the biggest count was four women (specifically active in the IRC, there are a few more on the forums).

My community isn't an instant magnet for everybody to join, but it at least offers peace of mind and a constructive place to talk.

I have long since quit coming by any communities with even a trace of toxic culture in it, because it's such a small step to so greatly increase my Quality of Life. Yes, being around Brandon decreases my personal happiness - and it's not his arguments or viewpoints, it's him, specifically, and how he presents those arguments and viewpoints.

@beoran : The nerd stereotype isn't always true in the professional world. I think once you get out of the realm of pure hobbyist and into "I'm getting paid a lot of money to do this", you find "normal people" - doing coding! Not all programmers fit into this little box of "socially awkward nerd".

Software development isn't necessarily an introverted profession. You have a team you work with, there can be hundreds of programmers, QA, tech writers, scrum masters, etc.

I've really only found your traditional stereotypical programmers at small companies that hire cheap labour - young people right out of college. At larger companies, people are much more mature and adult. There still isn't an equal amount of women, but the culture is different from what one may think of from the outside-looking-in, based on media and whatever experiences they have with highschool/college-aged programmers.

Thomas Fjellstrom

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.

beoran

@Thomas, that's true, but still, ...

@Rachel ... I think it is extremely exaggerated to stay away from an online community just because of a "trace of toxic culture"...

Elias

We need to think about how toxic people are handled here.

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 :P 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.)

Thomas Fjellstrom
Elias said:

It's hard to decide who is "toxic" and who is not.

It really isn't that hard to tell.

Quote:

you tried to place sentiments on SiegeLord which he (as far as I could tell) never had :P

What sentiments are those?

Being a little annoying is one thing, but actively driving away people is another, especially when they make incredibly sexist statements, even to the degree of being a rapist apoligist. Like seriously.

If I do something anywhere near that bad I want people to let me know.

Quote:

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.

What little good a toxic person might bring does not outweigh the damage it does to the community as a whole.

beoran

@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.

Polybios

@beoran: Now this is right.

I think people like bambam who are full of prejudices only contribute to the things they "criticise", like in a self fulfilling prophecy. This is just stupid.

bamccaig

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

video

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.

Thread #614026. Printed from Allegro.cc