This article is the worst kind of inflammatory journalism. I would never attempt to deny that there is a systemic patriarchy in place, or that white privilege exists, but tying every perceived injustice in the world to these braoder issues undermines the real issues that affect millions of people on a daily basis. As has been pointed out here by many other commentors, the behaviour of Hank and his friend was clearly outside conference guidelines and their being reprimanded for it is absolutely correct. Attempting to tie that to some sense of white (no race element to this story at all), male enitlement is absurd and frankly does a disservice to both the civil rights and feminist movements. When humour is made at the expense of a person in a position of relative weakness it is wrong. When she overheard someone else's (admittedly unfunny but by no means directly offensive to any race/gender/sexual orientation)joke and took offense then that was her personal reaction. Making her displeasure known to conference organisers was absolutely within her remit but turning herself into some sort of 'crusader' for a vague idea of 'rights and justice' in a public forum is problematic for me. Your article has done exactly that, by 'casually' mentioning the use of smart phones in the Ferguson case you are obviously attempting to equate what was, let's be honest, a minor case of a clash of senses of humour to the killing of a young man by the police. That is despicable. You then go on to mention the race of Lindsey Stone, despite the fact that it has no relevance to the case which she became known for. This sort of linking of every case of offensive public behaviour with what are real, and long running, issues of race and gender equality serve only to perpetuate a mentality of 'us and them' and undermine real cases of racism and sexism that still occur around the world on a regular basis.
> I would never attempt to deny that there is a systemic patriarchy in place
I would.
There are a couple of counter-arguments. One, claiming that there is a "patriarchy" sounds a whole lot like a conspiracy theory. Replace "patriarchy" with "zionism" in typical statements to see what I mean. This makes me very wary of any hand-waving claims of "patriarchy".
Women have in-group preference. Men don't. The assumption that there's a "patriarchal" preference by white men for other white men is projection. What do I mean by this?
Most people believe that other people think like them. "I'm a reasonable person. So if I did X, it would be for reason Y. Therefore if other people are doing X, it's for reason Y."
i.e. Rich white men prefer to support other rich white men.
That just isn't true. There is no evidence for "in-group" preference of men. There is plenty of evidence that no such preference exists.
There is evidence for preference of power. If you can make Bill Gates money, he'll help you so long as it's in his favor. The second you can't help him, he'll cut your throat (metaphorically speaking), and leave you for dead.
The men who have such behavior tend to get ahead of people who aren't that ruthless. This isn't "in-group men" preference. It's cut-throat back-stabbing competition.
> Making her displeasure known to conference organisers was absolutely within her remit but turning herself into some sort of 'crusader' for a vague idea of 'rights and justice' in a public forum is problematic for me.
I agree. That's the crux of the matter. I suspect if she had only complained to the conference organizers, none of the rest would have happened. But she was clearly operating outside of the bounds of the conference herself.
And from the other links posted here, that wasn't the first time she did something like this.
I hear what you are saying and I agree that the term patriarchy is a very loaded one. However what I am referring to is, as other commenters have pointed out, a systemic patriarchy. I am by no means implying some sort of conscious system of oppression but rather a centuries-old systemic dominance of men over women that has undeniably resulted in women feeling that they exist in a position of relative social weakness to men. I share your suspicion when people mention systems of 'control' while implying some sort of conspiracy. My use of the term patriarchy is closer connected to Antonio Gramsci's theory of hegemony, within a gender framework http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony. Granted this is changing but it is by no means over. I merely stated my position on women's rights and the patriarchy as a way to pre-empt any unfounded backlash to my comments along the lines that I somehow support the patriarchy. As you have pointed out the main point of my article was that her actions were justified to a point, and that the actions that went beyond that point were the catalyst for the unfortunate repercussions that ensued for both parties. Thank you though for highlighting this as it is an important distinction to be made.
> claiming that there is a "patriarchy" sounds a whole lot like a conspiracy theory. Replace "patriarchy" with "zionism" in typical statements to see what I mean.
That's a false analogy. Zionism and similar conspiracy theories are predicated upon the notion that there organizations and people consciously manipulating things behind the scenes.
When most people discuss the patriarchy, they're not referring to conscious, willful agents. They're talking about systemic sexism.
Yes, but that is self regulation. I think the point here is that, short of having convenient Romanian hackers break into the personal accounts of high ranking officials from time to time to update us, the state and the public have no way of knowing if they are using personal accounts for some of their communication. The only way to get around this would be to actively monitor all web activity by these officials to ensure that the National Archives are fully aware of all pertinent communication through any channel. Obviously this poses serious questions about privacy for public officials, but if they take a position of public office and have been shown to be deliberately subverting the system in place to keep them accountable, then perhaps that is what's necessary?
Various news reports say that Clinton literally did not have a state.gov address, so everyone she communicated with professionally for 4 years, including people at State, knew that she was communicating with her personal account. Not all of them were reporting to her, either.
Indeed. I would say this makes the issue even more difficult to deal with. As you say, people who weren't even reporting directly to her maintained the code of silence over breaching email account rules. If memebers of the government themselves aren't going to be whistleblowers then how can the use of personal accounts be monitored?
Obviously preaching to the choir here, but it's good to see big companies, that could 'benefit' (when taking a very narrow view) from shaped net distribution, coming out in support of hardline net neutrality.
I couldn't agree more. As the co-founder of an app development company curently working on our flagship I have had a very similar experience. Although I wouldn't call myself an expert in the field it will impact (and I think some app/product/innovation ideas are going to potentially affect a field that you couldn't be an expert in without dedicating your life to it) I was surrounded by people involved in the field. I think the most important part of your article for me is being open to the idea that, with the current tools, a problem might not be fully solvable. Setting out to create something to fill a gap will just result in you imagining that a gap exists where it doesn't. Good product ideas come from the organic realisation that there is something missing from the market, and the best way to do that is to be open to the idea that apparent limitations could be the bounding box of what defines your product/app.
Yes, and although I won't say to always trust that "feeling you get".. there is a feeling that you get when you organically come to that realization and it's very different from sitting in a brainstorming session and thinking of 20 ideas in a row. Can't replace first-hand experience in a space.
Fascinating idea, I would definitely read it. I think that design is often a term that is too readily equated with 'graphic' or 'product' design and dismissed as aesthetics. The reality is that we live in a human-designed world, and the idea that design doesn't have further-reaching implications than which phone you decide to buy is a great one to question. I look forward to reading it.
Indeed. If I were a prospective employer who was intereseted in your presence on Hacker News as a way to separate you from the crowd, this would not be the article that did it.
Despite the humour and, on the surface, being a story about ordering a burrito, I think this is actually a very useful 'what not to do' cautionary tale for startups. They've clearly got a concept which, on paper, sounds like a good idea. They've then rushed development and gone to market without actually testing enough to know that they can deliver (literally) what the customer wants. That kind of early0stages growing needs to hapen before the company can gain a public reputation.
That's simply a function of growth. You can not prepare for runaway growth like this, it's easier said than done and from the sidelines it looks like a piece of cake.
At this level of growth any action that you did not automate away will bite you in a terrible way. And that's what all the handbooks say right: wait with automation until you've found your product:market fit. But what if that outruns you?
I agree, but in this context I think that it's a valid criticism as their business model is a sort of 'all things under one roof' delivery system that should be prepared to offer a simple delivery like this one ate a competetive price/timeframe. I'm definitely not saying that people starting a business, particularly one in a service capacity, shouldn't expect to have to adapt with growth. I suppose the main point I was making is that prior to launching you should ensure that you are fulfilling your core functionality to at least a market-comparable level.
I don't write code myself but my startup partner is a programmer in London who has been struggling to make ends meet for a while now. There are certainly jobs to be had, most of which pay fairly equivalent wages to most starting salaries for graduates from what I can tell. However, what he tells me is that increasingly the core programming staff of a company will often be much smaller, with most of their gruntwork done by outsourced code writers in China/India. In this sense then, not only have programmers slipped into the working class, but their jobs have been outsourced with the rest of the manufacturing industry to South East Asia in the name of globalised capitalism. I think if you are looking into the shift of gruntwork programming down the career ladder as it has become such an integral part of the global production economy, then you must look into the growth of outsourced programming.
I don't think the job lost in US translates into outsourced job anymore. Cloud is destroying lot of bespoke app development, as startups are aggregating those bespoke needs of multiple companies into out-of-the-box apps. "There’s an app for that" is the future and worker class will shrink both in US and India/China.
Also, this outsourcing is a one-sided argument. You have to also look at companies like skype, whatsapp single-handedly killing telecom/sms industry, leading to millions of job losses in outsourced destinations. Globalised capitalism does not have winners. Only losers.
Globalised capitalism does not have winners. Only losers.
As opposed to the blessings of life in an isolated socialist workers' paradise? Which was more exposed to globalized capitalism, South Korea or North Korea? Which better matches your description of no winners, only losers? How about West Germany vs. East Germany? Which of the two participated in more global capitalism? Which of the two ended up with more winners?
How about Taiwan & Hong Kong vs. Mainland China back when the mainland "protected" its people from participation in global capitalism while Taiwan and Hong Kong rapidly became first-world countries? Or how about the mainland when it was isolated and anti-capitalist vs. China today, after becoming a full participant in global capitalism? No winners, only losers from global capitalism? And which part of today's China has been more impacted by global capitalism, the coast or inland? Where have lives improved the most in China judged by, say, the Chinese people themselves and their migration patterns? Why don't those inlanders appreciate how lucky they are to be better isolated from the global capitalism that ravages the coast, leaving only losers in its wake?
There is no doubt that global capitalism enables a rapid and large-scale co-evolution of economies, producing lots of changes, many of which are bad. But you have to have drunk the whole punchbowl of campus Leftist intellectual Kool-Aid to claim that global capitalism has no winners, only losers.
1) I meant global capitalism in the context of shrinking working class. It brings lot of benefits to consumers and creates competitive businesses. But, that competition/cost cutting drives outsourcing and leads to job losses in developed world. In turn, outsourced labor will be replaced by technology once it becomes viable/cheaper, leading to job losses in the outsourced destinations as well. Hence, no winners in working class.
2) If you want to preach globalized capitalism to other countries, you have to support outsourcing in the same spirit. Otherwise, it is a one-sided argument that turns a blind eye when technology (like skype) takes away jobs in the developing world.
BTW, you don't have to be leftist to point out problems in capitalism. Any healthy system needs criticism from within.
The mind boggles at how much of a disjuncture there can be between executive management and their development teams within a development-driven sector! When will the marketing graduates realise that the web is not a magical dream-realisation machine that takes marketing speak and turns it into money?
