mjg59 | Internet abuse culture is a tech industry problem

After Jesse Frazelle blogged about the online abuse she receives, a common reaction in various forums[1] was "This isn't a tech industry problem - this is what being on the internet is like"[2]. And yes, they're right. Abuse of women on the internet isn't limited to people in the tech industry. But the severity of a problem is a product of two separate factors: its prevalence and what impact it has on people.

Much of the modern tech industry relies on our ability to work with people outside our company. It relies on us interacting with a broader community of contributors, people from a range of backgrounds, people who may be upstream on a project we use, people who may be employed by competitors, people who may be spending their spare time on this. It means listening to your users, hearing their concerns, responding to their feedback. And, distressingly, there's significant overlap between that wider community and the people engaging in the abuse. This abuse is often partly technical in nature. It demonstrates understanding of the subject matter. Sometimes it can be directly tied back to people actively involved in related fields. It's from people who might be at conferences you attend. It's from people who are participating in your mailing lists. It's from people who are reading your blog and using the advice you give in their daily jobs. The abuse is coming from inside the industry.

Cutting yourself off from that community impairs your ability to do work. It restricts meeting people who can help you fix problems that you might not be able to fix yourself. It results in you missing career opportunities. Much of the work being done to combat online abuse relies on protecting the victim, giving them the tools to cut themselves off from the flow of abuse. But that risks restricting their ability to engage in the way they need to to do their job. It means missing meaningful feedback. It means passing up speaking opportunities. It means losing out on the community building that goes on at in-person events, the career progression that arises as a result. People are forced to choose between putting up with abuse or compromising their career.

The abuse that women receive on the internet is unacceptable in every case, but we can't ignore the effects of it on our industry simply because it happens elsewhere. The development model we've created over the past couple of decades is just too vulnerable to this kind of disruption, and if we do nothing about it we'll allow a large number of valuable members to be driven away. We owe it to them to make things better.

[1] Including Hacker News, which then decided to flag the story off the front page because masculinity is fragile

[2] Another common reaction was "But men get abused as well", which I'm not even going to dignify with a response

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ignorance is one thing, wilful and sustained ignorance is another. The latter, whether it's directed at a gender, gender preference,or race - is self destructive. It's the equivalent of taking a dump upstream. I'm no fan of any religion either - but I don't propose the world would be better without it, it's possible that many need it (perfect is the enemy of good?).

Take women for instance - everyone had a mother, many a sister, and it's unlikely that any will live a life where it's quality at some time won't be determined by the actions or beliefs of a woman.

There will always be injustice and inequality, but that's no reason not to redress the balance - nor is it justification for more stupidity i.e. we are all equal (then why can't I reach the same shelves as you?); we are all the same (so is evolution horizontal?).

The greatest failings of bigotry (IMO) is to suppose that anyone is in a position to judge who is of greater worth - only history may be able to decide that; and that all questions can be reduced to simple arguments (simple is a synonym for dumb).

In an increasingly interconnected world there is less and less excuse for sustained wilful ignorance. Those that claim they are only aping the actions of their peers can only be excused if we suppose that the world if perfect and there is no need for improvement. To do otherwise is, likely, only to lower the standard until the world we live in becomes that of the Iron Ages - and the civilisation we all enjoy (no matter how much we complain of it's failings) becomes a desert populated by sheep and goat herders whose views are laws that must never be challenged or questioned.

That's not to say that the "tech" world shouldn't take a lead - we have, with our daily connection with people of all types all over the globe, and access to many views of history - *less* excuse than others for sustained, wilful ignorance.

Self-awareness and self-education are only part of a possible solution. I propose that the hardest tasks are upsetting others i.e. "don't feed the trolls" serves no constructive purpose and IMO is the equivalent of sticking our heads in the sand and hoping we'll be left alone. Dealing with trolls is not as simple as just replying or attacking.
Likewise dealing with those who attack women - you will offend someone in the process, even if, quite fairly, some women will complain that if it's a man doing the defending, they are being patronising. In lieu of a perfect solution I suggest it's better to do something than nothing (the greatest evil being to look the other way and encourage the wilfully stupid, by allowing them to interpret your silence as meaning support). Light, knowledge (and humour) is the enemy of stupid.
[/rant]

Kind regards, thanks for another informative and interesting article Matthew, SFITCS

In my experience, the people who call male feminists "patronizing" are usually other men who don't like being told they did something awful. I actually saw someone accused of "white knighting" on a Warhammer 40,000 blog, once, where I'm fairly sure there weren't too many women around for them to impress.

If a woman does call you out for being patronizing, the thing to do is to learn why she said that and then do your best to avoid that mistake in the future. Treat it as thought it were code that did not compile, and rewrite the code instead of blaming the compiler.

My experience is not much different than yours - but it still doesn't change the point I was "trying" to make. The right thing to do is defend the rights of others - but it doesn't preclude the right of others to say "no thanks - I don't want you to speak for me". I believe it's a mistake to automatically presume that if someone objects to me speaking on their behalf that blame *must* be attributed to someone - sure I'm happy to hear their opinions. It's a stock phrase but true none-the-less "you can't please everyone, the best you can do is please yourself".
There is no stock reaction that will please everyone - sometimes doing the "right" thing means eschewing an expectation for respect and/or credit. My personal belief is that the right thing to do is usually, do something.

> Take women for instance - everyone had a mother, many a sister, and it's unlikely that any will live a life where it's quality at some time won't be determined by the actions or beliefs of a woman.

I think you're approaching this from a dangerously wrong angle. It sounds like you're suggesting that people shouldn't attack women because they might find themselves in a position where women have power over them. I really hope that's not what you meant.

I suspect you're misinterpreting what I said - put that down to my poor writing skills if you like. I used the term quality, and meant quality - not feelings of security or need for superior position. Please view it in the offered context - bigotry is stupid. I gave an example of a common type of bigotry found in my culture - misogyny, it can equally apply to any "group".
Those that judge any group to be of lesser merit are bigots - to do so lowers the quality of their lives. Which is stupid.
I could say that "flat-earthers" are of lesser merit. While it's (possibly) true in the context of choosing astrophysists - it's stupid in other contexts. Bigots paint with a broad brush. Whether or not I'm ever in a position where flat-earthers have power over me is besides the point - it denies them any other merits (whether I recognise the merits or not). Which, IMO, is stupid.

I hope that helps clarify any misunderstandings.

Kind regards, SFITCS

It's perfectly fine to say that anyone who believes the earth is flat has little value to offer to anyone, and that their opinions should be discounted across the board.

And I'm suggesting that bigotry is wrong whether it harms the bigot or not. It's extra stupid if it harms the bigot, but it's wrong even in the sadly common case where it does not.

Internet abuse culture is a tech industry problem

Stupid is stupid

Re: Stupid is stupid

Re: Stupid is stupid

Re: Stupid is stupid

Re: Stupid is stupid

Re: Stupid is stupid