Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

This take strikes me as a weird form of reverse-sexism, in the sense of Kinsley's famous piece about reverse-snobbery (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/03/bill-o-reilly-am...).


sort by: page size:

Yes, in the upper middle class bubble this is misogynist.

Everywhere else -- that doesn't require one to adhere to trends in order to survive -- this is just a histrionic take.

Scott is lambasting both sexes, so he gets a pass as a conflict-seeking goblin speaking his mind.

Or perhaps we've been too sheltered for far too long that this is what the "real" world is like?

Impossible to discern; we are a reflection of our environment.


It also projects the author's obnoxious sexism onto the subject.

He also apparently thinks Munroe is a reverse misogynist. There's got to be a proper word for that...

It’s called misogyny.

I think that's mean and borderline sexist or misogynist.

It's funny that it's labeled misogynist when he wasn't condemning women in general, just women in Silicon Valley

are you saying social conservatives are sexist in a way that's similar to the patronizing behaviour quoted from the book? i'm a little confused about the 2nd sentence too.

It's making sweeping, disparaging generalizations about the male gender.

Woman can be very sexist to other women. This is news apparently to a lot of men. Exhibit A is Patti Sanger on the reality show, Millionaire Matchmaker. She's a full blown misogynist from the Howard Stern / Trump school. When I see that show I'm watching through splayed fingers.

"Female-biased"? Really? What a creepy thing to say.

The real wtf in this article is the incredibly sexist comparison.

Seems like a misogynist stereotype used to unthinkingly dismiss an argument.

I've heard as much of the guy's message as I can tolerate, and he's a friggin misogynist. It's scary that his message resonates with anybody. It's a negative message with its own "axis of evil": Nearly all women, a nebulous group of superior men (pick any: attractive, wealthy, educated, lucky), and modern society in general. It comes off as the rant of a brat upset that women are getting closer to having equal opportunities.

I noticed hints of misogyny as well. I don't think what he said was technically misogynist, but it smelled like it.

> women should be forced to work under a known misogynist

How do you know he's a misogynist? You read a small, absolutely marginal excerpt from a book that is clearly written in a literary style. In it, he draws a comparison between a particular woman, who is praised for her talent and resourcefulness, and "most Bay Area women", who are definitely not all women, in the Bay Area and much less in general. "Most Americans" is not a judgement on human beings, "most American men" is not a judgement on all men, so why should "most Bay Area women" be a judgement on all women? And this is even assuming that that remark corresponds to some deep conviction, which is a silly assumption given the style and the context.


I'm not entirely convinced this was misogynist.

Right now, I'm trying to think of jobs for a news provider that wouldn't require tech savvy. "Secretary" is the only one that comes to mind. Secretaries are stereotypically women.


I'm pretty sympathetic to the cause of feminism especially in technology and I cringe hard at a lot of the casual sexism that gets thrown around, but this is truly baffling. Assuming this is all they actually have on him this is nothing more than very clever word play with zero gender inferences to be made.

Quite misogynist, as well.

That quote seems to have some sexist elements itself.
next

Legal | privacy