When people talk about women’s negative experiences in EA, they act as if it happens because men just don’t care about women’s feelings.
I opened the second example you cited, and they explictly deny the framework you are offering here. I’ll quote in full because I think it’s relevant here:
It’s interesting, because in these instances, I’m never talking about intention. I’m never saying, “this person condescends me because they are sexist” or “this person touches me because they are malicious.” And yet, immediately, a charitable intention is proposed to me. An explanation offered, the action is defended. Lest I start getting any ideas of even daring to suggest ill intent.
But I don’t care that much about intent anymore, because I’ve learned it’s a losing game. I don’t care if they are autistic or traumatised or delusional or shy or if free will exists or doesn’t. At a point, we’ve just lost the plot entirely. I am identifying an action that I want stopped. I do not need to have my empathy invoked. I naturally have immense empathy—often to my own detriment, often to a far greater degree than the “intention explorers” I’m conversing with. I am voicing a hurt and a need. And a helpful solution might be as simple as giving someone feedback. Or even just offering recognition.
The outcomes of your actions matter more than your intent. If it got to the point of you being banned from EA spaces, probably your actions had quite negative outcomes. In that case it is your responsibility to manage your behaviour to prevent causing those negative outcomes again, and it is the communities responsibility to prevent you and others from doing the same.
I added some posts to try and give context to the piece.
I think that many people seem to hold it against the men in question personally. Do you disagree? If not, not sure we need to discuss a different article.
[edit] deleted because I realise i should not engage with this post for the reasons I clarify below (I know the person & a few of the reasons they were reported, I find this emotionally-charged and overwhelming and don’t know how to be neutral or “objective” on the basis of the post alone)
FWIW, I read your post and appreciated it. (I’m the same Kip who commented on it when you posted it initially. Hi!)
But “Men who upset women in EA don’t care about women’s feelings” was roughly one of my takeaways from the post! So I don’t think it’s an unfair interpretation. I didn’t see it as the main thesis, but I found that point interesting and memorable.
Here’s the snippet that gave me that takeaway (emphasis added by me):
> it turned out, the problem wasn’t that my cues were too difficult to read. Or that I was too passive or too fawning or too inarticulate. That was mostly a convenient story. The problem was: they did not care what I wanted if it contradicted what they wanted.
The above snippet makes it sound like EA guys were fully blaming you for communication issues, and they didn’t care what you wanted. And it seems to claim that their lack-of-care was the core problem.
OP sounds like a counter example for this pattern; he (at least partly) blames himself for being clumsy, and expresses (in many ways) that he did actually care about “what they wanted.”
Hey Kip! That makes sense to me. I think I basically just can’t objectively comment or reflect on this post because I know OP and the details of some of the stuff they were reported for. So I won’t say anything more meaningful here, but I appreciate your comment :)
Hi, I read the piece a while back. I liked some bits and disliked others. Mainly I wanted to give some context for my piece.
I don’t think my piece is deeply engaging with yours, nor is it intending to.
On harms versus intent, I agree harms matter more.
But I disagree on the last point. I think harm probably is sometimes the result of people with different norms/ preferences/ boundaries interacting. And I think EA takes particular sides in these cases.
thanks for updating! I realise I’m becoming overwhelmed since it’s very obvious to me who wrote this post, so I’m just going to bow out and delete my comment (so as to prevent me thinking about this post any further).
I opened the second example you cited, and they explictly deny the framework you are offering here. I’ll quote in full because I think it’s relevant here:
The outcomes of your actions matter more than your intent. If it got to the point of you being banned from EA spaces, probably your actions had quite negative outcomes. In that case it is your responsibility to manage your behaviour to prevent causing those negative outcomes again, and it is the communities responsibility to prevent you and others from doing the same.
I added some posts to try and give context to the piece.
I think that many people seem to hold it against the men in question personally. Do you disagree? If not, not sure we need to discuss a different article.
[edit] deleted because I realise i should not engage with this post for the reasons I clarify below (I know the person & a few of the reasons they were reported, I find this emotionally-charged and overwhelming and don’t know how to be neutral or “objective” on the basis of the post alone)
FWIW, I read your post and appreciated it. (I’m the same Kip who commented on it when you posted it initially. Hi!)
But “Men who upset women in EA don’t care about women’s feelings” was roughly one of my takeaways from the post! So I don’t think it’s an unfair interpretation. I didn’t see it as the main thesis, but I found that point interesting and memorable.
Here’s the snippet that gave me that takeaway (emphasis added by me):
> it turned out, the problem wasn’t that my cues were too difficult to read. Or that I was too passive or too fawning or too inarticulate. That was mostly a convenient story. The problem was: they did not care what I wanted if it contradicted what they wanted.
The above snippet makes it sound like EA guys were fully blaming you for communication issues, and they didn’t care what you wanted. And it seems to claim that their lack-of-care was the core problem.
OP sounds like a counter example for this pattern; he (at least partly) blames himself for being clumsy, and expresses (in many ways) that he did actually care about “what they wanted.”
Hey Kip! That makes sense to me. I think I basically just can’t objectively comment or reflect on this post because I know OP and the details of some of the stuff they were reported for. So I won’t say anything more meaningful here, but I appreciate your comment :)
@titotal, note that this reply sort of stands in contrast to your original message.
Hi, I read the piece a while back. I liked some bits and disliked others. Mainly I wanted to give some context for my piece.
I don’t think my piece is deeply engaging with yours, nor is it intending to.
On harms versus intent, I agree harms matter more.
But I disagree on the last point. I think harm probably is sometimes the result of people with different norms/ preferences/ boundaries interacting. And I think EA takes particular sides in these cases.
The way you’ve formatted this post makes it seem like my article and the time article are examples of the thesis, you might want to clarify that.
thanks for updating! I realise I’m becoming overwhelmed since it’s very obvious to me who wrote this post, so I’m just going to bow out and delete my comment (so as to prevent me thinking about this post any further).