Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Behold, modern feminism in all (his or) her glory

Courtesy of Vox Day:
One of the node.js core contributors, Ben Noordhuis, rejected a pull request that eliminated the use of a gendered pronoun in libuv. Now, this was quickly reversed by node.js project lead Isaac Schlueter (that is, Isaac accepted the patch eliminating the gendered pronoun), but because this is a Joyent-sponsored project, many made the reasonable inference that Ben is a Joyent employee—and have called Joyent to task for tolerating such poor behavior. (Especially when that poor behavior transcended into the gobsmackingly inappropriate as Ben tried to revert Isaac's commit.) 
But while Isaac is a Joyent employee, Ben is not—and if he had been, he wouldn't be as of this morning: to reject a pull request that eliminates a gendered pronoun on the principle that pronouns should in fact be gendered would constitute a fireable offense for me and for Joyent.
Let's repeat this, and bold it up, so the point is not missed.

 to reject a pull request that eliminates a gendered pronoun on the principle that pronouns should in fact be gendered would constitute a fireable offense for me and for Joyent.

And, further down in that same article, with emphasis added:
we believe that empathy is a core engineering value—and that an engineer that has so little empathy as to not understand why the use of gendered pronouns is a concern almost certainly makes poor technical decisions as well.... 
Empathy as a core engineering value. Also, if an engineer uses 'he' instead of 'he or she', then he's (oops, sorry - they are) probably are terrible at engineering.

Where do you begin with something like this? Do you talk about how bizarre it is to have a tech company considering a rejection of a pull request to correct gendered pronoun usage a 'fireable offense'? How about this idea that engineers who lack empathy must therefore make bad technical decisions - as if a broad generalization to justify decisive action, with zero evidence rallied to support it, is indicative of good decisionmaking in general?

I suppose the situation speaks for itself. Behold, the fruits of modern feminism. Deviation from the holy writ can get you fired, on the spot. Indeed, deviation from the holy writ indicates that you are bad at your job.

In a twisted way, this is actually a good thing for traditionalists and the socially conservative. It gives us something to react to, to be skeptical of, to blaspheme against. And who doesn't like a little blasphemy now and then?

6 comments:

lotharlorraine said...

In Germany and France there is a terrible dictatorship of political correctness as soon as the differences between men and women are concerned.

The European union is a totalitarian system which aims at imposing quota of females in all enterprises, even those dealing with tasks which are prefered by males.

Another trend in the whole Western world is that women like to employ their sex-appeal to get ahead. If the right type of men praise the body they show off, this is a compliment. But if they deem the man to be ugly, this is sexual harassement or even a rape attempt.

By and large modern Western feminism is a farce and a ruse.
Besides denying the obvious influence of biology on our psychology, they don't strive for equality but for the replacement of patriarchat by matriarchat (whereby it is normal for a woman to switch her partner if she feels bored or more attracted by another man).

I am for true equality, which means that exactly the same importance should be given to the well-being of men and women, while objectively considering their biological and psychological nature.

A German gay blogger was so disgusted by this state of affairs that he praised a God he does not believe in for being a homosexual and not having to deal with women as partners :-)


A related phenomenon is the so-called "antiracism" (which I mentioned the last time) where white people are always the opressors and never the victims.

As a consequence of this absurd state of affairs, a growing number of non-religous (most often agnostics or nominal Christians) feel attracted to far-right parties because they are the only one who truly expose the absurdities of the System.

Crude said...

What I like about you, Lothar, is that you are a collection of unique views. I don't agree with all of what you say, but at least I can typically know that what you're saying isn't some kind of party line.

I recalled reading recently that the EU was debating putting a quota system in place on major corporations?

Carlos F. said...

The more and more news stories like these I read, the more cynical and grumpy I become. What will it take to open the eyes of society to common sense? I just cannot imagine how much you have to delude yourself to believe the sorts of theses that are espoused by modern-day feminists (e.g. that men and women are interchangeable, that "gendered speech" is "bigoted" or some other, that women somehow have a "right" to get knowingly become pregnant and kill their child simply because they feel like it, etc.).

Great blog, by the way.

Crude said...

Thanks Carlos.

What I really find interesting is that religious thinking is often accused of being too strict in its thinking, of treating everything as black and white, of being unforgiving and intolerant of other views... but things like this happen and people call it progress.

I still can't get over empathy as a core engineering value. I'm amazed someone can say that with a straight face.

lotharlorraine said...

"What I like about you, Lothar, is that you are a collection of unique views."

I guess this is both a blessing and a curse :-)

I can find common ground but also significant points of disagreement with almost everyone.



As a consequence there is no political party I can endorse so that I have to vote for the one who is going to be the least harmful.
In Europe there is almost no longer any difference between left-wing and right-wing parties, only extremists are willing to introduce real changes.

I am for the preaching of women because I think it has been empirically demonstrated they are as capable as men to do that.
Yet I am also a complementarian, not because I hold to Biblical inerrancy, but because I believe it has been empirically proven as well there are significant differences between the sexes which transcend cultures.
And when third-wave feminists wear sexy clothes to attract and seduce the right men, they know all too well there is an asymmetry here and that a man behaving in this way would have much less success. It becomes then extremely hypocritical when they howl as soon as people talk about imposing restriction on dresses a female should wear in the public places.
In other words women should never be viewed as objects except when they are wearing a nice cleavage in order to seduce their married boss and get promoted.
Of course a man acting in this way with a female supervisor would be equally morally culpable but due to the biological differences I mentioned. this occurs very rarely.

If I told all that stuff in the real world I would most likely be shunned, even if many friends agree with me, it is extremely politically incorrect.


When I say it is utterly immoral for a girl who left her boyfriend to abort a child he wishes to become the father of, many feminists are tempted to call me a Christian Taliban.
The only problem is that they cannot really do that if they know I am also a supporter of gay marriage ;-)


Lovely greetings in Christ.


P.S: my true name is Marc.

Crude said...

Not a problem, Lothar. Mere disagreement is never a problem with me, particularly when there is common ground available. Even if things get spirited. An outsider tends to be a good intellectual sign, if they can conduct themselves reasonably, which you clearly can.

So I say, anyway.