This is a really unfortunate treatment of a serious topic. There are valuable insights, but the signal to noise ratio is too low.
To be clear, I'm not launching the "I didn't like your TONE"; I'm launching the "I didn't like how you trivialized and subverted your own argument".
To take just the first 3 points made:
1. Is the objection to the inclusion of a glossary? The serious criticism is that sexism is not rape, and makes it sound alarmist, though both are power displays. But to belittle the point by a solipsistic argument ( I don’t know about you but I haven’t exactly read a lot of news about rapes at web agencies lately ) only fuels people who would repurpose that line to say they haven't seen sexism at their company.
2. Is the objection to the inclusion of research? The serious criticism is that she rejects the exclusion of several self-collected data points, even if they have not been compiled by sociologists. But to subvert the point with a general aspersion to research at large ( Some research is great, but a lot of research is totally skewed to prove a point, and it’s not always easy to tell which is which ) only fuels people who would repurpose that line about the point trying to be made.
3. The serious criticism is that he has unsubstantiated assertions ( all women find a male-dominated industry “less appealing” and all-male groups less welcoming ), but the trivialization that immediately follows ( at the very least you need to preface them with ‘some research has found’ or ‘many women find that’ ) fundamentally denies the value that statistics, and empirical measurement, plays in social science.
It sounds like there's a kernel of something valuable, but the signal to noise ratio is too low. I'd love to re-read this after a few revisions.
Just because she didn't write as if her blog were an academic journal doesn't mean she isn't giving a serious topic the treatment it deserves. Her post exists to state that "the whole [.net] article is hyperbolic generalisation."
To be clear, I'm not launching the "I didn't like your TONE"; I'm launching the "I didn't like how you trivialized and subverted your own argument".
To take just the first 3 points made:
1. Is the objection to the inclusion of a glossary? The serious criticism is that sexism is not rape, and makes it sound alarmist, though both are power displays. But to belittle the point by a solipsistic argument ( I don’t know about you but I haven’t exactly read a lot of news about rapes at web agencies lately ) only fuels people who would repurpose that line to say they haven't seen sexism at their company.
2. Is the objection to the inclusion of research? The serious criticism is that she rejects the exclusion of several self-collected data points, even if they have not been compiled by sociologists. But to subvert the point with a general aspersion to research at large ( Some research is great, but a lot of research is totally skewed to prove a point, and it’s not always easy to tell which is which ) only fuels people who would repurpose that line about the point trying to be made.
3. The serious criticism is that he has unsubstantiated assertions ( all women find a male-dominated industry “less appealing” and all-male groups less welcoming ), but the trivialization that immediately follows ( at the very least you need to preface them with ‘some research has found’ or ‘many women find that’ ) fundamentally denies the value that statistics, and empirical measurement, plays in social science.
It sounds like there's a kernel of something valuable, but the signal to noise ratio is too low. I'd love to re-read this after a few revisions.