It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
For those who feel I acted like a jerk when writing the above lines, I do apologize.
only to be met with shockingly ignorant resistance and asinine replies, sometimes bordering on complete asshattery.
Only? Really? That's the only thing they've been met by?
I've seen plenty of what you describe, but also good faith efforts to understand and overcome ignorance. Sure, it's slow and goes round and round, but that's the nature of changing ingrained attitudes and presumptions. It's easier and faster to put people against the wall and shoot them, but it's not that kind of revolution. This is the painful, frustrating, tiring and depressing one-soul-at-a-time sort of revolution.
I'm sorry it takes a while for me to grasp things that other people might have already grasped. I totally get that it is frustrating for people who have an advanced understanding of something to have to constantly re-explain the basics, especially when a segment of the correspondents want to question, debate, haggle over or simply reject every bit of the explanation. This is why I think it's totally acceptable that some of the best posts to this discussion have been links to online resources that do this explaining.
(mostly coming from old members who barely post in other threads but have swamped this one)
Guilty as charged, I suppose. In my defence, none of the other threads on Typedrawers are very interesting or lively.
One thing I didn’t have room to fit in my article was the differences in the ways people communicate.
I don’t think this is strictly a gender thing; although John Grey makes broad generalizations that may work for a significant amount of the North American population, I don’t think *all* women need to be talked to in one way, nor do I think all men need to be talked to in another. We're all on a spectrum of communication styles, which is why it is so important to consider individuals as individuals, not just as a member of a group.
As the results of my survey suggested, many educators noticed a bigger difference between cultures rather than genders.
So being aware of these potential differences is the first step. I think we’ve covered awareness.
The second step is making compromises, on both sides. If you’re having trouble with one particular coworker, maybe they don’t quite fit in the way with the rest of the team, consider that maybe their communication style is simply different. If you think they have valuable things to contribute, consider meeting them halfway. And be patient in trying to get them to understand how to compromise, too.
This doesn’t apply solely to women in androcentric workplaces, but immigrants in new countries, young people starting their first job out of college, etc.
at the same time I was jealous of him for just getting upset about the unfriendliness of the shop assistants and not worrying about his race, sex, or the command of language.
I suppose that the
couple of days that male human beings are encouraged to be silent in this
thread, are over now.
For those who feel I acted like a jerk when writing the above lines, I
Because I had the
impression that some people give another meaning to “acting like a jerk or dick”
than I do, and because Lila Symons (August 20) suggested to apologize when
acting like that—I apologized in advance to those people who feel I acted like
that. Most of all, this way of apologizing was meant to show my helplessness
with the concept of “jerk or dick like behavior”.
I would suggest that
this forum is a place for a meeting of different minds, different perspectives,
different opinions, different solutions, different techniques, different ways
of saying things, etc—not just a place for single-mindedness, single
perspectives, compatible opinions, identical solutions, uniform techniques,
uniform ways of saying things, etc. In other words, I would suggest diversity—not
A condition for this
diversity is tolerance—tolerance for other perspectives, other opinions, other
solutions, other techniques, other ways of saying things, etc.
A lack of tolerance, a
lack of acceptance of what is “other”, can manifest itself in many ways. One of
them is oversensitivity. Another is making rules stricter than necessary—like
not only expecting people to behave decently, but also expecting them to be nice
to each other (which is, in itself, a way to justify oversensitivity). A lack
of tolerance induces self-censorship and, by that, a reduction of diversity.
So I would suggest the
people here to be more tolerant and less sensitive, in order to let more diversity
Saying things like “don’t
be a dick” or “don’t act like a jerk”, is a type of name-calling (verbal abuse;
a crude substitute for argument)—so I would suggest not to do that here anymore.
Name-calling and other forms of verbal abuse against people with another point
of view, discourages diversity. Even exclamations like “shame on you” or “what
a disgrace”, can discourage diversity.
When you disagree with
something that someone else has written, refrain from any form of verbal abuse,
and do not attack, disqualify, or discredit this person—but respond to what
this person has written: make clear what you disagree with, explain why you
disagree with it, give suggestions for an alternative way to see or do it, etc.
This is the way I read “Personal attacks are unacceptable” from TypeDrawers
Rule Number 4.
I would also add: Take
the person who has written what you disagree with, seriously, and assume that
this person has good intentions. Assuming that a person who writes things you
disagree with, is not serious or has bad intentions—induces bad feelings and
intolerance, and makes a real meeting of minds much harder. Moreover, it is a
lazy way to dismiss what this person has written. I would suggest a “presumption
of seriousness and good intentions”, like the well-known “presumption of
John Hudson (August
20) gave an example of an inappropriate comment:
I used to get very frustrated on Typophile when I’d see someone take the
time to compose a long and thoughtful contribution to a discussion, only to see
a certain other person dismiss it with a one line comment. I figured that
person was being disrespectful, not only to the person who had spent more than
five seconds to engage in discussion, but also to the discussion and everyone
else involved in it. Did that person understand he was being a dick, though? I
doubt it. And maybe other people didn’t think he was, but I did.
can be both short and long. Did I see an inappropriate comment in this thread?
Yes. (See above in this comment, for the reasons why I think the quoted comment
below is inappropriate.) It is a comment by Jackson Cavanaugh (August 20):
FWIW, this thread has become a massive turn-off, not just to me but to
many of the people I talk to off the board. What started as a simple celebration of new users has turned into a
clusterfuck of semantic bickering, over-the-top defensiveness, and concern
trolling that has completely sabotaged the conversation (mostly coming from old
members who barely post in other threads but have swamped this one).
Congratulations, guys.I’m amazed people like Ray, ECS, Victoria, and Nicole still have the
patience to continue trying to communicate an idea that boils down to simple
human decency (thank you, A+, super uplifting) only to be met with shockingly
ignorant resistance and asinine replies, sometimes bordering on complete
asshattery. Plenty has been said here. Frankly, some of you should be embarrassed.
Instead of running another lap around the circle, I’m going to move on,
shifting my energy to new threads.
So, fellow human
beings here, instead of calling names, instead of patting like-minded people on
the back (which is yet another way of discouraging diversity), let’s celebrate
diversity—by being more tolerant, less sensitive, by taking each other
seriously, and by assuming that we all have good intentions.
but you're welcome to stay out of this thread.
the men seem to be un-diversifying this thread, as is their won’t
Already there are limits to the time during which one can edit one’s post, so why not a limit to the amount men can post?
Alvaro & Thomas,
I was only addressing oversensitivity related to intolerance—not other forms of
Thomas, I sympathize
with asking people to be careful (supposing it’s not a way to make rules
stricter than necessary)—but I don’t think discriminating here against people based
on “privilege”, “dominance”, or whatever, is a good idea. To limit inappropriate
behavior, I would suggest one and the same set of rules for all participants here.
I am not sure whether people here refuse to listen. Perhaps some people here listen very
carefully—and then just disagree. Disagreement may be proof there is diversity
Disagreement about perspectives, opinions, etc.—implies there are
different perspectives, different opinions, etc. When there are different
perspectives, different opinions, etc., here—diversity is happening here.
I don’t think there is such a thing as “oversensitivity related to
intolerance” happening here.
A lack of tolerance for (i.e. a lack of acceptance of) other
perspectives, other opinions, other solutions, other techniques, other ways of
saying things, etc., can manifest itself in oversensitivity. This
oversensitivity implies easily becoming upset or annoyed about other
perspectives, other opinions, etc., than your own. Are there people in this
thread who were annoyed about others they disagree with? I think there are.
When I suggest the people here to be more tolerant and less sensitive—I
suggest them to be more accepting towards other perspectives, other opinions,
etc., than their own; and to be less annoyed by other perspectives, opinions,
etc., than their own.
There seems to be an irony here. Because of the arrival of new people
here (being celebrated as an increase of diversity), there is a discussion here
which, at times, suggests a lack of tolerance or acceptance for other
perspectives, other opinions, etc.
Ray, you are really
unfair by suggesting that I am insisting on an atmosphere where anyone can say
whatever they want. I suggest an atmosphere of tolerance, within a set of rules
to limit inappropriate behavior. I even suggested to reduce verbal abuse here.
I never suggested that anyone should agree with other opinions than their own—I
only suggested tolerance towards other opinions.
Ray, I thought the
reason the arrival of women here would increase diversity, was the fact that
they would bring in other perspectives, other opinions, other solutions, etc.,
than those that were current here.
And now you suggest
that the only thing they need to do to increase diversity here, is being a
woman? Whatever they say, it doesn’t matter—they only have to be a woman?
And to encourage the
arrival of women, we have to reduce the diversity in perspectives, opinions,
etc., here—to make them feel welcome here?
I am sorry, Ray, but
I’m afraid we live in two completely different worlds.
Later added PS: In a direct message from
a few hours ago, Stephen Coles told me that he thinks that I am trolling. He
recommended me that I take a break for a few weeks—at least from the
Diversity thread. I responded to him in a direct message, that I think he is
unfair to me, and that I will take a break for a few weeks—unless unfair comments are made towards me.
I don't think we need be tolerant of someone telling people with less privilege that they're being too sensitive.
LeMo aka Frank E Blokland said:In a world which is becoming increasingly intolerant and unstable due to groups of people who want to decide for all of us what is allowed or not, above all we should cherish the privilege of freedom of speech.
So people can and should have their own self-determination, as long as it doesn't impose anything on anyone else. ...Last thing is that this principle is not a receipt for anarchy!
Actually, it's pretty much a textbook definition of anarchy: the limits of your freedom are the edges of other peoples' freedom, hence people in community need to agree the principles and rules by which they will cooperate.
Ofir Shavit said:Last thing is that this principle is not a receipt for anarchy! The broad rules(!) of the community should be (and does) clearly drawn, thus this principle can guide within it.
The following may be derailing the thread, but I wanted to share something I experienced last week.
Recently, I had a font issue that was baffling every type designer I asked.
I thought about posting the problem on TypeDrawers, but decided to ask a few female type designers I recently met online.
The problem was solved quickly, without hostility, snark, or mansplaining. I even got some unexpected feedback on my typeface that ended up being useful!
It’s sad that so many cannot have that experience on TypeDrawers.