0xabad1dea

O tumblr, my tumblr, the delightful romp is done
The board approved e’ry point, your future has been won
Gods dammit
#poem

Hey, people who camp tags to send inflammatory trolls to women and allies:

Go screw your 3D simulated sex partner, I’m fabulous

Mansplained

I was informed by the Mansplaining Brigade tonight that “man” is not a gendered word in the English language.

Great, so your mother is a man then? Lesbianism is man-on-man love? Don’t you dare say “well obviously I only meant sometimes”. I’m not psychic; your use of “man” doesn’t come with a little tag that says “oh, obviously I mean women too, I just couldn’t be bothered to say so.”

These people (certain people, not everyone) just can’t get over the idea that a woman might want to be referred to as a “craftswoman” or a “craftsperson” or an “artisan” or pretty much anything but “craftsman”; they think that’s really weird and unreasonable that she doesn’t want to be systematically misgendered and her identity covered up with a tarp because it doesn’t fit the stereotype.

One person even told me unironically that the -man suffix denotes species in such words. So we don’t get confused with craftsoctopi I guess. They want me to “disassociate” the word “man” from, uh, men.

The idea that the word “craftsman” was chosen by a sexist culture to describe a field of employment women were usually barred from, and this has changed because we’re no longer blatantly sexist to the core, seems to elude these people… or the idea that academic centers with the power to influence language standards are historically all-male and many to this day remain predominantly male. Our culture historically categorizes “men” as “us” and “women” as “them”, the other. As a result, we have a language that is systematically male-biased (despite no longer being a grammatically gendered language like Spanish) and people are often not even consciously aware of it.

Best excuse: it’s too cumbersome to acknowledge other genders! Ah, the good old days, when men were men and women were men because that’s shorter to write.

Believe it or not, this started when I linked http://techcompaniesthatonlyhiremen.tumblr.com/ which points out that job listings frequently use gendered language, because people assume the applicants will be male, because of the self-perpetuating culture of sexism which is only slowly eroding. Imagine flipping all of those gendered pronouns to she, her, lady, etc. People would flip out or find it incredibly weird and uncomfortable.

Thanks to everyone who “gets it” - whether or not they totally agree with me, as I certainly don’t expect everyone to. Gender deletion is the very face of sexism whether it’s intentional or not. Referring to me with words that have a male connotation sends the message that my gender is so abnormal that words fail you. It paints the picture that you’re just going to pretend I’m a guy and hope my weird, strange gender goes away. Is that what you’re consciously thinking? Probably not - but that’s the underlying process that causes such things.

I’m so freaking sick of people who tell me to gender-neutralize my online identity because the pink and sparkles are “weird” or because I’d “have an easier time fitting in.” (Pink isn’t even my favorite color. I just resort to using it in an attempt to not be assumed male.) Hey, genius, I’m objectively a girl. If that freaks you out, it’s your failure to deal with observed reality that there are women who do things you associate with men.

See also http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html for another, more clever, take on this.

Mansplainers who want me to know that everything I just wrote is stupid and I’m a whiny bitch, please take a ticket for the next train to hell.

Thoughts on the Boston Lockdown from the edge

A lot of people are angry, upset, or worried about the “Boston Lockdown” as a sign that Freedom Is Over. One thing almost all of these people have in common is not having been in Boston at the time. I work in information security and I’m involved with the privacy scene; I understand there’s a lot going on in America to be worried about. I’m writing this to try and explain that the police acted in good faith, they did the best job they could, and this was not, as it may have appeared from the outside, some sort of martial law terrorizing the citizenry.

I’m a resident of the Boston suburbs, who also works in the suburbs, and I occasionally make forays into the city proper. My family is from the greater Boston area, going back to the Irish immigration wave and to the Pilgrims. On Monday, when the bombs went off, I was working from home and happened to have Twitter open - I found out within seconds. After watching long enough to get confirmation from multiple sources, I sent a company-wide email to plan on not taking the trains home. I was listening to the police radio and knew they believed there to be more bombs. The fact that they turned out to not be explosive was itself immaterial; when a terror attack has been initiated, you hope your adversaries are incompetent amateurs, but act under the assumption they’re sick, twisted, and prepared to do the unthinkable.

During this time, it was clear from the police scanner that their #1 concern was getting everyone to safety and reuniting families. They remained quite calm and professional. I cheered when they broadcasted that every single one of roughly a hundred and eighty victims had arrived at a medical treatment center, about an hour into the incident.

Later that night, I hitched a ride with my boss to the heart of the city to set up for a conference called Source Boston which was to begin Tuesday at noon. The only remarkable thing about this trip was that hotel staff asked our names and checked our bags before allowing us past the lobby. Let me emphasize: this was not the police, this was private security inside a private building, and we could have refused and simply not entered the hotel. So far as I know, only the crime scene itself and portions of the subway system were under any special protection at this time.

Tuesday was an uneventful span of speculation. There were more police out and about than typical, particularly on the transit system, but no-one I met seemed to feel afraid or threatened. Someone who was speaking at the conference had their flight cancelled and couldn’t make it in time… but that was the only effect it had on us. Wednesday dragged on with rumors, only rumors. On Thursday morning there was a very strong presence of police and military with assault rifles, because the President was coming. I suspected, just as they did, that if the terrorists were planning on striking again, now was the time. We are very predictable in holding these sorts of high-profile ceremonies, so it was possible that bombing the memorial to break our national heart was the goal all along.

The President came and went without any disaster striking. Thursday night, the FBI published their official photos of the suspects, two quite ordinary-looking young men who would never be worth a second glance anywhere in Boston. This area is very international, you know - it teems with exchange students and well-educated immigrants and people who came here for a new chance at life. Every time I go to the grocery store I see families from all over the world, many apparently Muslim. The idea of being threatened by Muslims in general is absurd and I condemn anyone who assaulted or harassed someone because they appeared to be Muslim. (In a twist that upset everyone’s pet theory, the suspects turned out to be both white Americans and Muslims, though as I write this, no stated motive is available.)

The convention formally ended Thursday evening and most attendees dispersed to the winds, but a few of us were planning on staying late. Our car was parked out by Alewife Station somewhere and our friend was going to give us a ride from the hotel to the station when we were ready to go. Once again, I happened to be checking Twitter (I do that a lot) when the first reports of a shooting at MIT surfaced. No-one assumed it was the bombers: it’s a city, random shootings will happen. What people did express was frustration with stupid freaking criminals having the disrespect to cause a scene in the middle of an investigation. At this point, some of my local MIT friends ragequit Twitter and went to bed. They didn’t want to deal with the stress of murder on their campus on top of the stress of the terror investigation.

It was the point at which news of grenades hit Twitter that suddenly everything came into focus. A frenzy of attempts to confirm that it was in fact a detonation and not some random city noise was settled when people I knew and trusted said they heard several small explosions from their house. I went around and told everyone still chilling at the conference not to leave the hotel, because some nutjob who may or not be a marathon bomber was armed and dangerous and running around with nothing to lose. Mainstream media was in bed; we only had the radio and eyewitnesses over social media. We (the waking Twitter population) by and large understood that this was not 100% reliable. Boston is not much of an after-midnight city to begin with, so there was hardly anyone on the streets to worry about. I remember seeing a pizza delivery truck rolling by well after the violence in progress had been declared to be the bombers making their getaway. I hope they got a nice tip.

Several of us ended up getting a few rooms at two in the morning and crashing instead of going home, since it was abundantly clear that the remaining bomber was armed and dangerous. Boston is a surprisingly small area, incredibly dense and mazelike, and much more easily navigated by bike or on foot than with cars. Staying inside if you have the option is not cowardice or foolishness in such a situation, it’s practical. The bombers had already murdered one person, shot up another, and kidnapped someone before kicking them out of their own car. The younger one was so panicked that he had run over his own brother’s body trying to get away from the cops. It’s completely irresponsible to be outside and make yourself a target for hostage-taking by a desperate terrorist unless you have a truly compelling reason.

I took a sleeping pill because there were sirens everywhere; I have a good ear for them. The last thing I remember is that my manager, who lives in Watertown, was barricaded inside his house by the police to keep him from being taken hostage. To my understanding the police communicated with him and this was by consent. A widespread misconception I saw on Twitter is that SWAT teams were running around and breaking into people’s houses and ransacking them. I haven’t seen a single report of this from a local! The worst I heard is that they opened exterior basement doors and sheds. They knocked on doors and asked if people would like their houses checked. It’s not like the police assumed anyone was deliberately sheltering the terrorist. Now, I am not going to make a blanket statement that not one single breach of respect happened. Thousands of people were involved, there was probably at least one. Just let me emphasize: the police made every effort to not screw this up and not terrorize people. The documented incidents make sense in context: there was unambiguously an armed and dangerous maniac somewhere in Watertown. Some police forces we shall not name would probably have racked up seven or eight civilian shootings and burned down a couple houses. While it’s really quite pathetic that we’re pleasantly surprised when this doesn’t happen, well, it didn’t happen. Hooray.

I woke up at 11am on Friday and my first action was to post on Twitter asking what I needed to know before I got out of bed. The answer?: “Don’t bother, go back to sleep. They’re still looking for him and everything’s closed.” It became clear that something called “shelter in place” was going on. This is the “lockdown” everyone heard about. Let me emphasize this very clearly: this was NOT a lockdown in the classical sense. People were on the sidewalks. Cars were on the streets. Just not very many. No cops or soldiers were running around bothering people outside of the immediate vicinity of Watertown. The idea that the entire city shut down simply isn’t true. Restaurants and shops and other assorted businesses were mostly closed, but this was by choice of the operators to heed the call to do so. It was, by and large, a surprise holiday; the park near the hotel was actually quite crowded.

The hotel kindly allowed us to delay checkout, and mid-afternoon we were able to find a taxi driver willing to take us all the way to Alewife Station, which itself was completely closed. Our car was severely overdue on the parking time limit, and this will probably be the only time in our lives we escape the watchful eye of the meter police. We actually passed through a corner of Watertown on the way home, which was alive and well.

A lot of people are concerned about the cost to the city of Boston that the lockdown incurred. Two points: first, we have severe weather incidents every year with similar effects on business, and our economy doesn’t collapse; second, pretty much every single last person in the greater Boston area would personally sign the check paid out of our taxes to see the marathon bombers taken off the streets. We wanted this. We wanted to facilitate the investigation and we wanted those prepared to deal with an armed terrorist checking the hidey-holes in our neighborhoods, which was exactly where Suspect #2 was found. It is better that the trained negotiators handled it than the private citizens, because let me tell you, the city is filled with people who wouldn’t have hesitated to beat him to death with their bare tattooed hands, and it is important for both human rights and for the investigation that he was taken alive. I regret that the older brother has died but, fittingly, it seems to have been the younger brother’s fault anyway.

Some people feel that Boston has failed to “refuse to be terrorized.” Let me make something clear: being cautious during an ongoing terror attack (even a relatively small one such as this) is not a shameful thing, it’s common sense. “Being terrorized” would be if we cancelled next year’s marathon. There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening. “Being terrorized” would be if we ceased to be a welcoming home for people from all over the world. That had better not happen, and I don’t think it will.

Incidents where a few people die and many are injured happen all the time even in America - the Texas explosion seems timed by fate to remind us of this. It’s true, we don’t make it an issue for every single person in a city every time three or four people are murdered. In this case, the people of Boston chose to make it their issue. This attack was extremely personal. We responded in kind. This was not a city driven by fear. This was a city driven by a keen and righteous fury. We absolutely will not tolerate anyone attacking the heart of our culture. We’re not worried about the monetary cost of bringing everything to a screeching halt to make sure there is no possibility of escape. There are a lot of Bostonians, we can keep this up longer than our handful of cowardly enemies can.

Finally, those of you who watched from a distance: thank you for your attention, your concern, and your outpouring of support. However, if you are worried that this was “normalization of the police state,” let me assure you there was nothing “normal” about this. Our governor is not signing some sort of order to turn Boston into a rights-free zone on account of two kids with a pressure cooker. I know it’s freaky to see photos of armed troops in an American neighborhood, but that’s just it - it’s freaky. It’s unusual. There was a very specific reason for it and the locals wanted them there and they’ve packed up because the mission is over. I know we in infosec are paid to be paranoid but thinking that this was a “dry run” for some sort of coup is a little over the top even for us.

Now is a good time to reflect on the fact that in some parts of the world, none of this would have seemed remarkable. There are entire countries worn down by constant petty terrorism. Dozens of innocent people have died in bombings abroad during this investigation.

I think Boston’s reaction is a key component of keeping it unusual in our country. Zero tolerance for terrorism.

This is the city which would not be cowed by the wrath of an empire. We won that war. We will not be cowed by you, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and we will be victorious over hatred, fear, and senseless violence.

Boston is my ancestral home. I came back after living far away for half of my life. I’m so glad I did.

Abadidea’s Guide To Internet Arguing

1. Not everyone on the internet is an adult. This cannot be emphasized enough. Someone who seems incredibly dumb or ignorant may actually just be thirteen years old.

2. Not everyone on the internet speaks English as their native language. Misunderstandings happen. Grammatical mistakes happen. Difficulty expressing themselves does not automatically make someone dumb.

3. People come from many countries with many political systems and a different idea of what “normal” is. Don’t project your beliefs as “normal” even if you strongly believe they are “right.”

4. Before you get upset with someone, consider how much you have in common vs. the size of what you disagree over. Don’t create internal disorder in your cause over minor things.

5. Lead with a compliment. If you really can’t think of one, there’s a good chance you need to back off.

6. Do not accuse the other person of being “completely horrible” based on one stance which is a hot issue with you. From their point of view, you’re ignoring the vast number of ways they’re indisputably not horrible and they’ll dismiss you as too extreme. Most people are trying to be good people; give them the benefit of the doubt.

7. Take other people’s complaints about you into consideration. Some are wrong. Some are dead on.

8. Be rigorous in avoiding the clear-cut logical fallacies. Annotate your intent if you play around with them. Call out people who fall into them. If you’re relying on one, recheck your beliefs.

9. While we’re on that subject, stop getting the definitions of “ad hominem” and “straw man” wrong. Sometimes an insult is just an insult. Sometimes speculation is just speculation.

10. Don’t confuse people who deliberately spread misinformation with those who fall for it.

11. No-one has the time to be an expert in every subject. Don’t be condescending to the innocently ignorant and don’t tell a genuine expert their business just because you have a Strong Opinion on something you’re only casually familiar with.

12. Graciously accept being corrected. Better ex-wrong than wrong.

13. The other person is probably not as angry or rude as they sound in your head.

14. Intent matters.

15. Behavior matters.

16. Context matters.

17. It’s not “just the internet.” This is the excuse of the dishonest troll.

18. No matter what you do, some people really are just willfully ignorant, hateful, prejudiced, and awful. Your #1 most important job is to not be one of them.

Concerning the nature of a woman of computer science

A long-form response to Ionic, who, in essence, has found woman’s dedication lacking, if she submits so few papers in comparison to her fellows of the masculine gender.

Mr. Ionic (or Mr. Esser, if you prefer) I am writing this because we have exceeded the capabilities of Twitter to contain our disagreement, opening the dam a hundred and forty little symbols of mutual anger at a time, never enough to wash each other off our piers of certainty. You are welcome to reply in kind, and so we may have a war, a true and proper war, where the best weapons are brought out and carefully aimed. I hope you will forgive me in having an advantage I did not ask for: English is the language of my infancy, whereas you had to earn its secrets the long and toilsome way. My ability to make the most deft use of this language shall probably always exceed yours, no matter the effort – and while the same is true concerning you and your mastery of German, political reality suggests my luck was better. I do not need another language to pursue my passions. You do.

I bring this up not to make a mockery of nationality, but to suggest that just as I may, in the arrogance of innocent advantage, forget that not everyone is an English bard, so too might anyone not know the full measure of what circumstance has given them. I do not know what it is like to be a German-speaker or a Mandarin-speaker or a Hindi-speaker plying the sciences dominated by English, having to first overcome the barrier of language to participate as an equal. You do not know what it is like to be a woman in the very same circumstance: that the intellectual industries present a man with some barriers, and a woman all these and a few more, and some higher. Surely you and I can both point to this or that little detail, in which woman has the advantage over man, but when one backs up and weighs them fairly they are not equal compensation. I doubt you would wish to forget German in exchange for a perfect English, however, and I would not wish to depart from womanhood. Both of these are matters of who we truly are, desirable in and of themselves, not because of the luck of advantage.

I do not know in detail the chapters of your life, the circumstances peculiar to you rising to a certain renown in our field, but I do know that your intellectual prowess is quite real and readily evident. No-one now contests this, though surely there was a time when you were yet unknown. However, I would venture that while you were proving yourself to the public, no-one ever accused you of presenting the work of your hypothetical wife, nor discussed whether you were truly a man as you claimed, or in actuality a woman in disguise. Does that not sound absurd? This, however, is woman’s task: first to leap the barrier of competence, the same as you, then to leap the barrier of proving that she is, in fact, the same person who is found competent. For years I toiled to learn the craft under accusations of not being a woman, because there are no women in our field, because anyone who claims to be is not a woman…, or else I was a harlot, preying on the hearts of innocent boys and falsifying my abilities (perhaps having a boy write my exploits for me) to string along their affection. To what end? I cannot imagine.

So far as I have known their motivations, strangers said these things to me because they were unable to separate their sexual orientation towards women from perceiving women as fellow sojourners seeking knowledge. Our field is noted for being the bay in which the socially different come to drop anchor, and I believe much of it was spoken not on account of deliberate vitriol, but out of fear and anxiety. I am also anxious – I am a shipwreck upon the shoals of social competence. I also experience sexual attraction towards men in this industry, certain ones at least. Hence it is not attraction itself that I find troublesome, nor the social blunders which we all commit; rather, it is a willingness to take refuge in their excess, and let womankind, measuring half the blood of our existence, be the casualty of the community’s peace. This is the very folly that you promote, complaining that our kind brings trouble on our wings, swooping in to crow and blather and retreating to brood in our nests of contempt for your gender. Consider rather that we are scratched by ten thousand thorns, none lethal but each painful, and at some point there are too many little cuts bleeding out our dignity. We protest, and are told that we complain of one thorn, whichever pricked us last. No-one’s path is free of thorns, but some begin within the briars of presumption and must fight their way out. They reach the road bleeding; others, more fortunate, suppose them to have foolishly done this to themselves.

This is the root of what I have been trying to express to you: in any time, in any place, there are those who must struggle more than others to claim their honor. Each of us must be vigilant against supposing that our good fortune is so readily seized by all who would have use of it.

If two percent of your submitted papers are written by women, Mr. Esser, there may be a larger force at work than a simple lack of desire of half of humankind to pursue research and burn away long hours of their life in study. This I have done, and shall continue to do, but for years I was faced at every turn by those who would have me surrender. Few people of any gender, any nationality or religion or whatever division you prefer, could pursue a career that did not want them for so long. I say this not to praise myself, for I am so useless at other endeavors that I would not know what else to do. Rather, I say this to cast light on the host of minds whose curiosity and desire were stamped out by the boot of callousness before their passion could be truly ignited. This is the systematic bias of which women try to tell you: we are chipped away from the moment our eyes open with tools of degradation and condescension. A hundred years ago, to be a girl was to be told “no.” Now, I admit, things are a little better: to be a girl is to be told “it is possible, but you will suffer.”

This very day, I was told by a man that I should be glad to suffer, that my suffering is my glory.

No, my work is my glory. I am not here to suffer on your account. I intend to tell tomorrow’s daughters “yes,” as do many men who have given pause to consider whether they are perpetuating the problem or fighting back against it. I would advise you either help or get out of our way.