Comment by 542354234235

This whole rant presents a false dichotomy, that you either communicate technical information with zero effort at interpersonal style, or you communicate with interpersonal style with no, or false, technical details. You frame turning criticism into constructive criticism as sugar coating or fluff. That interpersonal skill is the opposite of technical skill, rather than two different skills.

> Complaints that tech is too "male dominated" and "notoriously hostile to women" are often just this. Tech was always full of types who won't preface their proposals and criticisms with fluff, and instead lean into autism. When you're used to being pandered to, neutrality feels like vulgarity.

Communicating with other humans effectively is learned skill like any other. You just refuse to learn because it is more difficult for you than neurotypical people. But the funny thing is that women are harder to diagnose with autism because girls are pushed more to learn to socialize than boys, so they learn how to “mask” better. Boys are pandered to and not pushed to learn a difficult but much needed skill. They are given a pass in a way girls are not, so the neutrality of being told it is an important skill, just like every other field where humans communicate with other humans, feels like vulgarity.

The answer is not to pretend interpersonal communication is a pointless skill. The answer is to acknowledge and work with both sides, understanding that it is a skill that cannot just be ignored, and understanding that skill levels vary and we should account for, and work with, those various skill levels. You know, inclusivity rather than pandering to the entrenched culture.

> But they start from the conclusion and work their way backwards. This is what the rewritten statement does: it tries to fix the relationship before fixing the problem… The people who build and maintain the world's infrastructure prefer the masculine style for a reason: it keeps civilization running, and helps restore it when it breaks.

The irony of this is that you work from the conclusion, that masculine style is what “works”. That the relationship of masculine style and “civilization” are causal. Instead of fixing the problem, that industries that are male dominated have been restricted to women for most of human history. Women are 50% of the population but anything “feminine” is treated as some sort of weird small minority that should adapt to live in “real” society or stay out.