6 ms·

Which I find humorous, because I just finished reading both, and the only thing the two articles share are their titles. Shanley's article is written with an ac

Which I find humorous, because I just finished reading both, and the only thing the two articles share are their titles. Shanley's article is written with an actively aggressive tone towards men, while Jeff's seems much more reasoned and thought out. And both articles answer the question "what can men do" differently. So why the hullabaloo?

rhizome 12y ago
So why the hullabaloo? Do you consider yourself an intelligent person such that upon reflection you might be able to come up with at least a couple of possible answers to your own question? Just curious.
zorpner 12y ago
If the two articles existed in isolation, I would be inclined to agree (though I think Jeff's is actually pretty poorly thought out -- as the man himself said: https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/273551344533639169 https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/273551344533639169). But there's a clear, obvious chain of events here that starts with Jeff reading Shanley's post, criticizing it, then writing his own version with the same title without acknowledging why.
- SheepSlapper 12y ago
  For the record, I don't like either piece (cards on the table, I don't really care for Sara's either). Jeff thinks we shouldn't drink at work functions, because men + women + booze = sexism or something, and Shanley wants us to reverse the (perceived) discrimination with some sort of affirmative action for ladies. I was just pointing out that the two pieces have the same topic and the same 4 word title (because Jeff was being snarky. If that's a crime, lock me up now). Otherwise, they couldn't be more different. Shouting "plagiarism" in this case seems pretty disingenuous, and feels like people are manufacturing outrage just for outrage's sake. Being that this is the internet, I can't fathom why I expected anything different...
  - zorpner 12y ago
    After talking with a couple of the commenters in question, it sounds like some people are using "plagiarism" not to mean that he specifically stole words from her post verbatim, but to mean that he "rewrote" what she wrote without giving her credit. It's not how I'd use the term, but I think that's what people are getting at with it. It's gotten a little weirder now, since Atwood is communicating with people about it but appears to be justifying not crediting Shanley by saying she was too negative, which is a little appalling: https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/459796782164103168 https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/459796782164103168 EDIT: Also, I just read this, which addresses a lot of the things I didn't like in Jeff Atwood's post better than I can: http://jacobian.org/writing/what-can-men-do/ http://jacobian.org/writing/what-can-men-do/
    - SheepSlapper 12y ago
      He used the same title and wrote on the same topic. That's where the similarities end. Shanley says: * Get company funds diverted to the cause * Start a feminist bookclub for men * Get better management training in your company * Get women hired * Don’t speak at events or on panels where women speakers aren’t represented * Encourage diversity at conferences you go to Jeff says: * Abide by the Hacker School Rules * Really listen * If you see bad behavior from other men, speak up * Don't attempt romantic relationships at work * No drinking at work events The only place they overlap in their respective messages is each of them saying "be the change you want to see in the world" in their own way. So I still don't get the plagiarism claims, even with the warped definition. As for Atwood saying that he didn't link to her piece because it was too negative: There are two very different tones to take when writing about this (or most any) topic. Jeff, in his piece, acknowledges the issue and maintains a pretty even keel. Yes, it's a problem, here's how I think we can fix it. On the other side, Shanley is writing in a very aggressive tone towards men. It feels less like she's trying to affect social change, and more like she's shouting at passing men from the top of a soapbox. Truth is, if I were writing a piece that was taking a subtle jab at Shanley's writing, I wouldn't link to her either. If I felt like she was trying to contribute seriously to the issue, then I would in a heartbeat, but that's not how her piece reads. Edit regarding your edit: I agree with some of the issues the author had about Atwood's take on things, though I think claiming that Jeff not linking to Shanley is yet another way men dismiss or marginalize is grasping at straws. Imaginary straws.
- gordonguthrie 12y ago
  And deleting his (patronising) tweets about it.
bloopbloopbloop 12y ago
If these women (I would make the same claim for men) want to even begin being taken seriously, then people like Shanley and Julie Ann need to stop tweeting and writing aggressive emotional sentiment non-stop all day long.

rhizome 12y ago

So why the hullabaloo? Do you consider yourself an intelligent person such that upon reflection you might be able to come up with at least a couple of possible answers to your own question? Just curious.

zorpner 12y ago

If the two articles existed in isolation, I would be inclined to agree (though I think Jeff's is actually pretty poorly thought out -- as the man himself said: https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/273551344533639169 https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/273551344533639169). But there's a clear, obvious chain of events here that starts with Jeff reading Shanley's post, criticizing it, then writing his own version with the same title without acknowledging why.

SheepSlapper 12y ago
For the record, I don't like either piece (cards on the table, I don't really care for Sara's either). Jeff thinks we shouldn't drink at work functions, because men + women + booze = sexism or something, and Shanley wants us to reverse the (perceived) discrimination with some sort of affirmative action for ladies. I was just pointing out that the two pieces have the same topic and the same 4 word title (because Jeff was being snarky. If that's a crime, lock me up now). Otherwise, they couldn't be more different. Shouting "plagiarism" in this case seems pretty disingenuous, and feels like people are manufacturing outrage just for outrage's sake. Being that this is the internet, I can't fathom why I expected anything different...
- zorpner 12y ago
  After talking with a couple of the commenters in question, it sounds like some people are using "plagiarism" not to mean that he specifically stole words from her post verbatim, but to mean that he "rewrote" what she wrote without giving her credit. It's not how I'd use the term, but I think that's what people are getting at with it. It's gotten a little weirder now, since Atwood is communicating with people about it but appears to be justifying not crediting Shanley by saying she was too negative, which is a little appalling: https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/459796782164103168 https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/459796782164103168 EDIT: Also, I just read this, which addresses a lot of the things I didn't like in Jeff Atwood's post better than I can: http://jacobian.org/writing/what-can-men-do/ http://jacobian.org/writing/what-can-men-do/
  - SheepSlapper 12y ago
    He used the same title and wrote on the same topic. That's where the similarities end. Shanley says: * Get company funds diverted to the cause * Start a feminist bookclub for men * Get better management training in your company * Get women hired * Don’t speak at events or on panels where women speakers aren’t represented * Encourage diversity at conferences you go to Jeff says: * Abide by the Hacker School Rules * Really listen * If you see bad behavior from other men, speak up * Don't attempt romantic relationships at work * No drinking at work events The only place they overlap in their respective messages is each of them saying "be the change you want to see in the world" in their own way. So I still don't get the plagiarism claims, even with the warped definition. As for Atwood saying that he didn't link to her piece because it was too negative: There are two very different tones to take when writing about this (or most any) topic. Jeff, in his piece, acknowledges the issue and maintains a pretty even keel. Yes, it's a problem, here's how I think we can fix it. On the other side, Shanley is writing in a very aggressive tone towards men. It feels less like she's trying to affect social change, and more like she's shouting at passing men from the top of a soapbox. Truth is, if I were writing a piece that was taking a subtle jab at Shanley's writing, I wouldn't link to her either. If I felt like she was trying to contribute seriously to the issue, then I would in a heartbeat, but that's not how her piece reads. Edit regarding your edit: I agree with some of the issues the author had about Atwood's take on things, though I think claiming that Jeff not linking to Shanley is yet another way men dismiss or marginalize is grasping at straws. Imaginary straws.
gordonguthrie 12y ago
And deleting his (patronising) tweets about it.

bloopbloopbloop 12y ago

If these women (I would make the same claim for men) want to even begin being taken seriously, then people like Shanley and Julie Ann need to stop tweeting and writing aggressive emotional sentiment non-stop all day long.