“Misogynasian” and Why Gender Discrimination in Tech Must Be an Asian American Issue


Three years ago, Ellen Pao — former junior partner of Silicon Valley venture capital group Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers — filed a lawsuit against her former employers, citing a pattern of bias against female employees; yesterday, lawyers in her suit against Kleiner completed their closing statements with a plea for greater efforts to address gender equality in the tech industry. Pao’s suit alleges that Pao was harassed, and eventually fired, from Kleiner for challenging a culture of sexual harassment within her former company.

Throughout the Pao trial, Pao has courageously endured the usual victim-blaming, character assassination and mudslinging used to dismiss, invalidate, and insubstantiate the experiences of women. She has been tone policed. She has been slut-shamed. She has been labelled a gold digger. She has been accused of being untalented, amateurish, and unprofessional. The message Kleiner’s lawyers are trying to communicate is clear: Ellen Pao is lone voice trying to capitalize off an imagined gender problem in Silicon Valley.

The problem for Silicon Valley is that Ellen Pao is not alone.

Last week, Taiwanese American Chia “Chloe” Hong filed a civil suit against Facebook for gender discrimination. Days later, software engineer Tina Huang filed a civil suit against Twitter, also alleging gender discrimination in the company’s failure to promote women to management positions.

It should escape no one’s notice that all three of these high-profile gender bias lawsuits have been filed by Asian American women.


Geek Bro Culture

The tech industry’s “gender problem” has been a topic of conversation for several years, and is representative of the larger “Geek Bro Culture” phenomenon within such traditionally nerdy spaces like comic books, video games and — yes — the tech industry. As with comic books and video games, the growing visibility of women in communities stereotypically male-dominated has prompted broad, and inflammatory, gendered backlash: within the video game industry, for example, feminist programmers and culture critics face a daily barrage of sexual harassment and death threats. Among comic book fans, feminists are disparagingly labelled as bullies in the midst of fielding death threats of their own for questioning the medium’s reinforcement of sexism and rape culture.

Arthur Chu (@arthur_affect) — who has developed a strong portfolio of feminist writing as it intersects with geek culture — suggests that within geek culture, nerdy men who simultaneously reap the benefits of male privilege while disadvantaged by a culture of misogylinity are left with a deep-seated entitlement complex over women. In these insulated spaces, “Geek Bro Culture” recreates a gendered hierarchy where male nerds can achieve the “alpha male” status denied to them by mainstream’s toxic masculinity. Rather than to challenge the logic of misogylinity, “Geek Bro Culture” recreates its male privilege with none of the troubling aspects of conventional masculinity that would disadvantage male programmers (anti-intellectualism, for example); thus, these becomes spaces not only hostile to women, but spaces dependent upon its hostility to women.

It would be naive to suggest that within these spaces — as within the larger mainstream –race is not a factor in manifestations of sexism.



Traditionally, we have applied a “one size fits all” approach to our understanding of misogyny, yet increasingly we have come to recognize how race intersects with and nuances manifestations of sexism and misogyny. For Asian American women, too, misogyny takes on a distinct flavour.

A recent report on the gender bias faced by women of colour in STEM reveal the distinct stereotypes that form the foundation of gender discrimination in the workplace, and how intersections of race matter therein. Consistent with society’s larger treatment of Asian American women, Asian American women in STEM are stereotypically relegated to the role of the submissive, the demure, and the unassuming. Frequently, we are positioned as the “wedge female” — more feminine, well-mannered, and eager-to-please than our non-Asian female counterparts. We are expected to model “acceptably feminine behaviour” for the “uppity” and aggressive non-Asian woman. We, as Asian American women, are stereotyped as knowing our place.

Asian American women describe how this insisted femininity frequently causes Asian American women to be over-looked and disrespected in the workplace. Like many Asian American women, Tina Huang says she was passed over for promotion at Twitter despite her demonstrated talent. Like many Asian American womenChia Hong describes how male colleagues at Facebook belittled her for not being a stay-at-home mom while demanding she play the gendered role of den mother for the office. Like many Asian American women, Ellen Pao describes how she was expected to be sexually available for her male colleagues, and faced frequent unwanted sexual advances while working at Kleiner.

Thus, in STEM, as in the wider world, “misogynasian” persists as a method to reinforce Occidental and male control, thereby prohibiting the Asian American woman from ever being seen as an intellectual peer. Misogynasian has quantifiable consequences: in STEM, Asian American women face institutional barriers by virtue of both race and gender — a “bamboo glass ceiling” — that delay upward mobility and cause large numbers of Asian American women to exit the workforce. Those that remain endure one of the largest pay gaps of any women of colour: Asian American women are paid a mere 79 cents to the dollar paid to an Asian American man.

Those Asian American women who speak out against this racialized and gendered mistreatment face heightened backlash precisely because “leaning in” directly contradicts the logic of misogynasian. 61.4% of Asian American women in STEM (a larger proportion than any other women of colour) report that they have been unfairly disciplined or mistreated for refusing to perform as meek, subservient and hyper-feminine.

The stereotype of Asians as passive plays a role. A geophysicist noted the expectation “that Asians are supposed to be very passive. And when you add women to that, they really don’t expect Asian women to stand up for themselves, or they expect the dragon lady, the extreme opposite. You can’t just be a normal person. There’s no expectation for you to be normal.” An Asian in viral immunology agreed, saying that, as an Asian, she was seen as someone who “should be like feminine, yeah. Shouldn’t be aggressive.”

Misogynasian asserts that Asian American women exist to reinforce White male superiority; it is a tool to reinforce both White and male privilege. Those of us who refute misogynasian’s claims by asserting our own individuality and agency as Asian American women are therefore punished, oftentimes more harshly, for daring to defy this racial and gendered logic.

A note on the word “misogynasian”: first of all, yes, I’m aware that I just made another word up; it’s okay, people do it all the time. Second, my intention is not to be appropriative of the “misogynoir” movement, although I acknowledge the possibility that this term could be thus interpreted. For quite some time, this blog has been committed to discussing the unique intersection of racism and sexism as faced by Asian American women; this is a conversation I’ve long felt has been impeded by a lack of language that can describe these concepts with specificity, and I’ve been toying with words to propose for this concept for over a year now. After considering a few other portmanteau words (e.g. “Sexorientalism”, “Misaapigyny”) , I propose that “misogynasian” offers the most easily pronounced word construction with the most obviously discernible definition; by contrast, I feel “misaapigyny” works but is hard to pronounce while “sexorientalism” is confusing. However, the possibility of “misogynasian” being appropriative of “misogynoir” is a real and legitimate issue, and is my major concern with presenting this word. Thus, I invite commentary and criticism on this proposal.

(Update: There has been some confusion as to whether “misogynasian” is intended to refer to the nuanced misogyny experienced by Asian American women, or to some sort of specific brand of misogyny perpetuated by Asian American men. To clarify, “misogynasian” refers only to how anti-Asian stereotypes alter the misogyny faced by Asian American women. As this section discusses with references to my prior writing, there is a clear layering of race and gender in how Asian American women experience sexism in tech and in the larger mainstream, but no language with which to discuss this. This section endeavours to offer a solution to that problem.)


Asian Americans and Male Privilege in Tech

The tech industry is absurdly male-dominated: on average 12% of tech company employees are women. Even some of the country’s top software companies like Google and Facebook — traditionally viewed as progressive — employ more than twice as many men as women.

The tech industry is dominated by White programmers, but increasingly by Asian American programmers, too. In 2010, reports showed that for the first time, more than half of the Bay Area’s tech employees were Asian American. Many of the male partners cited by Ellen Pao as contributing to the culture of sexual harassment at Kleiner are Asian American.

Let me be clear: in no way am I saying that the tech industry is sexist because of Asian American men. Orientalism — one of the central influences of misogynasian — dates back to European assertions of its own colonialist and militaristic supremacy over Asia. The tech industry’s “bro culture” also clearly pre-dates the rise of the Asian American male (or female) programmer. In many of tech’s top companies (including Facebook and Twitter), White employees still outnumber Asian American ones. Asian American male programmers obviously do not benefit from misogynasian’s foundational logic of White supremacy; in fact, we embrace the fight to challenge STEM’s persistent “bamboo ceiling” for the advancement and promotion of Asian American male programmers.

However, if Asian American programmers enter tech industry’s White-originated “bro culture” where we can criticize residual White supremacy and anti-Asian stereotypes, but refuse to challenge its inherently sexist parallel logic (including its reinforcement of misogynasian), our community nonetheless remains complicit in the survival of that culture of racial and gender bias. So long as we can witness — and our brothers can even derive the benefits of male privilege from — a culture that harasses women (including Asian American and other women of colour) while shrugging our shoulders and saying, “it’s not my problem”, we are failing Asian American women while undermining our own race advocacy efforts.

For too long, our community has been resistant to talking about gender discrimination, even when it privileges Asian American men and disadvantages Asian American women. Some of us have asserted that feminism is a “women’s issue” that has no place in Asian American race advocacy. Some of us actively discourage the framing of Asian American men as simultaneously disenfranchised by race while privileged by gender. Some of us go so far as to delegitimize the Asian American feminist for her feminism. Instead, some of us seem convinced that a conversation about male privilege will somehow undermine the equally legitimate conversations about anti-Asian American racism against Asian American men (and women). In so doing, we implicitly reinforce the notion that the politic of the Asian American woman should take a backseat to that of Asian American men; that, even within our own Asian American community, Asian American women should play the role of the submissive, subservient and meek; that Asian American women must somehow accomplish the impossible task of divorcing our race politic from our gender politic, as if the two can be distinguished.

The fact of the matter is that — by virtue of our privilege — Asian American programmers are in the room in a way that other programmers of colour are not. By the virtue of their privilege, Asian American male programmers are in the room in a way that Asian American female programmers are not. In the aggregate, Asian Americans wield a numerical majority in Silicon Valley’s culture (even while we are excluded from leadership roles). If we as a community united to take a strong political stand against both racial and gender discrimination in the tech industry — as it disadvantages both the male and female Asian American programmer and any other programmer of colour — we could promote a cultural sea change against tech’s ongoing harassment of minority engineers.

Yes, I believe Asian Americans could help dismantle “Geek Bro Culture” and achieve gender equality in tech: if only we would finally prioritize the misogynasian faced by our Asian American sisters as politically compelling; if only we would finally position feminism alongside our existing efforts to promote racial equality; if only we would finally do the necessary work to identify how male privilege doesn’t benefit White men alone, but can and does cross racial lines; if only we would finally acknowledge that gender equality is not just a women’s issue, but a social justice issue; if only we would finally hold ourselves accountable to challenging all forms of social and political iniquity arising out of the mainstream even as it might privilege us individually and collectively; if only we would finally recognize gender equality as an Asian American issue, too.

Read more: How Asian American women are forgotten in the tech diversity debate (Think Progress)

Update II: With regard to the term “misogynasian”, I want to emphasize that my purpose is to spark conversation about the intersection of race and gender when it comes to the misogyny faced by Asian American women. I am not invested specifically in the term “misogynasian” so much as I am interested in advancing its underlying meaning, and although I think this term is the clearest and most readily understood of possible candidates, I also use the word with hesitation and tension given the currently still completely unaddressed possibility that it overlaps too heavily with “misogynoir” and surrounding Black discourse.

I do not find this criticism trivial, and I am actively soliciting feedback on “misogynasian”. I am embedding this Twitter conversation with reader @sqiouyilu, who raises the same valid concerns over the term, because I think they bring up very important points to consider.

Did you like this post? Please support Reappropriate on Patreon!
  • Matthew Lane

    “I don’t believe we are there yet.”

    We are if you are female & living in the first world. There is not a single law which women don’t benefit from that men do….. Unfortunately the opposite can not be said to be true. One of the big ones is that women are considered a protected group under discrimination laws, where as white men are not.

    ” If you just look at toys and media for girls and boys and how they are marketed we see that we are setting limits in early childhood ”

    We are not: People who subscribe to this “gender is a societal construct” nonsense, are just incredibly ignorant on reality. See also the Dr Money experiment to see what I’m talking about.


    this website sucks

  • Solargreenman

    They know that the “primary caregiver presumption” supports that status quo which is based on the “tender years” doctrine only now it is being called the “best interests”. This has also been disproven and shown to have disastrous effects on the lives of children.

    How many children actually have a “primary caregiver”? Many moms and dads both work and many moms and dads care for their children nearly equally. (I know moms spend about 3 hours more a week on childcare).

    Why in separation and divorce should one parent get “primary custody” and the other become a visitor? Why should it even matter what the arrangement was before the separation or divorce so long as the child is bonded with both parents because things are different after separation and divorce? (After isn’t separation and divorce happening because things did not work out as they were?)

    The fact is that many feminist support equality and support shared parenting however many want to retain the upper hand in the courts when it comes to children and that is that moms get custody (and then complain about being single parents and the loss of income and opportunity that results from it.)

    disqus_uY4…. already nailed when he stated “No one will explicitly state their desire for advantage over others. What people do, in any in-group, is frame their cause as the “moral” or “just” thing to do, or frame it as advantageous for all when it is only advantageous for themselves.”

    Why promote a policy that has such disastrous effects on children?


  • Solargreenman

    “One of the big ones is that women are considered a protected group under discrimination laws, where as white men are not.”

    This statement proves my point in that we are not there yet. Laws such as VAWA do not provide equal protection and are not adequate for the many types of partner relationship and violence that occurs. This needs to be amended/replace by something more like the Partner Violence Reduction Act. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Partner-Violence-Reduction-Act1.pdf

    I just googles the Dr. Money experiment and that was certainly not science. My point is that if children do not have equal opportunities as children they will never be able to have equal opportunities in life as adults because they will not be equipped. This holds true for gender and social economic status.

  • First of all, this is incredibly tangential to this topic.

    Second, if arguing that the definition of “primary caregiver” may be a source of gender bias (which is not necessarily an established point), the logical solution is to fight to end gender bias. It is not to argue against primary or sole custody by attempting to assert a hard and fast rule of shared custody under all circumstances.

    “If 5 out of 6 “custodial parents” where fathers as ordered by the courts you would be outraged and screaming that this is a problem.”

    Actually, I would not, if in these 5 out of 6 cases, the father could be demonstrated to be the more responsible parent.

    It is not logical to argue that because family courts may currently favour mothers over fathers in some instances, that the solution is to eliminate sole or primary custody and force joint custody in all situations.

    On the other hand, if a court objectively decides that a mother is the more responsible parent and deserves primary custody based on a reasonable presentation of evidence, that is also not a form of gender discrimination just because the father didn’t win the case. Perhaps, he really didn’t demonstrate that he was the child’s primary caregiver, and now really shouldn’t have any basis for fully shared custodianship.

    Why in separation and divorce should one parent get “primary custody” and the other become a visitor? Why should this be the norm and not the exception?

    Because in some situations, the courts may find that constantly moving around between two households — particularly if one household is not well-equipped to childcare — is onerous and damaging to children. The stress to children of constant movement associated with full shared custody has been documented since the late 1980’s with more recent studies suggesting that in some but not all cases, children may derive some benefit from shared custody. The psychological stress of constant relocation and shared custody is compounded when the joint custody arrangement exacerbates inter-parent conflict through frequent parental conflict, or the added economic burden of setting up two separate child-friendly households is unsustainable for one or both parents.

    What becomes clear from a review of all the available literature is that there is not one custodial arrangement that is most advantageous to all children: rather, that children are most adversely affected by geographic and emotional instability, and that the role of family courts is to identify the custodial arrangement that is most in the child’s best interests. While there is some value to having a custodial arrangement that promotes frequent contact between two parents, that benefit only appears to be conferred if the shared custody arrangement is, itself, not contentious, stressful or anxiety-inducing; otherwise, that same arrangement could create additional stress.

    As Lamb and Steinberg conclude:

    Divorce and/or single parenthood tend to have adverse effects on children’s adjustment, with the magnitude of the effects varying depending on the psychological status of the two parents, the extent of conflict between them, and the financial circumstances, particularly after divorce. Children whose nonresidential parents continue to support them financially, those whose custodial parents are psychologically healthy, and those who have and maintain meaningful relationships with nonresidential parents tend to be affected less by the divorce, especially when there is no conflict between the parents. Interventions should thus be designed with these factors in mind.

    Thus, in some situations, where two parents can transition their children peacefully towards a mutually agreed upon joint custody situation, where each supports the other in childrearing duties, and where interpersonal conflict is minimized. In most cases, this sorts of post-divorce arrangements involve low-conflict divorces that never make it to family court; consequently, Lamb and Steinberg note that a large fraction of families that appear in front of family court are high-conflict divorces unable to reconcile custody without court intervention. This is precisely the sort of high-conflict situation where psychologists agree shared custody arrangements are likely to be more acutely stressful to children, not less.

    In extreme situations where one parent has physically abused the other parent, joint custody is likely to create a schedule of repeated re-trauma for both parent and child survivor of the domestic violence environment, and thus sole custody is the clear and obvious solution that is in the best interest of the child.

    Therefore, while I agree with you that the tender years doctrine is unconstitutional, the doctrine has also fallen nearly completely out of legal favour. You have not convincingly demonstrated that the “best interests of the child” doctrine is simply the tender years doctrine by another name, or that current norms to place children with mothers is based solely or primarily on gender bias. Of particularly importance is the simple fact that the “best interests of the child” doctrine is basically antithetical to the tender years doctrine, being a system of actually surveying the interests of the child, rather than presupposing what those interests are.

    You also have simply discounted the likelihood that systemic gender discrimination, absence of strong professional childcare resources, and lack of gender neutral parental leave — all of which pushes women out of the workforce upon childbirth — also results in mothers actually becoming a child’s “primary caregiver” at a greater frequency.

    Frankly, I am aghast by your line of thinking, which seems to literally reject what is in the best interests of children, in favour of what is in the best interest of the father. Your entire line of thinking is based upon the presumption that strong contact between two parents is beneficial to the child — yet, this is not consistently the case. Again, Lamb and Steinberg:

    . The effects of maintaining contact with both parents are less profound and less consistent than might be expected, however. In part, this seems to reflect the fact that increased contact between nonresidential parents and their children often involves increased and continued contact between the two former spouses. When the relationship between the two parents is civil, the benefits of continued contact with each parent are more apparent than when there is substantial conflict between the two. In some circumstances, the level of hostility between the two parents is so
    high and so recalcitrant that children are harmed rather than helped by frequent contact with each of their parents.

    The “Best Interests of The Child” Doctrine exists precisely to distinguish these circumstances.

    Why should it even matter what the arrangement was before the separation or divorce so long as the child is bonded with both parents because things are different after separation and divorce? (After isn’t separation and divorce happening because things did not work out as they were?)

    Because the logistics of joint custody arrangements are, themselves, a major source of stress for children; that stress is compounded when it exacerbates contact between high-conflict parents. Children who have strong bonds with their parents may actually face additional anxiety, for example, when those bonds are weaponized by each parent against one another, a situation that can easily occur in joint custody arrangements between two high-conflict parents. That is a situation where frequent contact between child and each parent may be beneficial for each parent … but not for the child.

    And again, remember, that most families that find themselves in family court to resolve custody disputes — or wherein a nonresident parent takes to the internet to stage a war on feminists because family court didn’t rule in his favour — are likely to be the exact sort of high-conflict family for whom joint custody is not necessarily a viable solution that will lead to the best interests of the child.

    Divorce is a shitty situation, where everyone must compromise. Sometimes, compromise looks like one parent forging new parameters for maintaining the relationship with their child because having the other parent retain primary custody truly is in the child’s best interest. Just sayin’.

  • Solargreenman

    “First of all, this is incredibly tangential to this topic.”

    I would say it is minimally tangential. To me it seems that if you raise a child with gender bias it would be unreasonable to expect them to not have gender bias when they enter the workforce.

    “It is not to argue against primary or sole custody by attempting to assert a hard and fast rule of shared custody under all circumstances.” And “that the
    solution is to eliminate sole or primary custody and force joint custody in all

    Interesting how you originally represent that shared parenting advocates want shared parenting “in all situations.” – Oh wait – not original after all – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    I don’t know of anyone advocating for a “hard and fast” rule of shared custody under all circumstances. All that I know of that are advocating for shared custody acknowledge that every situation is different. I am not advocating for a hard and fast rule. I am advocating for a presumption of shared custody over a presumption of a primary caregiver – Male or Female. I am arguing for this because I presume that the child is bonded with both parents and would mourn the loss of either one. This really is a children’s right

    “Actually, I would not, if in these 5 out of 6 cases, the father could be demonstrated to be the more responsible parent.”

    It seems that you are saying that if one parent, on a scale of 1 to 100, rates a
    responsibility factor of 78 and the other rates 76 that the 78 parent should
    get “primary custody”? What if the parent uses other caregivers such as grandparents or daycare while he or she works or tends to other responsibilities, should their responsibility be factored in? If responsibility level is the deciding factor why would it even matter if one parent provided significantly more care than the other parent?

    Would you consider it a problem for men or women or both if it could be proven that women (or men) were less responsible. To me your argument seems very much like the arguments that men are better coders than women because they are born that way. Your argument that perhaps women win in 5 out of 6 custody cases because they are more responsible I feel is ‘absurd’.

    I also don’t think it should matter which parent is ‘more responsible’ so long as both parents are in the passing range and neither parent in negligent and
    abusive. When one parent or both parents are abusive in any way further discretion is required. Further discretion is also required when a child has bonded with more than 2 caregivers (such as grandparents).

    ‘Lamb and Steinberg ‘ ONGOING POSTDIVORCE CONFLICT: Effects on Children of Joint Custody and Frequent Access.
    This historically relevant document which helps to demonstrate the lack of scientific rigor in studies that shaped policies in the late 20th and early 21st century.

    This review by Lamb, Steinberg, et al from 1997 is significantly dated and even the authors have changed their view on the topic as they realized that many of the studies reviewed were themselves flawed. For instance some of the studies reviewed were with prisoners as they were released from penitentiaries and did not have bonds with their young children, it seems they realized that paroled prisoners whom had not bonded with their children did not fully represent a typical family custody situation where both parents were strongly bonded with their children and that policy should not be made based on such flawed studies which were not scientifically rigid. The review also states that :

    “The lack of information about custodial fathers and joint custody arrangements significantly delimits the conclusions that can be offered about them.” And

    “Researchers have thus far failed to measure the threshold level of inter parental hostility necessary to undermine the benefits to children of continuing contact with both parents and, quite likely, this depends on many factors that are specific to the lives of the parents and children in question. In addition, nonresidential parents who maintain parental roles (providing guidance, discipline, supervision, and educational assistance) may affect their children more profoundly than those who are limited to functioning as occasional visiting companions.”

    More thorough, better-controlled and more recent large support that shared parenting even in high conflict because shared parenting has been demonstrated to reduce conflict whereas primary custody has been shown to increase parental conflict and harm children. A review of the current state of research can be found here (for free, I don’t have access you the links you provided):


    As summarized in the press release on February 4th 2014 the finding
    that garnered the endorsement of 110 of the world’s top experts.

    “Warshak states:

    “Just as we encourage shared parenting in two-parent homes, the
    evidence shows that shared parenting should be the norm for children of all
    ages, including sharing the overnight care for very young children.”

    To maximize children’s chances of having long lasting relationships and secure attachments to each parent, Warshak’s consensus report encourages both parents after their separation to maximize the time they spend with their children, including the sharing of overnight parenting time.

    The consensus report is available Feb. 4th. in the on-line advance edition of Psychology, Public

    Policy, and Law, available on-line here [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/law/20/1/46/].

    Warshak notes that shared parenting is not for all families. Regardless of their children’s ages parents should always consider a range of factors when creating the best parenting plan.

    He notes:

    “What works for one child in one family, may not be best for another child in different circumstances among other factors, the parents’ work schedules and their capabilities to provide good care must be taken into account.””

    Again the straw man that shared parenting advocates want shared parenting in all circumstances is false.


    Leading Women for Shared Parenting, one of the leading shared parenting advocate groups states on the first page of their website:


    “We believe, in the absence of abuse, neglect or abandonment, children’s desires, needs and interests are best served when they grow up loving equally, and equally loved by, both their parents.
    Further, children benefit equally from the diversity of both mothers and
    fathers and from the maximum involvement of both parents. Millions of
    family members, both women and men, have silently suffered the loss of children they love and care deeply about as a result of misguided laws and family court practices which systematically restrict a child’s access to one parent and half of their extended family. Both children and families deserve better than to be forced into an adversarial process with policies that encourage the minimization of one parent in the lives of their children. It is our aim to change this system. The first step is endorsing the statement below.
    The next step is inviting your friends and family members to do the same.”

    So please lets do away with your straw man argument .

    “You have not convincingly demonstrated that the “best interests of the child” doctrine is simply the tender years doctrine by another name, or that current norms to place children with mothers is based solely or primarily on gender bias. Of particularly importance is the simple fact that the “best interests of the child” doctrine is basically antithetical to the tender years doctrine, being a system of actually surveying the interests of the child, rather than presupposing what those interests are.”

    I really did not make a significant attempt, nor will I now.

    Perhaps this would better inform you.



    Children are born with two parents. Children want, love, and
    need two parents. In all but the vanishingly small number of pathological
    cases, the courts should strive to maximize the involvement of both parents. If
    distance or other factors prevent a substantially equal relationship with both
    parents, the preference should go to that parent who shows the greater
    willingness and ability to cooperate and nurture the other parent’s relationship with the child. That’s what being a caretaker is all about.”

    In regards to the tangential issue you brought up:

    “You also have simply discounted the likelihood that systemic gender discrimination, absence of strong professional childcare resources, and lack of gender neutral parental leave — all of which pushes women out of the workforce upon childbirth — also results in mothers actually becoming a child’s “primary caregiver” at a greater frequency.”

    Because we have not previously directly discussed this does not mean that I have discounted it. Also both men and women are entitled to FMLA I would encourage men to take full advantage of it. I have been an advocate for parents in the workforce long before I became a parent including advocating for onsite daycare, flex time and work from home situations. I agree that the system works against men, especially in intact traditional families, in pushing women to spend more parenting time with there children than men. I don’t think you are arguing that many men on their deathbeds are wishing they spent less time with their children and more time working. Men are most definitely discriminated against, as are women by the currently accepted customs in regards to child rearing resulting in children and parents being in a lose-lose-lose situation.

    I also promoted and encouraged women in the tech workplace (including women of color and lesbian women and transsexual women) to expand beyond the roles and fully participate to the point of myself being discriminated against as a result of making untraditional hiring choices and relationship choices of peers.

    Implying that I have discounted any or all forms of discrimination before I addressed it is unwarranted and certainly borders on a ad hominem attack.

    Most of your argument seem to be based on the straw man that shared parenting advocated are for shared parenting in all circumstances when this is not the case. Your other arguments in quoting studies that even the authors would now discredit as being based on flawed data collection, incomplete data and poorly designed studies.

  • Piggy Rabbit

    Look, I’m tired and I don’t want to argue with you or your strawman fallacies anymore.

    The bottom line is — at the completely overwhelmingly vast majority of tech companies (and every single one I worked at) — the people in charge are white men. They make all the hiring and payroll decisions.

    If you want to blame anyone for the discrepancy in pay between Asian males and Asian females in the tech sector (and I don’t see why you always try to make the Asian males the “enemy other”) — then blame your precious white males.

    They are the ones responsible for paying Asian females less than Asian men, and Asian men less than white men.

  • I agree that White men are at the top tier of leadership, and if you missed that in this post, you read this post without grasping its nuance. That -is-the problem, and is part of why this post argues that challenging the status quo to achieve equality will help ALL POC in STEM. Nonetheless this does not absolve men of colour with male privilege from holding their male colleagues accountable, and who would prefer to simply shrug their shoulders and say gender equality is not your problem.

    Also, it does not escape my notice that the minute you were asked to push beyond your own anecdata and do some rhetorical legwork by backing up your claims with non-anecdotal evidence, you were no longer interested in participating. That speaks volumes.

  • palmeria

    you sound like a white dude disappointed that his Asian wife wasn’t the geisha girl society promised and is now demanding his money back.

  • Solargreenman

    The only disappointment was violence towards her son, now towards our daughter and towards me before I removed myself from the that situation (which did not take long, if a partner is violent the relationship must end) and dishonestly with me and with the courts and law enforcement.

    Married her because she conceived and wanted to come to the US, so I helped with that because I wanted to be in my daughters life and because I wanted to help her. Thank god for honest people (in this case her now former best asian friends) whom testified on my behalf.

    Also I would not like to be with what in my mind a ‘geisha’ girl is, which in my mind would be a submissive entertainer; sounds really boring. I’m more more interested in a strong and adventurous woman whom is my equal and we challenge each other expand.

    Funny I don’t know how you got the idea you expressed from the message you replied too where I am arguing that against Mathews claim that men and women already have equality of opportunity. As someone with a altered ability I’ve experiences a lot of discrimination against me and know that there is not an equal playing field.

  • Solargreenman

    BTW, I understood personal attacks are discouraged here.

    I can help you with understanding what that is, pretty much any time you say something like “you sound like a (insert race, religion, sexual orientation, derogatory term, gender, etc…)” it is a personal attack you are perpetrating.