There's so much to say about @zeynep's post on the Dads of Tech article. I'm going to do this here, since my profile is private. (This doesn't make this post secret, or even particularly hard to see, but it does say something about expectations.) I'm working in pieces, starting with @zeynep's question about why the attack was on me in particular.
Let me say first of all that one of Taylor's central claims -- that my rant about women four years ago was insulting -- is correct, and I am going to remove the piece and point to an archived version, disowning it without deleting it. I still believe that self-promotion is a tool women can use and should use more, even given the pushback because, as @zeynep notes, women are pushed back on for everything, so getting a negative reaction for doing X can't be a reason women shouldn't do X, but that piece was a bad way to advance that claim.
So this isn't a case of "She's got the wrong guy" (I am sexist, as almost all men are) or that the particular complaint was off the mark. What was odd was the larger caricature, which is one of the things @zeynep wrote about.
I was also bothered by the "Dad's of Tech" piece because if we are going to name someone as emblematic of sexism, and hence make their public persona a target, there should be more reflection on how this person actually behaves.
The experience, for me, was a bit like seeing myself burned in effigy. For Taylor, the fact that I did some work for the US Navy ten years ago is a more important clue about my life than the fact that I publicly donated to Feminist Frequency and VidCode last month. Giving money to Anita Sarkeesian or re-tweeting Melissa McEwen and Sady Doyle doesn't auto-enroll me for the SJW of the Month award, but it's recent public work at odds with the Baffler version of me.
You know this, @zeynep (and @quinn, if you're reading), but since we're having the conversation in the (Ello) open, every article like that is written about a subject, but for an audience, and the more ideologically coherent a publication, the more the writing is about 'audience as in-group'. One of the reasons I am selected in that Baffler piece, of all possible sexist figures in tech, is that I am far closer to Taylor's (and the Baffler's) in-group than, say, Pax Dikinson is.
One possible choice for Taylor would be to say "This Shirky guy, with whom I agree about some things, has other opinions that are terribly wrong." She didn't go this route, however, because while we are closer than that article suggests about women and power, there are other places where my views on things like markets are anathema to her, and you don't get to anathematize just part of a person -- it's all or nothing, and she went with all.
The other curious thing about that piece is that she seems to commit herself to views that she doesn't actually have. She also believes that there is a benefit in women being aggressive, and that cultural tools historically reserved for men can also be used by women (as voting and property owning once were.) Yet if I also hold those views, while holding other views she dislikes, we would be arguing, and arguing is something you do with people in your community.
When someone is bending their own views away from the person they are attacking, to make the difference seem greater, you are usually seeing an argument about relative positions within a group, not absolute positions on the issues.
It's always this way, though -- it takes more work to banish heretics than infidels. Telling the Baffler community to write off Pax Dikinson would be the work of a paragraph, but ejecting me from the Overton Window takes a considerably more energetic shove.