The person I was responding to said that it was impossible to take control of a plane since 9/11, PERIOD. It is not. People have taken control of planes. Whether or not they got what they wanted as a result is not relevant - they took control of the plane in, according to you, at least 2 cases, even if they were arrested on the ground.
The OP didn't make any claims about US airlines or anything else - just that hijackings since 9/11 are impossible PERIOD, which is demonstrably false as you have just agreed.
The person I was responding to said nobody would ever take over a plane again, period.
People have taken over planes since 9/11. It originating from the US or being a US airline is completely irrelevant to the comment I made or the comment I was responding to.
Why do people keep saying this? There have been hijackings since 9/11 in which the plane was not destroyed and the hijackers took control of the plane.
Except "this generation" isn't some monolithic block of people. Some will get fucked over by their openness, some will thrive from it, just like anything else.
I don't go about broadcasting my information, but I have made the conscious choice to accept that ANYTHING about me is potentially knowable by anyone, and I have made a conscious effort to arrange my life in such a way that even if my deepest, darkest secrets were known to the entire planet, nothing terribly important to me would be all that negatively impacted. It actually has been a pretty nice exercise in sorting out what is ACTUALLY important to me vs. what I only thought was important due to convention.
I disagree. In 1992 Clinton had to say he didn't inhale, and now we have a president who said that was the whole point and happily admits he dabbled. We've gone from it being an absolute career killer for any politician to even be *suspected* of being gay to it not being THAT big a deal if someone is openly gay. On stuff that people used to be scandalized by, we've gotten better because it's become more common to the point where people are more easily able to relate. So, I really don't think that the same standards you or I or other people of whatever the "older" generation will hold with younger people, especially those who have grown up in a more permissive world.
Seriously - years ago when Clinton was being hounded over *GASP* a blowjob from an intern (and lying about it under oath) would you have felt confident saying that a half-black, half-white guy who admitted to smoking weed ("Did I inhale? That was the point") with a really foreign sounding name would be elected President of the United State not once but twice, and both times with a very solid majority? We're starting to care less and less about dumb shit that doesn't matter - and every year as more and more of the old guard die off we get more permissive.
On your point about felons and acceptance of same, I don't disagree that by and large we vilify (whether correctly or not) those who have been incarcerated, but there is a rather strong trend towards recognizing that just because someone has been imprisoned doesn't necessarily mean it was just or right. A LOT of people in this country who have been imprisoned were put away for drug crimes, and as you might have noticed, states are starting to realize how fucking stupid that is and slowly moving to change it.
Shit is changing, the rate of change is increasing, and I honestly don't see irrelevant shit that people post on Facebook or whatever turning into something career ending for those seeking office or positions of responsibility. There will be exceptions (look at hypocritical assholes insisting that Weiner isn't fit for office for showing his dick on Twitter yet shockingly those same people are completely silent when one of theirs is caught trying to suck some dude off in a men's room despite being staunchly anti-gay) but it'll get better.
You're missing something though - the fact that everyone's indiscretions will be available will mean that indiscretions will matter less. In a world where everyone's got nude pics out there or whatever, nobody will give a fuck because giving a fuck is essentially risking mutually assured destruction, or, if they happen to be someone without easily discoverable dirt, they'll wind up being seen as a busybody asshole for bothering to try to shame someone.
Hell, the way tech is moving, we aren't that far from people being able to trivially find out anything they want, essentially instantly, about anyone they happen to run across with nothing more than a picture and a smartphone/watch/device.
For me, I learned a long time ago that rather than waste my energy fighting a losing (already lost?) battle, I would instead try to learn how to not give much of a fuck if people feel compelled to "violate my privacy" and how to mitigate the damage that could be done by a malicious person who chose to do so. 90% of this learning was becoming confident enough to just shrug and say "what's your point?" when nosy people try to shame me, and the other 10% was doing my best to ensure that the people who matter in my life aren't assholes.
Are you in favor of laws that require emergency responders to render aid in cases of immediately life threatening scenarios, or of emergency rooms to provide treatment regardless of ability to pay? How about the right to due process when arrested and all the people that forces to provide labor? What about polling staff etc. when it comes time to exercise your right to vote?
Helping people who have immediate needs and en encouraging them to learn to be self-sufficient once the immediate needs are met is not cultivating dependency, and I honestly have no idea where, other than your ass, you pulled out the idea that I would think otherwise.
People who are in immediate need tend to make very stupid decisions in order to solve their immediate problem - a person who does not know where their next meal will come from or where they will sleep that day is, by and large, not going to be coming up with a master plan for long-term self-sufficiently.
Further, people who are in programs where they receive welfare often have a very difficult time making the transition to self-sufficiency because idiots such as yourself have helped shape policy to the point where in many situations a person who does get part-time work winds up having their benefits cut more than the part-time work will give them, to the point where they will not be viable. And, of course, idiots such as yourself seem to constantly suggest incredibly stupid policies like drug-testing for welfare recipients (which saves very little, if anything) and cutting programs that will help recipients learn useful skills etc.
You're an idiot who compares human beings to wild animals. I find you icky as a result.
There is no possible way I can respond to any of your comments except to say that you very clearly are in significant distress. I sympathize with your pain, but I am not the appropriate person to help you with it, so I can only urge you in the strongest possible way to seek professional help as soon as you are able. I can't imagine Slashdot is the appropriate place to deal with this, nor can I imagine it being particularly helpful for your situation. Good luck.
I would say that the reason for the downward pressure on bitcoin is the laughably amateurish state of the exchanges and the rampant scamming that's going on all over the place.
Actually, I think bitcoin has been good for one thing (I mean, other than a good laugh): demonstrating exactly what would happen if you had a truly unregulated economy. MASSIVE scamming going on with a whole bunch of people doing their level best to leave the next guy holding the bag when it all comes crashing down.
I would say that the fact that he sees no meaningful difference between hungry bears and hungry human beings speaks more of his view of humanity than anything, but I think we're both angling towards the same general notion: he is whack.
That's the thing, though - telling people to just suck it up and deal is a shitty response because it basically lowers everyone.
Why should anyone, regardless of gender, tolerate being treated poorly where they work? There's no law of physics that states that work has to be a soul destroying experience or that employees need to take shit and like it.
I find it pretty depressing that so many people are behaving like putting up with abuse is a *good* thing.
Nah, more like I found the first reasonable opportunity to thank them for their time and the opportunity, explain that I didn't really feel like it was going to be a good match, and that I hoped they found someone who was a good fit.
I suppose I could have done a "shut it down!" kind of thing complete with slammed doors or something, which would have been fun but not terribly professional.
Actually, that's what I was talking about with affirmative action being "good intention, awful implementation" - government hiring is often based on factors other than qualifications because the government is under no obligation to turn a profit or perform at any particular level.
However, that's not applicable to non-governmental firms that are not doing government business. Some may have quotas, but I find it very unlikely that they will have hard and fast quotas when it comes to hiring a very in-demand skillset in a very competitive sector, and when a bad hire can have a very bad downside. Certainly it would not happen repeatedly to the point where it is a systemic problem - there simply aren't enough female applicants to go around for it to actually BE a problem where men find themselves systemically discriminated against in hiring for highly skilled and in-demand roles.
The article and my response is about hiring skilled workers in a very in-demand field in which there really are NOT a lot of female applicants.
If a guy is finding it hard to find a job in this industry because he is somehow unlucky enough to be applying for jobs that the vanishingly small number of female applicants are also hiring for at the vanishingly small number of technology firms that are actually using some kind of arbitrary quota system for skilled technologists, then I would venture to say the problem is that said guy is living in an alternate universe, because that in no way, shape, or form represents the reality we live in.
For unskilled jobs, yes, I'm absolutely sure people run afoul of quotas all the time. For jobs in fields where there is a surplus of skilled workers, yes, I'm absolutely sure people run afoul of quotas all the time. But for jobs in fields where skilled workers are in short supply and there is high demand? Nope, sorry, not buying it as a systemic problem.
Why? Just as I'm not responsible for the behavior of any individual but myself, I'm also not responsible for the behavior of any organization I'm not a part of.
You're making my point - you're holding me accountable for, or at least suggesting that I have a responsibility to take action about behaviors I had nothing to do with, which is ridiculous.
I'm actually quite consistent: When there is some way to differentiate individuals, I treat them as individuals. When there is literally no way to differentiate individuals, I have no obligation to try and make any distinction.
As far as I know, you're the same person who called me a cunt in another post because you have chosen to post in such a way that I literally have no way of knowing otherwise. Shame on you for using such language!
No, the fact that someone was hired does not mean they're hot shit. It means they were hired.
My point was about the converse: If someone is not being hired in a field as in-demand as the one that is the subject of this article, then it's more probable that they aren't very good at their job than it is that they are somehow having their jobs sniped by the tiny pool of female candidates for said positions.
Oh, for sure - people absolutely tend to stereotype. It's incredibly convenient when you're dealing with people in the abstract, but it really, really sucks as a tool when you're dealing with people on an individual basis. Thus the whole problem.
I absolutely can see where they're coming from, and actually, I have great sympathy for them. I also have some biases/stereotypes that go through my mind when I meet individuals who fall into certain categories, but I make a conscious (and sometimes incredibly DIFFICULT, and sometimes failed) effort not to apply my biases to them or to make them answer for it. I'm not perfect, far from it, but I make the effort. The point here is that if people make the effort, things will get a little better.
Honestly, the reason I don't just "deal with it" is because I don't have to. I'm fortunate enough to be in a situation where I'm able to be selective and one of the categories where I choose to be selective is "not wanting to be held accountable for unknown behaviors of people who are not me."
Everyone has things that are deal-breakers for their workplace - you don't care about being stereotyped, which is your prerogative - but I do. Likewise I'm sure there are things I couldn't care less about but that you find vitally important. Different people are different.
Don't be so irrational. I'll dismiss the slurs you used because I have to assume you aren't able to control yourself while within the grips of such strong emotions.
I can understand from your hysterics here why you think a meltdown may have occurred, but my handling of the situation was diplomatic enough that, as I said, I was still offered positions despite clearly stating my lack of interest due to a poor fit.
I don't think it's oversensitive or self-important to call an early end to an interview where you know it won't be a fit and you don't want either party to waste any more time. Frankly, I'd find it fairly rude to do otherwise.
First, let me say it sounds like a shitty situation you're in, and you sound really frustrated (and rightfully so) about it. I've known a few trans-folk (men and women) and it just sounds like a totally raw deal any way you slice it. All the negatives of either gender, none of the positives, with a healthy heaping of irrational hatred on top, when it comes to how society treats you. For what it's worth, you tell me you're a woman, and that's good enough for me, because I really don't give a damn about what you've got in your undies.
Second, there's no way I can answer your question about how you should deal with this. You're asking me to explain, in some way, the behaviors and beliefs of people who are not me, and then how you should handle that. The best I can do is say "well, some people are assholes and if they're assholes to you it's probably better to not put too much stock in what they say" but that kind of doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot since it's pretty much a platitude.
The only thing I can tell you is that you would probably benefit from finding some way to let go of your (certainly justified) anger. It doesn't seem to be doing you much good, and frankly seems like it would just alienate many people who might otherwise be allies or at least not assholes like the people you described.
I consider myself to be a feminist - actually, rather, a humanist. I think you're probably using the term "feminist" to mean something more akin to "feminazi" or "people who use the term feminist in order to justify treating men like shit."
I don't treat men like shit, nor do I think all men are rapists, so I can't answer to your statements of "feminists do this" because, in my experience, they do not, and I certainly don't.
Think about it in reverse - if I were to say "you're just like every other guy out there, you think all feminists are bad people blah blah blah" it would be stupid, right? Because not ALL guys make blanket statements about feminists like you just did. I can say YOU are making a poor argument because of your blanket statements, but it would be completely unfair of me to say that ALL of whatever term I want to apply to you (men's rights activist? I dunno) aren't capable of making a reasonable argument.
Personally, I think it sucks that ANYONE has to live in fear of another person being an asshole (and, you're really describing "assholes who happen to identify as feminists" rather than feminists), and I wish it were different, but alas, we live in this world, not fantasy land.
The thing is, I totally get the sense of humor thing - but not in the guise of "we had a woman, she didn't have a sense of humor, so we're asking you this because she didn't." It would be no different than saying "we had a (insert whatever irrelevant demographic category), they didn't work out, you must answer for something you had nothing to do with."
When I said we discussed the culture during my interview with the place I ultimately went with, I mean we talked about exactly the kind of things like toasting marshmallows etc. We talked about our personal programming projects, home network set-ups, random geeky shit that lets you get a feel for if someone is really interested and driven or just doing it for the $$$. We also talked about how people in the office generally comport themselves - including having a sense of humor/sense of perspective about things. But the point here is that at no time did I feel like I was being presumed to be lacking just because someone else in a similar demographic bucket to me was lacking.
Slashdot Mirror
The person I was responding to said that it was impossible to take control of a plane since 9/11, PERIOD. It is not. People have taken control of planes. Whether or not they got what they wanted as a result is not relevant - they took control of the plane in, according to you, at least 2 cases, even if they were arrested on the ground.
The OP didn't make any claims about US airlines or anything else - just that hijackings since 9/11 are impossible PERIOD, which is demonstrably false as you have just agreed.
The person I was responding to said nobody would ever take over a plane again, period.
People have taken over planes since 9/11. It originating from the US or being a US airline is completely irrelevant to the comment I made or the comment I was responding to.
Why do people keep saying this? There have been hijackings since 9/11 in which the plane was not destroyed and the hijackers took control of the plane.
For an assuredly incomplete list, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
Pay particular attention to the 10+ ones listed after September 11, 2001.
Except "this generation" isn't some monolithic block of people. Some will get fucked over by their openness, some will thrive from it, just like anything else.
I don't go about broadcasting my information, but I have made the conscious choice to accept that ANYTHING about me is potentially knowable by anyone, and I have made a conscious effort to arrange my life in such a way that even if my deepest, darkest secrets were known to the entire planet, nothing terribly important to me would be all that negatively impacted. It actually has been a pretty nice exercise in sorting out what is ACTUALLY important to me vs. what I only thought was important due to convention.
I disagree. In 1992 Clinton had to say he didn't inhale, and now we have a president who said that was the whole point and happily admits he dabbled. We've gone from it being an absolute career killer for any politician to even be *suspected* of being gay to it not being THAT big a deal if someone is openly gay. On stuff that people used to be scandalized by, we've gotten better because it's become more common to the point where people are more easily able to relate. So, I really don't think that the same standards you or I or other people of whatever the "older" generation will hold with younger people, especially those who have grown up in a more permissive world.
Seriously - years ago when Clinton was being hounded over *GASP* a blowjob from an intern (and lying about it under oath) would you have felt confident saying that a half-black, half-white guy who admitted to smoking weed ("Did I inhale? That was the point") with a really foreign sounding name would be elected President of the United State not once but twice, and both times with a very solid majority? We're starting to care less and less about dumb shit that doesn't matter - and every year as more and more of the old guard die off we get more permissive.
On your point about felons and acceptance of same, I don't disagree that by and large we vilify (whether correctly or not) those who have been incarcerated, but there is a rather strong trend towards recognizing that just because someone has been imprisoned doesn't necessarily mean it was just or right. A LOT of people in this country who have been imprisoned were put away for drug crimes, and as you might have noticed, states are starting to realize how fucking stupid that is and slowly moving to change it.
Shit is changing, the rate of change is increasing, and I honestly don't see irrelevant shit that people post on Facebook or whatever turning into something career ending for those seeking office or positions of responsibility. There will be exceptions (look at hypocritical assholes insisting that Weiner isn't fit for office for showing his dick on Twitter yet shockingly those same people are completely silent when one of theirs is caught trying to suck some dude off in a men's room despite being staunchly anti-gay) but it'll get better.
You're missing something though - the fact that everyone's indiscretions will be available will mean that indiscretions will matter less. In a world where everyone's got nude pics out there or whatever, nobody will give a fuck because giving a fuck is essentially risking mutually assured destruction, or, if they happen to be someone without easily discoverable dirt, they'll wind up being seen as a busybody asshole for bothering to try to shame someone.
Hell, the way tech is moving, we aren't that far from people being able to trivially find out anything they want, essentially instantly, about anyone they happen to run across with nothing more than a picture and a smartphone/watch/device.
For me, I learned a long time ago that rather than waste my energy fighting a losing (already lost?) battle, I would instead try to learn how to not give much of a fuck if people feel compelled to "violate my privacy" and how to mitigate the damage that could be done by a malicious person who chose to do so. 90% of this learning was becoming confident enough to just shrug and say "what's your point?" when nosy people try to shame me, and the other 10% was doing my best to ensure that the people who matter in my life aren't assholes.
Are you in favor of laws that require emergency responders to render aid in cases of immediately life threatening scenarios, or of emergency rooms to provide treatment regardless of ability to pay? How about the right to due process when arrested and all the people that forces to provide labor? What about polling staff etc. when it comes time to exercise your right to vote?
Helping people who have immediate needs and en encouraging them to learn to be self-sufficient once the immediate needs are met is not cultivating dependency, and I honestly have no idea where, other than your ass, you pulled out the idea that I would think otherwise.
People who are in immediate need tend to make very stupid decisions in order to solve their immediate problem - a person who does not know where their next meal will come from or where they will sleep that day is, by and large, not going to be coming up with a master plan for long-term self-sufficiently.
Further, people who are in programs where they receive welfare often have a very difficult time making the transition to self-sufficiency because idiots such as yourself have helped shape policy to the point where in many situations a person who does get part-time work winds up having their benefits cut more than the part-time work will give them, to the point where they will not be viable. And, of course, idiots such as yourself seem to constantly suggest incredibly stupid policies like drug-testing for welfare recipients (which saves very little, if anything) and cutting programs that will help recipients learn useful skills etc.
You're an idiot who compares human beings to wild animals. I find you icky as a result.
There is no possible way I can respond to any of your comments except to say that you very clearly are in significant distress. I sympathize with your pain, but I am not the appropriate person to help you with it, so I can only urge you in the strongest possible way to seek professional help as soon as you are able. I can't imagine Slashdot is the appropriate place to deal with this, nor can I imagine it being particularly helpful for your situation. Good luck.
I would say that the reason for the downward pressure on bitcoin is the laughably amateurish state of the exchanges and the rampant scamming that's going on all over the place.
Actually, I think bitcoin has been good for one thing (I mean, other than a good laugh): demonstrating exactly what would happen if you had a truly unregulated economy. MASSIVE scamming going on with a whole bunch of people doing their level best to leave the next guy holding the bag when it all comes crashing down.
I would say that the fact that he sees no meaningful difference between hungry bears and hungry human beings speaks more of his view of humanity than anything, but I think we're both angling towards the same general notion: he is whack.
I'm amused that you were modified +5 insightful for saying you see no meaningful difference between human beings and bears.
Steven Colbert should put you on his threatdown. You're clearly an enemy sympathizer!
That's the thing, though - telling people to just suck it up and deal is a shitty response because it basically lowers everyone.
Why should anyone, regardless of gender, tolerate being treated poorly where they work? There's no law of physics that states that work has to be a soul destroying experience or that employees need to take shit and like it.
I find it pretty depressing that so many people are behaving like putting up with abuse is a *good* thing.
Nah, more like I found the first reasonable opportunity to thank them for their time and the opportunity, explain that I didn't really feel like it was going to be a good match, and that I hoped they found someone who was a good fit.
I suppose I could have done a "shut it down!" kind of thing complete with slammed doors or something, which would have been fun but not terribly professional.
Actually, that's what I was talking about with affirmative action being "good intention, awful implementation" - government hiring is often based on factors other than qualifications because the government is under no obligation to turn a profit or perform at any particular level.
However, that's not applicable to non-governmental firms that are not doing government business. Some may have quotas, but I find it very unlikely that they will have hard and fast quotas when it comes to hiring a very in-demand skillset in a very competitive sector, and when a bad hire can have a very bad downside. Certainly it would not happen repeatedly to the point where it is a systemic problem - there simply aren't enough female applicants to go around for it to actually BE a problem where men find themselves systemically discriminated against in hiring for highly skilled and in-demand roles.
Except that's really not true in this context.
The article and my response is about hiring skilled workers in a very in-demand field in which there really are NOT a lot of female applicants.
If a guy is finding it hard to find a job in this industry because he is somehow unlucky enough to be applying for jobs that the vanishingly small number of female applicants are also hiring for at the vanishingly small number of technology firms that are actually using some kind of arbitrary quota system for skilled technologists, then I would venture to say the problem is that said guy is living in an alternate universe, because that in no way, shape, or form represents the reality we live in.
For unskilled jobs, yes, I'm absolutely sure people run afoul of quotas all the time. For jobs in fields where there is a surplus of skilled workers, yes, I'm absolutely sure people run afoul of quotas all the time. But for jobs in fields where skilled workers are in short supply and there is high demand? Nope, sorry, not buying it as a systemic problem.
Why? Just as I'm not responsible for the behavior of any individual but myself, I'm also not responsible for the behavior of any organization I'm not a part of.
You're making my point - you're holding me accountable for, or at least suggesting that I have a responsibility to take action about behaviors I had nothing to do with, which is ridiculous.
I'm actually quite consistent: When there is some way to differentiate individuals, I treat them as individuals. When there is literally no way to differentiate individuals, I have no obligation to try and make any distinction.
As far as I know, you're the same person who called me a cunt in another post because you have chosen to post in such a way that I literally have no way of knowing otherwise. Shame on you for using such language!
No, the fact that someone was hired does not mean they're hot shit. It means they were hired.
My point was about the converse: If someone is not being hired in a field as in-demand as the one that is the subject of this article, then it's more probable that they aren't very good at their job than it is that they are somehow having their jobs sniped by the tiny pool of female candidates for said positions.
Oh, for sure - people absolutely tend to stereotype. It's incredibly convenient when you're dealing with people in the abstract, but it really, really sucks as a tool when you're dealing with people on an individual basis. Thus the whole problem.
I absolutely can see where they're coming from, and actually, I have great sympathy for them. I also have some biases/stereotypes that go through my mind when I meet individuals who fall into certain categories, but I make a conscious (and sometimes incredibly DIFFICULT, and sometimes failed) effort not to apply my biases to them or to make them answer for it. I'm not perfect, far from it, but I make the effort. The point here is that if people make the effort, things will get a little better.
Honestly, the reason I don't just "deal with it" is because I don't have to. I'm fortunate enough to be in a situation where I'm able to be selective and one of the categories where I choose to be selective is "not wanting to be held accountable for unknown behaviors of people who are not me."
Everyone has things that are deal-breakers for their workplace - you don't care about being stereotyped, which is your prerogative - but I do. Likewise I'm sure there are things I couldn't care less about but that you find vitally important. Different people are different.
Don't be so irrational. I'll dismiss the slurs you used because I have to assume you aren't able to control yourself while within the grips of such strong emotions.
I can understand from your hysterics here why you think a meltdown may have occurred, but my handling of the situation was diplomatic enough that, as I said, I was still offered positions despite clearly stating my lack of interest due to a poor fit.
I don't think it's oversensitive or self-important to call an early end to an interview where you know it won't be a fit and you don't want either party to waste any more time. Frankly, I'd find it fairly rude to do otherwise.
First, let me say it sounds like a shitty situation you're in, and you sound really frustrated (and rightfully so) about it. I've known a few trans-folk (men and women) and it just sounds like a totally raw deal any way you slice it. All the negatives of either gender, none of the positives, with a healthy heaping of irrational hatred on top, when it comes to how society treats you. For what it's worth, you tell me you're a woman, and that's good enough for me, because I really don't give a damn about what you've got in your undies.
Second, there's no way I can answer your question about how you should deal with this. You're asking me to explain, in some way, the behaviors and beliefs of people who are not me, and then how you should handle that. The best I can do is say "well, some people are assholes and if they're assholes to you it's probably better to not put too much stock in what they say" but that kind of doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot since it's pretty much a platitude.
The only thing I can tell you is that you would probably benefit from finding some way to let go of your (certainly justified) anger. It doesn't seem to be doing you much good, and frankly seems like it would just alienate many people who might otherwise be allies or at least not assholes like the people you described.
I consider myself to be a feminist - actually, rather, a humanist. I think you're probably using the term "feminist" to mean something more akin to "feminazi" or "people who use the term feminist in order to justify treating men like shit."
I don't treat men like shit, nor do I think all men are rapists, so I can't answer to your statements of "feminists do this" because, in my experience, they do not, and I certainly don't.
Think about it in reverse - if I were to say "you're just like every other guy out there, you think all feminists are bad people blah blah blah" it would be stupid, right? Because not ALL guys make blanket statements about feminists like you just did. I can say YOU are making a poor argument because of your blanket statements, but it would be completely unfair of me to say that ALL of whatever term I want to apply to you (men's rights activist? I dunno) aren't capable of making a reasonable argument.
Personally, I think it sucks that ANYONE has to live in fear of another person being an asshole (and, you're really describing "assholes who happen to identify as feminists" rather than feminists), and I wish it were different, but alas, we live in this world, not fantasy land.
The thing is, I totally get the sense of humor thing - but not in the guise of "we had a woman, she didn't have a sense of humor, so we're asking you this because she didn't." It would be no different than saying "we had a (insert whatever irrelevant demographic category), they didn't work out, you must answer for something you had nothing to do with."
When I said we discussed the culture during my interview with the place I ultimately went with, I mean we talked about exactly the kind of things like toasting marshmallows etc. We talked about our personal programming projects, home network set-ups, random geeky shit that lets you get a feel for if someone is really interested and driven or just doing it for the $$$. We also talked about how people in the office generally comport themselves - including having a sense of humor/sense of perspective about things. But the point here is that at no time did I feel like I was being presumed to be lacking just because someone else in a similar demographic bucket to me was lacking.