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...
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
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.
Jeff called her out on it, making an unfortunately cliched reference to Letter from Birmingham Jail and people got heated again. His point has been constantly missed but he's not backing from it too much and in some places the meta discussion about the discussion has been somewhat enlightening itself. Jeff and I had a very good conversation on twitter about it with a woman saying we were tone policing, which I didn't even know was a thing people felt when talking but it is apparently.
> 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.
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...