Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My positive experience as a woman in tech

lea.verou.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 403 posts

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#201

Post by humanrebar »

meowface wrote: post #41
swombat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't she be treated as both simultaneously? Why does treatment as an "engineer" require the abolition of her "lady" role? Are the two roles not compatible? I personally thing it is more sexist to try and deny gender differences than simply recognise them and deal with people respectfully. I find the implication that the only way to not be sexist is to treat everyone as gender neutral disturbing.

Why is it generally okay to swear in front of men but generally not okay to swear in front of women? That's a pretty sexist, and condescending, point of view. Sure, there are gender differences. But I don't think "genetic vulnerability to profanity" is one of them.

> That's a pretty sexist, and condescending, point of view.

Have you lived in the South before? Men are raised that it's a sign of respect to be on their best behaviors around ladies. Shouldn't this count as cultural diversity and be respected?

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#202

Post by ionforce »

jnbiche wrote: post #92
golergka wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a sizable minority of HN commenters who deny sexism exists. It's always good to have a minority that questions the consensus. Even if this minority is something completely idiotic, like a "flat earth society".

I agree strongly with this statement. But most people seem to think that having a subgroup with "verboten" opinions is a liability, not an asset.

I think it depends on the... good-will (?) of the crowd. Like if both sides are willing to engage in reasoned debates, I don't see anything wrong with dissent.

But if one side is trolling or won't engage in good faith, then I would say that those types of people shouldn't be able to stick around. That's poisonous. And their continued existence lends credence to unfounded ideas.

I don't think this issue of sexism is so cut-and-dry. A lot of it is informed and shaped by people's personal experiences and we'll never have view of everyone's experiences with 100% clarity.

There will always be this natural tension when mixing "well, I'm skeptical of your claim" with "well, you should trust what I'm saying" from a disenfranchised party.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#203

Post by humanrebar »

coldpie wrote: post #117
meowface wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a woman, but if I were one, I think I'd be pretty irritated if I was given special privileges or encouragement over male peers to "help me succeed" or something. That seems condescending and unfair.

I understand what you're saying, but it is a bit more complicated than that. Affirmative action is about leveling an unlevel playing field by giving preferential treatment to those who are on the lower side of the playing field, even if they're "less qualified" than those on the higher end of the field. Yes, when viewed on the micro scale without a picture of the whole field, it may seem "unfair," but that's precisel…

> It is a tricky and difficult subject, I would not be quick to dismiss either argument.

It's especially tricky because the pro-affirmative-action perspective relies on affirmative action actually working. To the extent that it works, the original case for the special treatment weakens. To the extent that it doesn't work, then affirmative action is some sort of token sacrifice, not a way to actually help people. There's an inherent tension in there that most affirmative action proponents aren't really comfortable with.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#204

Post by humanrebar »

blowski wrote: post #175
charlieflowers wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if I assume you don't like pizza and football because you're female, so instead buy you frozen yoghurt, I'm being sexist I don't think so (if anyone thinks I'm wrong, I'd like to hear your thoughts). I think to be sexist, it must be (1) based on gender and (2) assume something _disparaging_ about the individual. Getting them yoghurt might get you laughed at for being silly, but it doesn't seem sexist to me. Assu…

> (2) assume something _disparaging_ about the individual. The problem is that "disparaging" is in the eye of the beholder. What you think of as silly might be really offensive to another person. What was harmless 30 years ago - say, pinching a female colleague's bum - could today be considered beyond the pale. It's better not to assume anything about anybody unless necessary. I'm sure you've been in a situation wher…

If you'd allow me to rephrase, "It's better to treat people as individuals first and part of a demographic second."

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#205

Post by humanrebar »

CaptSpify wrote: post #195
kelukelugames wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think it's okay to make dick jokes in the workplace?

Yes, although I do work in a uniquely sex-positive environment. I do believe that it heavily depends on the workplace. Some workplaces it is absolutely not OK. I'm a personality type that would rather work in an "unprofessional" environment, so I seek those out, while understanding that they may not be for everybody.

Did you mean to imply that people who like to keep their sexuality personal are not sex positive?

I'm pretty open about things, but I'm also open to the idea that people don't always appreciate sharing.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#206

Post by cmiles74 »

ryandrake wrote: post #150
cubano wrote: post #27

Here is my personal experience with the fringes of this issue over a lifetime of watching it play out before my eyes... If a female is attracted to the guy, things he says or does are considered "cute", "flirtatious", and/or "interesting". If not, the same actions are often considered "creepy", "jerkish", and yes even "sexist". I think its just human nature to perceive things in this way, and since women grow up in s…

In other words, the difference between "creepy" and "adorable" exists entirely within the mind of the person receiving the attention.

I wonder if the perceived potential threat is also a factor. I'm male and on the tall-ish side so it would take a lot for someone to approach me and for me to perceive them as "creepy" instead of maybe just awkward or odd.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#207

Post by oldmanjay »

kelukelugames wrote: post #188
CaptSpify wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "tone deaf" and then makes dick jokes What does "tone deaf" mean in this context? And what's wrong with dick-jokes? EDIT: I've poorly worded my question/point: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with dick jokes in the workplace, but context is key. It's probably best to side on safe in that regard I still would like to know what "tone deaf" means as I'm not understanding that term

Do you really think it's okay to make dick jokes in the workplace?

What about the concept of a penis is offensive exactly? No one has ever been able to give me a reason that doesn't devolve into a repetition of "you just don't talk about that" and I'm not prepared to care about that.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#208

Post by CaptSpify »

humanrebar wrote: post #205
CaptSpify wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, although I do work in a uniquely sex-positive environment. I do believe that it heavily depends on the workplace. Some workplaces it is absolutely not OK. I'm a personality type that would rather work in an "unprofessional" environment, so I seek those out, while understanding that they may not be for everybody.

Did you mean to imply that people who like to keep their sexuality personal are not sex positive? I'm pretty open about things, but I'm also open to the idea that people don't always appreciate sharing.

I concede I didn't really make my point clear due to poor wording. What I mean is: I don't think dick-jokes are inherently wrong for the workplace. I think context is the key. I worked at a Fortune-500 where they were absolutely not acceptable, but I tend towards places where they are acceptable.

> Did you mean to imply that people who like to keep their sexuality personal are not sex positive?

Heh, not at all. I'm a very private person when it comes to sex, but I'm also sex-positive.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#209

Post by theinternetman »

SuperComputing wrote: post #111
indifferentalex wrote: post #19

10/10 Will read again. The sexism debate has indeed painted a bleak picture, people so often try to show a different side of the picture but end up using the wrong words or simply adding ambiguity to the discussion, most of the time only making the matter more complicated, and worst of all, pulling us even further from a potential solution. This one showed us not only a potential solution, but also proved it's effect…

And the "sexism" debate was stirred by people who were only tangentially involved in Tech, like the PR person "Adria Richards". If you listen to actual women with actual Math, CS, or EE degrees, you'll hear a different story.

Way to downplay their contributions in tech just because they work in a department you don't deem as important.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#210

Post by dajohnson89 »

marrs wrote: post #81
scintill76 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you missed the point of the GP poster. The GP would have apologized for this to anyone he didn't know well. Why would it be GP's fault for "making" someone feel "out of place" by treating them with a certain respect that has nothing to do with any personal characteristics? Her role wasn't "lady" or "engineer", it was "person I don't an F-bomb-level rapport with." At least that's the main point of GP's post. What…

My interpretation of the GP's comment was that he believes the man in the article was simply treating the author with the same common courtesy he treats all women with. My parents' generation used to call this "being a gentleman". Speaking of my parents, my mother brought me up to always be a gentleman around ladies, which included things like not using bad language. This was quickly drilled out of me when I entered…

GP here. The correct interpretation of my comment is that it was complete bullshit, judging by the downvotes it received. Hope that clears everything up.
Post reply on HN