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

391–400 of 403 posts

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#391

Post by tomp »

andrewvc wrote: post #213
humanrebar wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't actually cubano's point. You're straight so you weren't attracted to any of the guys who approached you. cubano was saying it would be different if you were approached by a woman you were interested in. Perhaps the indirectness would seem coy instead of creepy. Then again, maybe not, but I'm not sure how to objectively measure this phenomenon. People are fickle and attractiveness is sort of a squishy conce…

You've got a point. I'm sure being physically attracted to someone enhances or diminishes the effect of their actual approach. Additionally, attractive people are more confident, and confident people tend to not behave in as many creepy behaviors. That being said, the underlying theme of cubano's comment was blaming women for (shockingly) responding positively to flirty men who they find attractive, and responding ne…

I don't think that's what cubano was implying. Nobody would blame women for responding positively or negatively to attractive or unattractive men - that's just taste, and it's completely natural.

However, it's become acceptable and fashionable to shame unattractive men as "creepy" - that is unacceptable to me (unless the person is actually creepy, e.g. a stalker etc.), and women (and whoever else is doing it) are to blame.

Edit: We can compare being "creepy" with being "a slut". It's OK to not be attracted to women (or people) who are "sluts" - you're entitled to whatever taste or compatibility criteria you want in a partner. But it's definitely not OK to shame women for being sluts.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#392

Post by pron »

throwaway999888 wrote: post #330
pron wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you're just doing your normal schtick of incorrectly assuming that everyone else is stupid (obviously no one, including blowski, thinks "to not be sexist, you need to ignore information and make worse decisions"), but this time you have accidentally stumbled on an interesting point. I know you don't care one way or another, but for the sake of other readers, I'd like to point it out(and BTW, your specific exam…

I guess the conclusion to yummyfajitas' scenario then is to not give a woman frozen yogurt or pizza, but broccoli or spinach instead.

The conclusion is to try to study about society before trying to make unfounded assumptions such as "as in the past" = "greatest happiness".

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#393

Post by pron »

pron wrote: post #390
yummyfajitas wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one disputes the necessity of models. Why do you think I did? I didn't say that. I said that we can't predict with certainty... Actually you said "I cannot say that my predictions are better than random". Either your predictions convey information (i.e., posterior(world state|prediction) != posterior(world state)) or they doesn't. If they don't, they are useless for prediction since E[utility|choice] cannot vary.…

> Why do you think I did? Because you said that ignoring people's past preference leads to sub-optimal decisions and implied that the best decision is merely to reflect past actions. You can't possibly make that claim unless you have a model that states that people's preferences don't change. That would be a very wrong model, though, because we know that they change and we know what may change them. > Actually you sa…

BTW, if all our models are no better than random, the basis for relying on past behavior as a predictor of future happiness is no less shaky than any other. In that case, we'd have no reason to believe that ignoring past data would lead to any worse decisions than any other assumption.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#394

Post by SolaceQuantum »

CaptSpify wrote: post #323
Tycho wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of like the background noise for some reason. It wouldn't surprise me if our brains evolved to be most relaxedness and free from other worries when surrounded by other humans, making it a good setting for doing some studying or whatever.

I can see that. I personally prefer music, but I've definitely heard of people turning on the tv for "background chatter" when they live alone. My point is though: By putting yourself in a public setting, you are more likely to be approached. I don't want to say "asking to be approached", but I'm not sure how else to articulate my thought |:) I wouldn't be shocked if a stranger approached me in a coffee-shop. I would…

Here's the thing, I shouldn't expect to be met with other people's rudeness. That's not my fault. They are the ones that are rude. The exact attitude you're displaying is exactly what you are struggling to avoid saying.

I'm not shocked if a stranger approaches me; I consider them unable to recognize the social situation and they are being rude. I also grew up in the city, where the socially polite thing to do in most public situations is to leave people alone.

I go to coffee shops because I like the laid back atmosphere of many of them. I also like the smell of coffee and people watching.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#395

Post by pdex »

lloyd-christmas wrote: post #389
pdex wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be more irked by the comment she made about your balls hanging down your pant leg. Sounds like sexual harassment to me, if it were me wouldn't let a boss speak to me in that fashion- male or female.

I made that comment. If it were sexual harassment, I'd treat it as sexual harassment. It's a joke, so I treat it as a joke.

I am truly sorry, I misread your post.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#396

Post by pdex »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #185
adrianN wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still not convinced that the lack of women in tech is due to sexism. Maybe women just aren't as excited by the field as men? Nobody seems to question that this is the reason why there are so few male preschool teachers.

There is an excellent Norwegian documentary, Hjernevask, that explores this question and many others like it. The premise is set up in the first couple minutes of the first episode: why is it that in one of the most gender equal countries in the world that women and men still flocked to traditional jobs? It had such an impact that the government decided to shut down their Gender Studies Institute. But you won't see t…

I, too, must also thank you for that link. That is a very interesting documentary, I watched all 7 episodes. I do have to say that while it brings up a lot of good points, research and the validity of it is very difficult to verify at times. I was disappointed in some of the closed-mindedness that some of the "experts" seemed to have, although they may have been correct about some of the research being on shaky ground in terms of proof. A lot of research offers up correlations and anecdotal observations, but no actual scientific proof. However if you find a lot of anecdotal correlations pointing in the same direction it's begs for scientific study to see if there is proof or mere coincidence. Sadly many of those scientists didn't seem the least bit curious to find out if there was any scientific cause behind anecdotal evidence, especially if it conflicted with their political views. That was so disappointing! I would have expected a much different attitude from scientists and experts. But if political opinion is what funds research and determines which scientists get promoted, I suppose I shouldn't be quite so shocked. I do wish they looked into why non-western females had a higher rate of interest in STEM, they seemed to gloss over it and attributed it to "It motivates them because it's more lucrative", I don't buy that and I wish they investigated it more.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#397

Post by pdex »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #375
Dirlewanger wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an excellent Norwegian documentary, Hjernevask, that explores this question and many others like it. The premise is set up in the first couple minutes of the first episode: why is it that in one of the most gender equal countries in the world that women and men still flocked to traditional jobs? It had such an impact that the government decided to shut down their Gender Studies Institute. But you won't see t…

Thank you for this - a fascinating documentary and I am planning on watching the rest in the series. ( http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwash... ) The above link is from Wikipedia and is a English subtitle - the comedian / host wants to know why in Norway there are clear gender divides - 10% women in a construction firm, no men in a hospital maternity ward. He approaches Norwegian researchers wh…

I like how the documentary investigated studies on nature vs. nurture. One thing I do admit is that it's very difficult to measure how much of it is genetics alone, since we can't raise kids in a lab isolated from the outside world to ensure 100% that there is no outside cultural or parental influence that may skew the results. That steps on some ethical toes as well. While it's gotten much better, there is still a great deal of culture, advertising, parenting, etc that can subconsciously influence gender roles. Although it looks as though you can only influence people so much, at innate genetic/biologic nature seems to want to resist.

I don't think there's an answer to it either, but to me it looks like while biology and genetics do have some sway, so does environment and culture- enough where the current gender percentages probably shouldn't be quite so divergent. We're still a society in transition, and it wasn't very long ago where women weren't allowed to have career opportunities at all, it will be interesting to see how the numbers change in another generation or two.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#398

Post by marrs »

meowface wrote: post #107
marrs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You remind me of a time when one of my colleagues made a somewhat ribald comment, and my other colleague - the only woman in the room (whom, by the way, we treated in the way the author would have approved: as one of us) - reminded him that there was a lady present. I still keep in touch with her, so I'll be sure to pass on the message that she's both sexist and condescending.

I can't really respond to this without knowing the actual content of the comment, and the context. But if it was literally him saying something like "what the fuck" or whatever, then yes, I think she was not being reasonable. If she were to say "I don't like that kind of language", that's fine, but to suggest ladies don't like that kind of language is a big overgeneralization on her part. I'm guessing it was a differ…

I think it was a sexual comment, or it may have been a gesture. It was a long time ago now, so I can't really remember.

As far as I'm concerned, her reaction was justified whatever the context. If she'd had a different reaction, that would have been fine too. It's not reasonable to tell someone that they aren't entitled to a reaction.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#399

Post by marrs »

scintill76 wrote: post #312
marrs wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He treats all women with a common courtesy... and all men with that same courtesy. Did you misread the bit about "holding the door open for a lady"? Hint: the reason he does so is not because of her gender, has nothing to do with "being a gentleman" or anything else your parents taught you that you're dragging into this thread before anyone else did. The reason I know is because he calls it a "common courtesy" in a "…

I wasn't trying to attack the OP. I was offering my interpretation of his comment along with the opinion that maybe being chivalrous doesn't make him a bad person. It might just be that he was brought up to believe that it's socially unacceptable not to be chivalrous.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#400

Post by Grishnakh »

userium wrote: post #133
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…

Based on discussions we have had with women in tech at https://keepwomen.com , it's not just sexism, but many women leave tech due to working conditions (low salary, no advancement), work-life balance (too much travelling, commuting), or the company environment (poor cultural "fit"). Some solutions for retaining women in tech are e.g. flexible working hours, personal development opportunities and workforce diversity.

>work-life balance (too much travelling, commuting)

I have to take issue with this. Work/life balance is indeed a common problem in tech, with long working hours expected in many places when they make up unreasonable schedules.

However, I've never heard of traveling or commuting being big problems in tech at all. In my years as a software engineer, I only traveled a lot for a telecommute job where I had to meet with customers and also travel to the home office; outside of that I've barely traveled at all (and a good chunk of that was at a job during the dot-com boom when they were really liberal with travel funds and sent people to a lot of overpriced conferences and trade shows). For programmers, travel just isn't a big part of the job, unless you have a rare job where you need to meet with customers a lot (which is usually more of an applications engineering or sales support role).

As for commuting, that's entirely based on where you choose to live. It's probably a problem in the Bay Area, but in most other places it's no more a problem for tech workers than everyone else. Every metro area has problems with commuting: people frequently live not that close to work, due either to housing prices or because they already had a house and happened to get a job on the other side of the city or something. This isn't unique to tech jobs, except maybe the Bay Area thing because that metro area is dominated by tech jobs.

The problem with work/life balance in tech is working hours, and that's it. Tech workers are frequently expected to work too much, young males with no social lives are too often willing or able to dedicate too many hours to their jobs (thus making those who don't look bad), and as a result, people who value their free time (like, oh, women who tend to get pregnant and have children) don't do so well and get forced out.

Honestly, I'm not sure what the answer here is. Flexible working hours aren't going to help a working mother much if she's still expected to put in 12 hour days. The only answer I see is eliminating the "exempt" status for tech workers and having them be paid hourly like factory workers. This of course has its own set of problems. But it's exactly what they do for, say, nurses, who are also professional workers who are usually college educated.

Post reply on HN