Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#121

Post by kbenson » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 4:36 PM UTC

johnbm wrote: post #93

[deleted] wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Criticizing a woman, even calling her a bitch, is not misogyny. Misogyny is hating women because they are women. What OP described is just heckling. And what OP did is white knighting, i.e. a man defending a woman, because she's a woman, in order to appear virtuous. Like posting about it on HackerNews.

No, what he did was reinforce what is acceptable social behavior in that situation. While the specifics of the situation may have spurred him to act quicker or in a case he wouldn't have, that's irrelevant. The behavior being called out is unacceptable no matter who is giving the talk. People did not attend the talk to hear people heckle the talker, there are other forums for that (stand-up, and there are some talks which might be more comical and some light heckling might be acceptable).

Rude behavior was called out. It's rude regardless of the people in each position in this scenario.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#122

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

clifanatic wrote: post #70

dang wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sleight of hand. Even supposing all that "data" to be accurate, you assume your conclusion by acting as if you know what the reason for it is. But, as we all know, nothing is more highly disputed. This is not the way to an open-minded and open-hearted discussion about the truth; it's a tangent to yet another generic ideological flamewar. That violates the HN guidelines. Since you've done this repeatedly befor…

Yikes. All he did was present some data (with references) that you dispute. You banned him for that? You seem to be the one who isn't interested in an open-minded and open-hearted discussion about the truth.

[deleted]

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#123

Post by pc86 » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #80

cheez0r wrote: post #29

That sure sounds like what the tech industry always seems to prefer: walk the walk, not talk the talk; software, not slideware; etc. Be a strong tech woman and you don't have to advocate for them; your actions speak louder than words. Just ask Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12129860 and marked it off-topic.

I have no idea what NDT has to do with anything but this seems like a level-headed, fair reply that is indeed on-topic. What is off-topic about it?

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#124

Post by btilly » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #91

btilly wrote: post #23

I personally know several successful professional women who have a policy of refusing to belong to any women-only groups. Their reason is that in their experience such groups are populated by people seeking reassurance. The result is that they offer the "support" of lowered expectations. Which won't help you succeed. One also pointed out to me that if a group of men were to form a men's only business club, that would…

If you are a member of a disadvantaged group, you often do not have the ability to identify as a professional first and a group member second. That is the effect of being disadvantaged. Other people will make your life seem primarily about being a group member. Think about dealing with sexist/sexually-charged comments, racial tension at the office. Even if you want to just be a professional, other people will get in…

Argue for your limitations, and surely they're yours.

To the extent that you can focus on what is under your personal control, you are likely to be happier and more productive. To the extent that you focus on things that are not under your control and can't be changed, you will be unhappy, unproductive, and will have a built-in excuse for your failures. This is not an either-or choice, it is a spectrum. And the farther you manage to go towards taking responsibility for your life, generally the better you will do.

This does not diminish the real challenges that various historically disadvantaged groups have. It is what I believe the best advice is for them based on everything that I have learned..including from people I respect who are members of various disadvantaged groups.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#125

Post by mordocai » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

Snargorf wrote: post #111

jordigh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is no less sexist to form a women's only club, but nobody sees fit to criticize it. It is not -ist if a disadvantaged group does something to counteract its disadvantage without considering the privileged group. If women are disadvantaged, it is reasonable to do something to fix their disadvantage without having to interject "but what about men!?" So, for example, Ubuntu/Debian/Arch Women groups are not sexist a…

>If women are disadvantaged Except they're not. In fact, in tech, they're advantaged. Female names on resumes get more callback than male names. This has been studied. The reason there are fewer of them is because fewer of them are interested.

> The reason there are fewer of them is because fewer of them are interested.

Which is at least somewhat due to societal pressures though.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#126

Post by rfrey » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

mhurron wrote: post #101

> I don't think those guys were bad people, I don't think they sat there in their minds thinking, "let's tear the woman down". I really don't think they thought about it at all Yes, they are bad people, and the fact that they didn't have to think about going out of there way to tear someone down is part of why they are bad people. They didn't have to think about "let's tear the woman down" because they were already a…

Shaming people - even dipshits - and fanning the politics of polarization has not historically been an effective way to change attitudes.

I totally understand the feelings of righteous rage and desire for justice. I've often imagined scenarios where the target of my wrath is so shocked by somebody's contempt for them that they re-examine their attitudes and positions.

But that's a fantasy. In reality, shaming obese people leads to more obese (but now psychologically damaged) people; shaming racists leads to people resurrecting the confederate flag and "all lives matter" movements; and shaming misogynists leads to idiocies like mens' rights groups.

Do you want to feel good, or do you want to change things?

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#127

Post by jackmott » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

BrainInAJar wrote: post #62

refurb wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgetting these folks don't have the institutional power to harm others. Really? I'd say an accusation from those groups can ruin a career.

whose career ? Name one.

Scott Aaronson had some pretty tough times for doing absolutely nothing.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#128

Post by ideonexus » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #28

Personal story time...I was at a recent conference, listening to men, women given talks. One of the women, in her talk, uses an interaction with her daughter as the framing narrative for the talk (imagine Socrates and Glaucon, only this woman and her daughter). Almost immediately, three guys to my right start making fun of the speaker, sotto voce, making all manner of little jokes to themselves, that are becoming inc…

You did the absolute right thing in that situation. I was in a meeting once with a CIO, middle management, and two female developers. At one point, the CIO got bored with the tech-talk and drove the conversation to his recently taking his son around to visit college campuses... and then onto the topic of which campuses had the hottest female students. The middle-managers immediately joined in the conversation, while the female techs stared at their hands uncomfortably until the meeting was over. The CIO was eventually dismissed for incompetence, but I will always regret not standing up to such incredibly unprofessional behavior.

In the 1990s, working for various government contractors, it was common for techs with military backgrounds to accuse male coworkers of behaving "like a woman" as a means of short-cutting discussions. As a nerd, I was often victim to those kinds of attacks. I'm incredibly thankful that increasing diversity in the workforce is creating a culture where those kinds of statements are no longer tolerated. Fostering a workplace that's good for women also fosters a workplace for men who don't fit traditional cultural norms of masculinity.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#129

Post by fdsaaf » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #81

dang wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sleight of hand. Even supposing all that "data" to be accurate, you assume your conclusion by acting as if you know what the reason for it is. But, as we all know, nothing is more highly disputed. This is not the way to an open-minded and open-hearted discussion about the truth; it's a tangent to yet another generic ideological flamewar. That violates the HN guidelines. Since you've done this repeatedly befor…

It's not just sleight of hand. Race isn't even a scientifically defined concept, and it can't currently be defined or measured with existing technology. Everyone is a wide mix of many races.

Genome-wide clustering algorithms that are run with no a priori assumptions about population structure end up discovering human population groups that match almost perfectly with self-identified "race".

The claim that race doesn't exist is simply false. We can talk about whether or not it's useful to make policy decisions based on race, but if we're respecting the data, we can't say that there are no coherent human population groupings smaller than homo sapiens or that these groups do not align with traditionally-understood "race".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

It's incredibly frustrating to see well-intentioned people just flatly deny facts about the world. The mistrust and resentment this denial causes makes it much more difficult to get useful messages across.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#130

Post by pc86 » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #91

btilly wrote: post #23

I personally know several successful professional women who have a policy of refusing to belong to any women-only groups. Their reason is that in their experience such groups are populated by people seeking reassurance. The result is that they offer the "support" of lowered expectations. Which won't help you succeed. One also pointed out to me that if a group of men were to form a men's only business club, that would…

If you are a member of a disadvantaged group, you often do not have the ability to identify as a professional first and a group member second. That is the effect of being disadvantaged. Other people will make your life seem primarily about being a group member. Think about dealing with sexist/sexually-charged comments, racial tension at the office. Even if you want to just be a professional, other people will get in…

And imagine how much harder it must be to advocate that you're a professional first and a group member second when you're the Vice President of "Women Coders of San Diego" or whatever other group advocacy organization would be relevant.