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

Ambient Un-Belonging: Women and Tech Startups

audreywatters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: Ambient Un-Belonging: Women and Tech Startups

#31

Post by philwelch »

anthonyb wrote: post #27
philwelch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Oppression is a pretty accurate word for what happens to women in IT." We call that "assuming what you're supposed to be proving", or for people who still remember the traditional meanings of idioms, "begging the question".

Is that what passes for a rational argument? I'm not assuming anything - I don't know where you got that idea from. I've seen women being ignored, excluded or put down first hand, often savagely, so it's not just idle speculation. edit - some meat to my point: One case that I'm thinking of involved a woman making a fairly reasonable technical point (something involving Apache, I think - it was a while ago) in the hal…

OK, that's an argument. You're doing it right--"here is some evidence, therefore women in software are oppressed".

But erikpukinskis didn't say, "here is some evidence, therefore women in software are oppressed". He seemingly implied that the "why are there few women in software" discussion was inherently a "conversation about women's oppression". He took the "conclusion" and implicitly put it in the "premises" column, which is exactly what I was criticizing.

It's not a conversation about women being oppressed--it's a conversation about why there are few women in software. "Women are oppressed" is an answer, erik was characterizing it as the question.

Re: Ambient Un-Belonging: Women and Tech Startups

#32

Post by blacksmythe »

I would like to see more women in tech, partly because I don't want to work all day in a mens-only club.

I hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to judge people on their gender. I think the reason a lot of women have a very negative response to the original post is that the women responding feel like they don't get equal treatment at work.

I think that articles that seem critical of women for not achieving more in the tech field are counterproductive to promoting a good working environment.

I would like to see more men come out and say that publishing blogs that make women feel unwelcome in the tech field is wrong.

Re: Ambient Un-Belonging: Women and Tech Startups

#33

Post by petercooper »

patio11 wrote: post #9
petercooper wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to think the tech industry disproportionately ignores female customers, for example. You won't believe the number of times I've heard Ben Affleck's "don't pitch the bitch" line from The Boiler Room presented as a serious maxim of doing business.

That line, which I've never heard before, richly earns a bozo bit. [Edit: This idiom means "marks the speaker as an intellectually and/or morally unserious person who is not worth effort to speak to."]

Ah, it was a popular movie among young guys about ten years back. Actually pretty good and worth watching - it's all about young dudes learning high pressure sales techniques to sell junk stocks.

The "don't pitch the bitch" rule was because women supposedly thought more aboit potential investments and couldn't be coerced into taking risks over the phone. So, in a way, it was more insulting to mens' level of judgment ;-)

Re: Ambient Un-Belonging: Women and Tech Startups

#34

Post by anthonyb »

philwelch wrote: post #31
anthonyb wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that what passes for a rational argument? I'm not assuming anything - I don't know where you got that idea from. I've seen women being ignored, excluded or put down first hand, often savagely, so it's not just idle speculation. edit - some meat to my point: One case that I'm thinking of involved a woman making a fairly reasonable technical point (something involving Apache, I think - it was a while ago) in the hal…

OK, that's an argument. You're doing it right--"here is some evidence, therefore women in software are oppressed". But erikpukinskis didn't say, "here is some evidence, therefore women in software are oppressed". He seemingly implied that the "why are there few women in software" discussion was inherently a "conversation about women's oppression". He took the "conclusion" and implicitly put it in the "premises" colum…

Go and read the article. It is absolutely about oppression. Not necessarily overt (although go and read the TechCrunch comments and be horrified), but it's still there, and still happening.

> OK, that's an argument. You're doing it right...

Yeah, that's exactly the sort of stupid, patronising attitude that causes the problem in the first place. I'll just point out that neither you or Kiba have introduced any evidence in your arguments, that you don't even know what begging the question is, and that someone arguing rationally would have instead pointed out all of the areas in IT where women are treated fairly or overrepresented, and leave it at that.

Re: Ambient Un-Belonging: Women and Tech Startups

#35

Post by philwelch »

anthonyb wrote: post #34
philwelch wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, that's an argument. You're doing it right--"here is some evidence, therefore women in software are oppressed". But erikpukinskis didn't say, "here is some evidence, therefore women in software are oppressed". He seemingly implied that the "why are there few women in software" discussion was inherently a "conversation about women's oppression". He took the "conclusion" and implicitly put it in the "premises" colum…

Go and read the article. It is absolutely about oppression. Not necessarily overt (although go and read the TechCrunch comments and be horrified), but it's still there, and still happening. > OK, that's an argument. You're doing it right... Yeah, that's exactly the sort of stupid, patronising attitude that causes the problem in the first place. I'll just point out that neither you or Kiba have introduced any evidence…

"I'll just point out that neither you or Kiba have introduced any evidence in your arguments..."

I haven't made any arguments. I've criticized some statements for using outbursts of emotion and assertion in place of arguments, and I've criticized other statements for implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous to "women are oppressed" rather than actually going through the trouble of arguing the point. But I haven't advanced an argument of my own yet. I have my own tentative answer to "why are women underrepresented in IT"--can you guess what it is? (Probably not.)

"...that you don't even know what begging the question is..."

Care to enlighten me?

Wikipedia: "Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."

Implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous with "women are oppressed" begs the question, because "women are oppressed" (or the more complete, "women are underrepresented in IT because women are oppressed") is the proposition to be proven.

"... and that someone arguing rationally would have instead pointed out all of the areas in IT where women are treated fairly or overrepresented, and leave it at that."

Criticizing the form of someone's argument is perfectly rational--more so than criticizing their "stupid, patronizing attitude" or making personal attacks.

Re: Ambient Un-Belonging: Women and Tech Startups

#36

Post by anthonyb »

philwelch wrote: post #35
anthonyb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go and read the article. It is absolutely about oppression. Not necessarily overt (although go and read the TechCrunch comments and be horrified), but it's still there, and still happening. > OK, that's an argument. You're doing it right... Yeah, that's exactly the sort of stupid, patronising attitude that causes the problem in the first place. I'll just point out that neither you or Kiba have introduced any evidence…

"I'll just point out that neither you or Kiba have introduced any evidence in your arguments..." I haven't made any arguments. I've criticized some statements for using outbursts of emotion and assertion in place of arguments, and I've criticized other statements for implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous to "women are oppressed" rather than actually going through the trouble of arguing…

> Implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous with "women are oppressed" begs the question...

Right - so you haven't read the article then? It presents a lot of arguments, not-very-implicitly-at-all. Maybe that's the first place to start.

Re: Ambient Un-Belonging: Women and Tech Startups

#37

Post by philwelch »

anthonyb wrote: post #36
philwelch wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'll just point out that neither you or Kiba have introduced any evidence in your arguments..." I haven't made any arguments. I've criticized some statements for using outbursts of emotion and assertion in place of arguments, and I've criticized other statements for implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous to "women are oppressed" rather than actually going through the trouble of arguing…

> Implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous with "women are oppressed" begs the question... Right - so you haven't read the article then? It presents a lot of arguments, not-very-implicitly-at-all. Maybe that's the first place to start.

I posted my thoughts on the article after I read it yesterday. Here's a link for you: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1668031

Re: Ambient Un-Belonging: Women and Tech Startups

#38

Post by anthonyb »

philwelch wrote: post #37
anthonyb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous with "women are oppressed" begs the question... Right - so you haven't read the article then? It presents a lot of arguments, not-very-implicitly-at-all. Maybe that's the first place to start.

I posted my thoughts on the article after I read it yesterday. Here's a link for you: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1668031

Yeah I saw that, and thought it was particularly crass and insensitive. Set up both a strawman and a cliche so that you can mock a minority as a character in a Monty Python sketch.

Bravo.

Re: Ambient Un-Belonging: Women and Tech Startups

#39

Post by [deleted] »

anthonyb wrote: post #38
philwelch wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I posted my thoughts on the article after I read it yesterday. Here's a link for you: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1668031

Yeah I saw that, and thought it was particularly crass and insensitive. Set up both a strawman and a cliche so that you can mock a minority as a character in a Monty Python sketch. Bravo.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN