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

America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

tabletmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 387 posts

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#171

Post by DoreenMichele »

dgzl wrote: post #168
DoreenMichele wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps that's because most women need a man's income to not be dirt poor. I appear to be the highest ranked woman on HN. I appear to be the only woman to ever have spent time on the leader board. It has resulted in nearly zero professional connections. When I complain about that, I get blown off and told that's not something I should expect from HN, nevermind that it works that way for plenty of men. I was homeless…

... so you say that "A whole lot of this BS is rooted in the idea that a woman's sexuality is a prize to be won by ... a man who earns enough to take care of her," and you'll entertain the idea that it comes from women more than men, but you want to justify it by saying "women need a man's income to not be dirt poor." Do you realize how poor of an argument that is? Even reading "most women need men's income" as a leg…

I was homeless for nearly six years. During that time, random men who realized I was homeless would either offer me cash for sex or ask if I needed a place to live.

Meanwhile, attempts to figure out how to earn an income were met very dismissively. Attempts to figure out how to network on HN got me essentially nowhere.

I have written pieces that did well on the front page of HN. My Patreon remains underfunded and I get damn little in the way of paid work.

Those experiences inform my opinion.

My previous handle was Mz. It was briefly on the leader board, then I changed handles.

Between the two accounts, I have more than 45k karma. If it were under one handle, I would be respectably high on the leader board.

You can go ahead and act like I'm just some bitch with an attitude problem, but I appear to be the only woman to have ever made the leader board here. Surveys suggest HN was as much as 98% male at one time. There do not appear to be scads of other women successfully fitting in and advancing their careers here the way men routinely do.

This forum is run by the most powerful business incubator on the planet. It is essentially the global old boys club of our era.

Being able to adequately fit in to make the leader board still fails to make it a networking opportunity for me.

So if I'm some bitch with an attitude problem, where are all the "good" women doing it right? All the evidence seems to be I fit in here better than most women and it still is inadequate to help me establish a middle class income.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#172

Post by asveikau »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #155
dgzl wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A whole lot of this BS is rooted in the idea that a woman's sexuality is a prize to be won by an "eligible" male -- ie a man who earns enough to take care of her. There is a subtext of ownership there. Both sides perpetuate this, but I see this coming from women much more than men.

Perhaps that's because most women need a man's income to not be dirt poor. I appear to be the highest ranked woman on HN. I appear to be the only woman to ever have spent time on the leader board. It has resulted in nearly zero professional connections. When I complain about that, I get blown off and told that's not something I should expect from HN, nevermind that it works that way for plenty of men. I was homeless…

> I continue to struggle to make ends meet. I'm currently broke.

I'm sorry to hear that.

> It has resulted in nearly zero professional connections

I looked at your website a bit, but I am curious. Is it too much to ask what kind of professional connections do you seek? Maybe somebody around this thread has something for you, by sheer coincidence.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#173

Post by DoreenMichele »

asveikau wrote: post #172
DoreenMichele wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps that's because most women need a man's income to not be dirt poor. I appear to be the highest ranked woman on HN. I appear to be the only woman to ever have spent time on the leader board. It has resulted in nearly zero professional connections. When I complain about that, I get blown off and told that's not something I should expect from HN, nevermind that it works that way for plenty of men. I was homeless…

> I continue to struggle to make ends meet. I'm currently broke. I'm sorry to hear that. > It has resulted in nearly zero professional connections I looked at your website a bit, but I am curious. Is it too much to ask what kind of professional connections do you seek? Maybe somebody around this thread has something for you, by sheer coincidence.

I blog. (For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21064999) Patreon supporters or tips would be nice.

I do resume work. Five pages per week of that would keep me in groceries.

I also do other things, not pertinent to the HN crowd.

There are other goals I'm working on. But those are the most immediately actionable.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#174

Post by tkel »

esyir wrote: post #123
tkel wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. For example Thomas Jefferson fathered 6 children with a slave of his. The millions of men who believed their wives had no right to vote, that it wasn't their place. The parents who shame their kids for their sexuality or gender identity. Prejudice and love can co-exist.

There were also women that were nonchalant, or even the large female anti-suffrage movements as well. Suffrage was seen by some (yes, women) as a threat to the family structure, amongst other reasons for oppision. Framing this as "prejudice" alone ignores the culture/opinions of the people of this era.

Yeah, we call that internalized misogyny

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#175

Post by lidHanteyk »

dragonsngoblins wrote: post #127
mikedilger wrote: post #25

This is a very difficult issue. Most sexual assaults happen in private, so there is rarely any evidence a victim can use to convict the perpetrator. Most accusations are real, but some are questionable as to whether a crime was committed, and some accusations are false. Given there is almost never any evidence, victims are at a severe disadvantage in the innocent until proven guilty paradigm. I can understand why som…

> Most accusations are real See, I want to believe that, but I'm not sure there is a way to know whether or not that is actually true. In much the same way that there is rarely evidence of guilt when an accusation is true there isn't likely to be evidence when an accusation is false. I keep seeing people say some variant of "X% of rape accusations are false" but none of the sources I have ever seen have had a particu…

You may borrow priors that are personal but calibrated based on reading statistics: accusations are real at a 3/4 rate, about 1/3 of people have been sexually assaulted ever, and in 9/10 of sexual assaults it is not the assaulter's first time.

I personally would not say that 3/4 is "most", but I don't think any kind of blanket statement can occur below 7/8, and usually I prefer to think in nines or other logarithmic scales very close to certainty or uncertainty.

We need to have evidence before we can make certain reasoned decisions. Without evidence, we need to listen, consider, and keep ourselves open to possibilities.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#176

Post by noobermin »

rolltiide wrote: post #2

If you are getting mixed signals on these topics it is because there is no consensus.

A lot of the downvotes here are sort of cowardly. I mean, perhaps there is some general consensus to contradict rolltiide if we refer to the status quo in terms of what universities have chosen to adjudicate, but it is in fact more complicated with people with differing ideas. That isn't an attack on your perspective, it's literally just stating an observation that makes no moral judgement.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#177

Post by mirimir »

gm678 wrote: post #115
will4274 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't that long ago that a literal parade of college students were chanting "No means yes! Yes means anal!" Nor too long ago that a parade of college students were chanting "Die Cis Scum." Bizarrely (to me), detailed reporting showed that neither groups actually believed the words they were chanting - most people shouting "No means yes! Yes means anal" didn't believe rape was ok and most people shouting "Die Ci…

I cannot find a single source for your claim. Do you have one?

I can't find any either. Just stuff about the meme,[0] and the woman who started it.

But at least two frats were using the first one as an initiation ritual.

0) https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/die-cis-scum

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#178

Post by tboughen »

jessaustin wrote: post #161
klipt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Student A and Student B both get drunk and have sex. The next day they both feel they were raped. Which one do you expel? Currently the de facto assumption is whoever files a Title IX report first is the victim and whoever files second is the rapist. I'm sure you can see how this system can be abused: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/title-ix-i...

This is an easy determination in a case of heterosex: the male is the rapist and the female is the victim. Other cases could be more difficult.

Perhaps not as easy as you think - female on male rape happens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#179

Post by esyir »

tkel wrote: post #174
esyir wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were also women that were nonchalant, or even the large female anti-suffrage movements as well. Suffrage was seen by some (yes, women) as a threat to the family structure, amongst other reasons for oppision. Framing this as "prejudice" alone ignores the culture/opinions of the people of this era.

Yeah, we call that internalized misogyny

Not everything needs to be structured in oppressor-victim dynamics so you can slap a label on it. That's like calling the male-only draft externalized misandry.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#180

Post by lisper »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #155
dgzl wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A whole lot of this BS is rooted in the idea that a woman's sexuality is a prize to be won by an "eligible" male -- ie a man who earns enough to take care of her. There is a subtext of ownership there. Both sides perpetuate this, but I see this coming from women much more than men.

Perhaps that's because most women need a man's income to not be dirt poor. I appear to be the highest ranked woman on HN. I appear to be the only woman to ever have spent time on the leader board. It has resulted in nearly zero professional connections. When I complain about that, I get blown off and told that's not something I should expect from HN, nevermind that it works that way for plenty of men. I was homeless…

I've been on the LB for months and it hasn't resulted in any contacts at all. In fact, AFAICT being on the HNLB is a complete no-op. And I'm a white male.
Post reply on HN