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

211–220 of 387 posts

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#211

Post by DoreenMichele »

jamesrcole wrote: post #210
DoreenMichele wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the justification in calling HN a Boy's Club either, as there are zero barriers to participate other than a computer. That term is usually used when people exclude women from the group because they are women, but nobody here knows or cares what sex you are. It is overwhelmingly male. There is plenty of evidence that women would like to participate more but are put off by some of what goes on here. Yes, I…

> I made the leader board. That accomplishment doesn't get credited to me. How should such an accomplishment be credited?

I'm trying to step away from what feels like an ugly pile on.

But for the record: it's not uncommon for men on HN to say things to other men like "You've got a lot of karma on HN. You must be smart."

No one says that about me. When I comment on it, I am invariably dismissed and attacked, told I'm bragging about and obsessed with meaningless internet points, etc.

That's the essence of sexism right there: When a man does it, it counts for something. When a woman does it, it counts for nothing and she will be ROFLstomped if she dares to point out the discrepancy exists.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#212

Post by jeffdavis »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #3

>But after a lifetime in service of the feminist cause, she took on the case of a friend whose son she came to believe had been wrongly convicted of rape and won his acquittal on appeal. This is one of the big ways in which sexism is a much more tractable problem than racism and less potentially explosive. Women and men both have members of the opposite sex that they genuinely love. I have heard that fathers with dau…

True in the sense that it creates a "floor" for the depths to which people might sink. But this process can still sink pretty low.

Consider how women couldn't vote in the US until 1919 -- a half century after blacks.

And a more modern example that was on display for all to see: the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh. There were not a lot of facts available -- no date, no place, no witness that could remember. Yet millions were ready to brand him a rapist to the whole nation and pressure him out of political office.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#213

Post by avar »

jamesrcole wrote: post #206
avar wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that fathers who have daughters can't be sexist towards women is taking a really narrow view of sexism. You can think that women aren't responsible enough to vote, or to hold certain jobs while still loving your daughter. You can kick it back with your black friend on the weekend while still not wanting black people in your neighborhood, your friends is just "one of the good ones". Most of human society th…

>> Women and men both have members of the opposite sex that they genuinely love. I have heard that fathers with daughters make for a very tough jury in rape cases. > The notion that fathers who have daughters can't be sexist towards women You're misrepresenting what the person said.

Am I? The GP seems me to to be proposing the idea that jurors will be more fair to members of the opposite sex if they have members of that sex as part of their immediate family, something that isn't as likely to be the case with different racial groups.

I don't see how that has anything at all to do with the issue. The durability of sex-based discrimination in throughout the history of human societies demonstrably has nothing to do with that.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#214

Post by manfredo »

avar wrote: post #213
jamesrcole wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Women and men both have members of the opposite sex that they genuinely love. I have heard that fathers with daughters make for a very tough jury in rape cases. > The notion that fathers who have daughters can't be sexist towards women You're misrepresenting what the person said.

Am I? The GP seems me to to be proposing the idea that jurors will be more fair to members of the opposite sex if they have members of that sex as part of their immediate family, something that isn't as likely to be the case with different racial groups. I don't see how that has anything at all to do with the issue. The durability of sex-based discrimination in throughout the history of human societies demonstrably h…

Yes, you are misrepresenting what was written. You are correct that, "the GP seems me to to be proposing the idea that jurors will be more fair to members of the opposite sex if they have members of that sex as part of their immediate family".

It is a massive exaggeration, if not an outright fabrication, to expand this to "the notion that fathers who have daughters can't be sexist towards women" - what you wrote your original comment in this chain. The grandparent comment stated that fathers with daughters give deference towards women in a very specific situation. No reasonable reading of this comment can be interpreted as denying the ability of fathers with daughters to be sexist towards women.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#215

Post by roenxi »

jeffdavis wrote: post #212
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #3

>But after a lifetime in service of the feminist cause, she took on the case of a friend whose son she came to believe had been wrongly convicted of rape and won his acquittal on appeal. This is one of the big ways in which sexism is a much more tractable problem than racism and less potentially explosive. Women and men both have members of the opposite sex that they genuinely love. I have heard that fathers with dau…

True in the sense that it creates a "floor" for the depths to which people might sink. But this process can still sink pretty low. Consider how women couldn't vote in the US until 1919 -- a half century after blacks. And a more modern example that was on display for all to see: the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh. There were not a lot of facts available -- no date, no place, no witness that could remember. Y…

> Consider how women couldn't vote in the US until 1919 -- a half century after blacks.

Not letting women vote is arguably not necessarily a marker of sexism. It is more a marker of the relationship between a country's military leadership and institutions.

Originally originally (~400BC) voting was basically for the army to decide when and where it would fight; hence male-only because men are the physically big ones who can fight. I don't know exactly how it changed over time, but the linkages are probably quite sticky. This modern concept of a government heavily invested in daily life wouldn't have been practical before modern communication and transportation, so needs and viewpoints on what the government is would have been radically different.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#216

Post by lisper »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #186
lisper wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not uncommon for someone like you to make a statement like this when I make such comments. I imagine I would be downvoted to hell and possibly crabbed at by the mods if I began researching members of the leader board to prove my case or even just began ticking off what I happen to know off the top of my head. I'm not at my best at the moment. Suffice it to say this kind of statement is part of the problem in my…

> someone like you

Do you listen to yourself? What exactly did you mean by "someone like you"? Do you not get that the whole problem is people thinking in terms of "people like you" (i.e. "women", "muslims", "blacks", "C++ fans", "privileged white males who have had life served up to them on a silver platter") instead of "you"?

> this kind of statement is part of the problem

And what exactly is "this kind of statement"? Because AFAICT all I did was tell you some facts from my own experience.

> There are men who've used their popularity here to make contacts, promote their work, etc.

I don't doubt that (though I can't help but wonder how you would know). But so what? Different people navigate life in different ways.

Let's take a look at how you present yourself. The first sentence in your HN profile is:

"Actions speak louder than words. Men who loudly protest the unjust treatment of women while actively perpetuating it should be judged by their deeds, not their hollow and hypocritical words."

To me that does not say, "This is a person with whom you would want to do business", it says, "This is a person with a planet-sized chip on their shoulder." You should at least consider the possibility that this has as much of an effect on people's desire to interact with you professionally as your lack of a Y chromosome, because your HN profile is actually under your control.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#217

Post by mirimir »

rayiner wrote: post #195
mirimir wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. But TFA does push the interpretation that it's about retroactive change of mind. I get what you say about "coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act." However, the following paragraph isn't at all reassuring. I mean, there may well be circumstances that pressure someone into having sex. But if their sexual partner isn't personally responsible for those circumstances, why should they suffer?

That may be, but the article is characterizing McKinnon’s view, not quoting it. As to “responsibility” it’s not an easy concept either. People who don’t create the coercive circumstances often knowingly take advantage of them. I’d point out that when McKinnon wrote the quote, it was still legally impossible in some states to rape your wife. (Marriage was essentially considered irrevocable consent.) Even today, social…

I do appreciate the historical context. And I agree that sexual assault and harassment aren't acceptable.

But if the women profiled in TFA are credible, things have gone too far on college campuses.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#218

Post by avar »

manfredo wrote: post #214
avar wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I? The GP seems me to to be proposing the idea that jurors will be more fair to members of the opposite sex if they have members of that sex as part of their immediate family, something that isn't as likely to be the case with different racial groups. I don't see how that has anything at all to do with the issue. The durability of sex-based discrimination in throughout the history of human societies demonstrably h…

Yes, you are misrepresenting what was written. You are correct that, "the GP seems me to to be proposing the idea that jurors will be more fair to members of the opposite sex if they have members of that sex as part of their immediate family". It is a massive exaggeration, if not an outright fabrication, to expand this to "the notion that fathers who have daughters can't be sexist towards women" - what you wrote your…

The GP mentioned this in the context of sexism being a "tractable problem", that means it's a problem that can be solved, as opposed to an intractable problem.

It can be inferred that they're proposing a mechanism by which sexism can be eradicated, not just marginally improved. Otherwise it wouldn't be a tractable problem.

Perhaps I'm still misreading it, but I can't see how it can be understood differently, and how I'd be misrepresenting it by rephrasing the idea as "the notion that fathers who have daughters can't be sexist towards women".

If we suppose that fathers only became marginally less sexists towards women by having a daughter, then it follows that sexism really isn't a tractable problem. Even if we were to follow the GP's logic that sexism or racism can be narrowly understood as the sort of discrimination that would cause discrimination by a jury.

What I'm pointing out is that even if we follow that argument that's taking a very narrow view of those -isms.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#219

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR »

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'm very sorry that you go through hard times but when you take a look at the homelessness statistics you would understand men are having it in comparison statistically speaking much harder.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#220

Post by DoreenMichele »

lisper wrote: post #216
DoreenMichele wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not uncommon for someone like you to make a statement like this when I make such comments. I imagine I would be downvoted to hell and possibly crabbed at by the mods if I began researching members of the leader board to prove my case or even just began ticking off what I happen to know off the top of my head. I'm not at my best at the moment. Suffice it to say this kind of statement is part of the problem in my…

> someone like you Do you listen to yourself? What exactly did you mean by "someone like you"? Do you not get that the whole problem is people thinking in terms of "people like you" (i.e. "women", "muslims", "blacks", "C++ fans", "privileged white males who have had life served up to them on a silver platter") instead of "you"? > this kind of statement is part of the problem And what exactly is "this kind of statemen…

What exactly did you mean by "someone like you"?

Someone on the leader board who self identifies as male.

Post reply on HN