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

Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 216 posts

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#151

Post by charliesharding »

fzeroracer wrote: post #147
charliesharding wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The conclusion is that there are many axes of oppression and one does not invalidate the other Yet this is the inevitable consequence of intersectional analysis.. It describes a way to calculate value discrepancy of opinions based off group membership of the opinion holder. This is just an attempt to overcorrect the "axes of oppression" from sins of the past. The solution moving forward should not be to sin in the…

It seems strange to place the blame of Charlottesville on people trying to fix racism rather than the racists responsible for things such as murder or, you know, racism. This reeks to me of a similar argument against gay marriage, where there wouldn't be nearly as much violence towards them if they didn't try and demand their rights immediately.

Good intentions do not absolve people of objectively bad ideas. I drew that comparison because they are playing opposite sides of the same game of identity politics, which I'm saying is inherently flawed

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#152

Post by wpietri »

MockObject wrote: post #146
throwaway2048 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>even at newly formed companies in that most forward-thinking industry, tech. I dispute this heavily, I've worked in both tech and some traditionally other heavily male dominated industries, like construction and oilfield work. While both have their sexists, I find that the problem is far worse, and far more accepted in tech than either. Blue collar workers often just have an old fashioned view of the sexes, but tech…

> While both have their sexists, I find that the problem is far worse, and far more accepted in tech than either. > as extolled by the post above. The post above that was killed by downvotes? Why is HN such an outlier, and how is it holding out for so long and resisting this dominant, anti-woman culture of the tech industry?

It isn't "holding out". Having used this place a decade longer than you, I'd say that it's notably better than it used to be. As you say, blatant, factually wrong misogyny does sometimes get downvoted now. Especially in a case like this, which has been prominently covered, discussed for years, and stars a well-known bad actor like Uber. But "less bad than it used to be" doesn't mean that it's good.

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#153

Post by fzeroracer »

charliesharding wrote: post #151
fzeroracer wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems strange to place the blame of Charlottesville on people trying to fix racism rather than the racists responsible for things such as murder or, you know, racism. This reeks to me of a similar argument against gay marriage, where there wouldn't be nearly as much violence towards them if they didn't try and demand their rights immediately.

Good intentions do not absolve people of objectively bad ideas. I drew that comparison because they are playing opposite sides of the same game of identity politics, which I'm saying is inherently flawed

It's interesting that you say that, since looking through your post history here you've engaged in identity politics all the same.

Everyone engages in some form of identity politics. The post we were responding to engaged in identity politics as well because they believed white men were discriminated against the most.

If you want to make an arguments make an actual argument against their position, not one against the concept of identity politics because that's an inherently flawed argument.

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#154

Post by wpietri »

magduf wrote: post #144
wpietri wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason it can't be both. Your theory that sociopath executives only exploit people for money and not for other things they personally enjoy is not one that matches my experience. And of course there's a long history of the "old boys' club" excusing sexist abuse with a "boys will be boys" mentality. So even if we didn't have a lot of evidence of how bro-y Uber was, your notion that they somehow escaped soci…

>Your theory that sociopath executives only exploit people for money and not for other things they personally enjoy is not one that matches my experience. I think I wasn't clear enough: I'm really pointing at HR, not at general company management. You're absolutely right: corporate executives definitely do exploit people for things other than money (such as sex). I'm only looking at the situation where some manager i…

Ah, got it. Good point. Thanks for clarifying!

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#155

Post by ecmascript »

komali2 wrote: post #118
ecmascript wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it seems like you and I live in parallel universes. I don't believe these attitudes are still in place and I believe today's people have nothing to do with what happened 500 years ago for example. I am not responsible for what other people have done so I expect not to be treated as such. In my experience, men are subjects of sexism in the IT industry to a far greater extent than women are. We never hear of this…

> happened 500 years ago for example. I think you should Google when it became illegal in the USA for a man to rape his wife.

I don't live in the US.

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#156

Post by ecmascript »

edanm wrote: post #127
ecmascript wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it seems like you and I live in parallel universes. I don't believe these attitudes are still in place and I believe today's people have nothing to do with what happened 500 years ago for example. I am not responsible for what other people have done so I expect not to be treated as such. In my experience, men are subjects of sexism in the IT industry to a far greater extent than women are. We never hear of this…

You might be right. Or you might be wrong. Considering the fact that confirmation bias exists, you're predisposed to look for/notice examples that confirm your hypothesis (true or not). You're also predisposed to explain why other people might be painting a different picture (e.g. media are biased). Again, whether that's true or not. So here's my question - considering that a huge amount of people seem to disagree wi…

Well, the same goes for women, feminism and the claim that women have been facing sexism for hundreds of years. Of course, there has been laws against women in many countries (mine included) but what many fail to also mention is that the same laws (right to vote) also applied to most men (at least in my country). There wasn't really a sexist thing for the most part, but more of an economic elite that are the only ones that can vote. People claim the society was more sexist before, but I am not certain. There were clear gender roles but they also existed for a reason. How many countries have for example sent women to war historically speaking? Practically zero. Who gets saved from disasters first? Women and children.

There are loads of negative aspects to being a women in a society 500 years ago, but also a lot of positive things. People seem to have been brainwashed that women were treated horrible when in many cases this is simply not true. I am certain that most men suffered just as much as most women.

> why are you convinced you are right, and not missing something?

I am correct because I do not deny that women are facing sexism, I just use the same baseless claim like women do to rile people up. No one can know for sure which sex faces the most sexism at a certain time since most sexism isn't spoken of, that is especially true for sexism against men.

If someone is sexist towards you, you will probably not report that. Same goes for women. But it is now socially acceptable for women to complain about sexism, but when men do they face the kind of backlash I face in this thread. The same kind of thinking goes hand in hand with racism, that you can't be racist against white people. It's the same agenda or ideology but in slightly different places.

I do not know for sure that men face more sexism, but I have a good feeling about it and the number of white knights getting mad confirm my beliefs even more. Many in this thread claim that you can't be sexist against men or racist against whites. This is why I am right, because in their world it's not even to be counted and when that kind of ideology is wide-spread you know whatever is the reverse of their beliefs is more close to the truth.

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#157

Post by wavepruner »

wbronitsky wrote: post #40
wavepruner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the status quo is still in 2020 that a baby born in America white and male is among the luckiest babies in history." Millions of these "luckiest" babies are suffering from crippling illnesses, yet they are treated like they are awash with privilege solely because they are white and male. This is racism and sexism. Disabled white men are not privileged.

This argument does not address the point. No one said that lucky means perfect; everything is relative. It can be (and is) true that you can be the luckiest baby in history and have "crippling illness". You can both be privileged and disadvantaged on different axes at the same time. I think you misunderstand racism and sexism. These refer to power structures that oppress people, not inborn disadvantages.

There are power structures being built to counteract the older power structures of predominately white male society. These power structures aim to exclude white men in an attempt to make up for historical discrepancy. Unfortunately, disability is often not taken into account, and so we now have power structures that discriminate against white men whether they are disabled or not. Empowering a healthy, able-bodied woman/black-person/whatever at the expense of a disabled person of any background is not okay, but it is done all the time. I've personally experienced this a lot in the past few years. It never happened pre-2016.

If you don't agree that there are power structures discriminating against white men, then we would have to have a much longer discussion for me to get my point across.

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#158

Post by wavepruner »

wavepruner wrote: post #32
komali2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and white men in particular It's difficult for a man to experience sexism at the level a woman does for the same reason that it's nearly impossible for a white person to experience racism. Going this out of your way to "defend" white men is in direct opposition to the cause of feminism and fighting racism for a simple reason: centrism favors the status quo, and the status quo is still in 2020 that a baby born in Am…

"the status quo is still in 2020 that a baby born in America white and male is among the luckiest babies in history." Millions of these "luckiest" babies are suffering from crippling illnesses, yet they are treated like they are awash with privilege solely because they are white and male. This is racism and sexism. Disabled white men are not privileged.

I should have clarified in my original post that I'm referring to men with disabilities that are not immediately apparent. I imagine visibly disabled men are not treated as if they are awash with privilege.

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#159

Post by wpietri »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #140
wpietri wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but you don't quite understand what sexism is. A quick review is in order. For hundreds of years, women were in effect property of men. They would go from being controlled by their fathers to their husbands. Their legal rights were narrowly circumscribed, and their practical rights were even smaller. This is on the decline, but the changes are quite recent. Women couldn't vote until 1920. It wasn't until 1974…

>even at newly formed companies in that most forward-thinking industry, tech. I dispute this heavily, I've worked in both tech and some traditionally other heavily male dominated industries, like construction and oilfield work. While both have their sexists, I find that the problem is far worse, and far more accepted in tech than either. Blue collar workers often just have an old fashioned view of the sexes, but tech…

I can totally believe that. There are a lot of smart, well-meaning people who believe they couldn't possibly be entangled in a problematic system, let alone benefiting from it or even responsible for it.

It has been a long time since I worked in a factory or a restaurant. But in both those environments there was a straightforwardness, a bluntness that I miss. It was often obvious that things were fucked up, and people could be quite frank about it. In tech we build things out of words to match visions. It's not shocking at all to me that it's often easier to see the vision than the reality.

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#160

Post by wbronitsky »

downerending wrote: post #114
komali2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and white men in particular It's difficult for a man to experience sexism at the level a woman does for the same reason that it's nearly impossible for a white person to experience racism. Going this out of your way to "defend" white men is in direct opposition to the cause of feminism and fighting racism for a simple reason: centrism favors the status quo, and the status quo is still in 2020 that a baby born in Am…

> a baby born in America white and male is among the luckiest babies in history Where can I go to get a refund on that deal?

This response has to be the most aggressive misreading of privilege I've encountered in a while. Privilege IS NOT a system where everyone in a group gets better outcomes than another group. It IS NOT a system in which everyone in a group even receives all of the benefits of privilege. Yet it does describe systematic power imbalances that cause the majority of members in a group to receive benefits or the lack of oppression.

In any case, anec-data is not useful for argumentation.

Post reply on HN