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

161–170 of 216 posts

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

#161

Post by wbronitsky »

Papirola wrote: post #108
komali2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're certainly more privileged than disabled black babies. Take any example you like. Poor. Genetic disease. Whatever. Stick black on that baby and you've just made their lives another degree harder.

non-American here: how would that extra hardship manifest? and wouldn't that be illegal?

Making something illegal does not stop people for continuing to perpetuate that something. We have this conversation here all the time, and I think we can all agree that legality is not the beginning nor the end of equity.

Put another way: making something illegal does not solve the problem, and asserting that does does makes it harder to solve problems.

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

#162

Post by ecmascript »

wpietri wrote: post #69
ecmascript wrote: post #4

Cry me a river, the overwhelming majority of sexism in the IT-industry is towards men and white men in particular. Men also don't get the privilege of getting any media outcry or changes for the sexism against them. Just to give a few examples on top of my head: There has been no conferences that has been [1] shut down or postponed [2] because of the skin color or sex of the speakers. It has definately been so for me…

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…

Stop with your mansplaining already, you are the one that doesn't understand what sexism is. ;)

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

#163

Post by charliesharding »

fzeroracer wrote: post #153
charliesharding wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right, as in I'm arguing that it's a bad way to view the world... Total non sequitur. No, not everyone engages in identity politics. Only people who are looking for an easy out and not individually assessing ideas and their ramifications

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

#164

Post by MockObject »

fzeroracer wrote: post #153
charliesharding wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

It's not inherently flawed to a liberal of the 1960s - 2010s, who idealized universal principles, individual identities, colorblindness, and single standards of behavior to be applied to all, regardless of sex, race, etc.

Please, have the intellectual honesty not to erase that entire era. It's not necessary to do that in order to promote the contrary ideology of intersectionality.

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

#165

Post by wbronitsky »

wavepruner wrote: post #157
wbronitsky wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wom…

plays worlds tiniest violin

I am truly speechless. Later HN, its been good.

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

#166

Post by fzeroracer »

charliesharding wrote: post #163
fzeroracer wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right, as in I'm arguing that it's a bad way to view the world... Total non sequitur. No, not everyone engages in identity politics. Only people who are looking for an easy out and not individually assessing ideas and their ramifications

What about the fact that again, you've engaged in identity politics here on HN? My entire point is that it's hypocritical to decry identity politics while also engaging in identity politics.

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

#167

Post by wpietri »

ecmascript wrote: post #162
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…

Stop with your mansplaining already, you are the one that doesn't understand what sexism is. ;)

That is not in fact mansplaining. Which you would know if you had spent more time studying what sexism actually is. For a good explanation, I recommend Kim Goodwin's flowchart: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180727-mansplaining-e...

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

#168

Post by AnimalMuppet »

wpietri wrote: post #167
ecmascript wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop with your mansplaining already, you are the one that doesn't understand what sexism is. ;)

That is not in fact mansplaining. Which you would know if you had spent more time studying what sexism actually is. For a good explanation, I recommend Kim Goodwin's flowchart: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180727-mansplaining-e...

I think you missed the smiley...

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

#169

Post by wpietri »

charliesharding wrote: post #88
akuchling wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of "privilege" is not that all white men have lives of luxury and pleasure, but that society is arranged so that people of type X get cut a certain amount of slack that non-X people don't get. Disabled white men certainly have their own struggles; disabled black men would have even more struggles.

> Disabled white men certainly have their own struggles; disabled black men would have even more struggles. This is a bizarre take. It sounds like you're saying that no matter what the individual circumstances are, race is the ultimate decider of one's struggle. It could be argued that this is the exact line of thinking that leads to "systemic racism". It's surprising how prevalent this view is, on HN especially. Not…

The people describing racism, sexism, ableism, etc, and their impacts are not primarily the ones "using group membership". The problem starts and rests with the those systems, and is driven by the people who benefit from and act to sustain those systems.

If you want people to be truly equal, you need to work to end those systems. And that requires starting with an honest account of what's happening.

As a straight white dude, I definitely understand the urge to try to sweep the problems under the rug. It's much more comfortable to think that things are fine. But as MLK explained, we won't solve these problems without a "dynamic tension" that comes from making the problems very clear.

We didn't have slavery or Jim Crow or the Nadir because of people trying to fight race-based oppression. We had those things because race-based oppression is materially and mentally beneficial to a lot of the people on the oppressor end of those systems. And we won't end them by pretending that speaking clearly about racism is somehow the real racism.

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

#170

Post by wpietri »

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

Complaining about identity politics is a big way white men practice identity politics, Charles. When there's a problem, refusing to let people talk about the problem becomes part of the problem.
Post reply on HN