Sexism • Hacker News Board

Re: Sexism

#21

Post by aqme28 » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 9:32 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #14

wtracy wrote: post #11

"If somebody cannot handle some crudeness, I’d postulate that he or she does not belong at a startup, regardless of gender. Because, when shit hits the fan, as it invariably does, we need people who can take it." What does crude language have to do with ability to handle startup situations where "shit hits the fan"? Someone who dislikes offensive language is somehow unable to handle fast-paced or stressful situations…

He's using it as a litmus test. When people are in fast-paced or stressful situations on the job, the mental "PC filter" can begin to break down, and people may say things they wouldn't have. You can condemn this, but it can happen to the best of us. When it does, it's nice to have a group of people whom the occasional uncouth or unthinking comment rolls off their back like water on ducks.

Alternatively, it's good to have people who won't resort to being offensive in tough situations.

I can't think I've ever been so stressed out I started using racial or sexist slurs.

Re: Sexism

#22

Post by michaelbuckbee » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 9:33 PM UTC

If you follow the "forced to rename his opensource project" link[1] you'll find that the developer wasn't forced to rename anything.

He had an IM conversation with a female developer friend and concluded: "The truth is that I really do want to encourage women in tech, and a project like testosterone does not do that."

[1] - https://github.com/whit537/assertEquals/blob/master/ANNOUNCE...

Re: Sexism

#23

Post by cobrausn » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 9:34 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #12

> A startup is an intensely stressful environment, and staying sane is crucial. Imagine that you had been denied access to work purely because of your sex. Or your eye colour. Or something else trivial but outside your control. Imagine that people said your code was shoddy because of this thing. Imagine that every hour of every day someone made some comment or joke about this thing. Eventually you'd get a bit pissed…

> That's no reason to accept unacceptable behaviour. We should be working to make things better for everyone. We should be helping people who have good contributions. Saying that startups are stressful becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What is unacceptable to you is likely completely acceptable to a different group of people, especially when we are talking about workplace environments.

Phrased another way, why should a small, committed group of people who get along very well with a particular workplace culture be forced to change it and shunned by 'the community', not because they are actually doing anything illegal or actively putting up barriers to entry for a certain group of people, but because someone, somewhere, in some sort of underrepresented group might not like the culture?

Re: Sexism

#24

Post by sliverstorm » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 9:36 PM UTC

aqme28 wrote: post #21

sliverstorm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's using it as a litmus test. When people are in fast-paced or stressful situations on the job, the mental "PC filter" can begin to break down, and people may say things they wouldn't have. You can condemn this, but it can happen to the best of us. When it does, it's nice to have a group of people whom the occasional uncouth or unthinking comment rolls off their back like water on ducks.

Alternatively, it's good to have people who won't resort to being offensive in tough situations. I can't think I've ever been so stressed out I started using racial or sexist slurs.

I agree. However what I'm talking about is when you say something well-intentioned, not realizing that it can/will be taken in an offensive way. This tends to happen more often as you lose sleep and crank up the stress. My impression is that the author is using people's reaction to slurs and the like as a proxy for how they will react to the unintended offenses I mention.

Re: Sexism

#25

Post by hej » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 9:36 PM UTC

What an ignorant fool.

This article doesn’t say much (except that sexism is super awesome which I don’t think deserves a response) but the one he linked to (about hypocrisy) is incredibly bad (http://kswizz.com/post/8275502957/hypocrisy).

Facebook has very liberal fields for all kinds of stuff. It’s no problem to say that you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (9,573 fans) or Russel’s Teapot (86 fans). Like Jedis? Facebook’s got your back (2,829)! If you can’t find your religion you can enter your own, even with a description.

Why then is the gender so locked down? There are two choices. It’s not even possible to just say nothing. I mean, what the hell? That’s a serious indicator that Facebook hasn’t done much thinking about gender. That’s just awful for a huge social network with nearly a billion users.

(Also, is he seriously defending saying “retarded” to people? What the hell?)

Re: Sexism

#26

Post by ckolderup » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 9:38 PM UTC

skylan_q wrote: post #10

drewwwwww wrote: post #2

It's very depressing to see very intelligent people knowingly ignore their received benefit from serious, dehumanizing and alienating structural problems. Nobody thinks the artificial equalization provided by things like affirmative action actually is equality - the hope is that by putting a finger on the scale in favor of equality of opportunity, eventually society (after several generations of induced equity) will…

"Nobody thinks the artificial equalization provided by things like affirmative action actually is equality" Do you really think that if women dominated tech, people would be clamoring for more men in it? The few nurses I know have no trouble with the lack of men in their profession. Maybe they're just sexist?

I know a large number of librarians, some male and some female, and have had a discussion with most of them about the dearth of men in their profession. Most of them are concerned by it. So now we both have anecdotes, hooray!

Re: Sexism

#27

Post by okhan » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 9:39 PM UTC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAOCVwLrXo

Re: Sexism

#28

Post by hej » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 9:42 PM UTC

skylan_q wrote: post #10

drewwwwww wrote: post #2

It's very depressing to see very intelligent people knowingly ignore their received benefit from serious, dehumanizing and alienating structural problems. Nobody thinks the artificial equalization provided by things like affirmative action actually is equality - the hope is that by putting a finger on the scale in favor of equality of opportunity, eventually society (after several generations of induced equity) will…

"Nobody thinks the artificial equalization provided by things like affirmative action actually is equality" Do you really think that if women dominated tech, people would be clamoring for more men in it? The few nurses I know have no trouble with the lack of men in their profession. Maybe they're just sexist?

It’s much easier to get hired as a male nurse and those who are responsible will always be looking for more male nurses.

Re: Sexism

#29

Post by zeteo » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 9:43 PM UTC

drewwwwww wrote: post #2

It's very depressing to see very intelligent people knowingly ignore their received benefit from serious, dehumanizing and alienating structural problems. Nobody thinks the artificial equalization provided by things like affirmative action actually is equality - the hope is that by putting a finger on the scale in favor of equality of opportunity, eventually society (after several generations of induced equity) will…

> the hope is that by putting a finger on the scale in favor of equality of opportunity, eventually society (after several generations of induced equity) will actually become equitable

Admirable principle, are you actually consistent with it? For instance, tall people get paid more (six inches = extra $4,734! [1]) and obese people less [2]. If it turns out that the combined adverse effect of being short and overweight is larger than that of being female, are you prepared to make affirmative action in favor of short, overweight people your top priority?

> to suggest that this is not a worthwhile goal essentially means that you think the status quo is fine because it affords you certain advantages that you did nothing to achieve

What if you think it's not worth your while because it's being promoted through ineffective, destructive methods?

[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200310/tall-people-g...

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8337512.stm

Re: Sexism

#30

Post by Adrock » Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 9:44 PM UTC

jsprinkles wrote: post #9

> If I call something “retarded,” it should be obvious that it has nothing to do with people afflicted with down syndrome. And it should be obvious that I'll no longer do business with you, because you're horrifyingly inconsiderate of people around you. Sure, you are not offended; that doesn't mean the person with mental disability they can hide from you won't be, if they overhear you. This is a pretty bad example fo…

Or your coworker with a child with Down's or a customer with a sibling with Down's.