"Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem • Hacker News Board

Re: "Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem

#171

Post by 127 » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 5:58 PM UTC

rada wrote: post #125

127 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are trying to build a narrative that it's men stopping women from participating in software development. I find that problematic and harmful. Where is your proof, other than pure conjecture? My own conjecture is that women don't want to do software development because it's boring and difficult. I'm sure they could if they wanted to, they just do not. With a few notable exceptions to the rule.

"Women don't want to do software development because it's boring and difficult". Except it's a well known fact that until the 80's, roughly half of US programmers were women, and all around the world, the percentages of women in computing are growing, not shrinking. And please don't say that people who stay away from technical careers do so because it's "difficult". You are one conjecture away from suggesting that wh…

I did not say that software development was not difficult for Asians and whites. Just that it is difficult (and subjectively boring). Period.

What I am saying, is that getting a good paying, stable job is not as important for women as it is for men, so they don't have to collectively sacrifice as much. Which is purely my opinion.

Re: "Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem

#172

Post by cullenking » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 5:58 PM UTC

joejohnson wrote: post #7

Good, I'm glad people walked out of Van Horn's talk. That's the appropriate response to this sort of immature bullshit. This may sound extreme, but if you're surrounded by douche bags who make misogynistic jokes and weave rude and immature anecdotes into a work-related presentation, then these "brogrammers" must believe that this behavior is acceptable. And if you witness this, and laugh along (or even just ignore it…

While I agree with your statements, there's something funny about using the term "douche bag" to champion the cause of females in the tech world...

Re: "Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem

#173

Post by fleitz » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 6:00 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #38

fab13n wrote: post #18

> To literally handicap yourself by 50 percent is insanity. This is very PC, but BS nonetheless. At the stage when people can be profitably hired by start-ups, the male/female ratio is nowhere near 50% among technical candidates. I'm not saying that frat culture isn't harmful, nor would I dare to guess why women are underrepresented among development professionals; but defending a thesis with such grossly false asser…

I would dare to guess that women are underrepresented among developers PRECISELY because of this culture and the underlying assumptions and attitudes. Gender is irrelevant to logical analysis, which is the foundation of programming. If you don't have parity in your pool of candidates, there's a cause, and it's probably social. Nursing and teaching used to be men's work. Women weren't thought to be capable of it. Too…

It's more than just women. I've been programming for 10 years and I don't like the culture. It's not the brogrammer stuff either. It's more the incredibly negative attitudes and litany of social faux pas.

Programming isn't the only job that pays well and rewards the highly intelligent. Women probably aren't going into software dev because they're socially acclimated enough to realize what a bad deal it is. Software skills change like the wind, and there is always a fresh crop.

Yesterday it was rails, today it's node. People who can hack people like programmers hack computers have far more valuable skills. Social skills don't become obsolete, a rolodex is far more reusable than most pieces of code.

Re: "Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem

#174

Post by batista » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 6:01 PM UTC

jsprinkles wrote: post #134

batista wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I really don't see your point here. You think I was being over the top? I don't see how; he's representing Path. Path, you would think, would probably like to represent itself as a diverse, vibrant workplace with exciting, fun, kind people, and not sexist jerks with locker-room antics. I would appreciate it if you'd elaborate on what you think is wrong about this. Sure. What you suggest is essentially: in order for…

A conference isn't Comedy Central Presents, is it now? That's a roomful of people who came to learn, not to watch you hobble through an offensive routine. If I buy tickets to see Lewis Black, I know what I'm getting into, and Lewis Black isn't representing his startup at a trade show. No matter how you try to butter this guy up, what kind of jokes you tell is a large part of who you are, because you find them funny (…

>A conference isn't Comedy Central Presents, is it now? That's a roomful of people who came to learn, not to watch you hobble through an offensive routine. If I buy tickets to see Lewis Black, I know what I'm getting into, and Lewis Black isn't representing his startup at a trade show.

Well, the distinction is not that clear cut, since humor belongs to every time in life --and especially in public gatherings and presentations.

Notice how people were not troubled by humor itself here, but by the type of humor. If he made math jokes very few would say that "I came to learn, not watch him hobble through a routine".

>No matter how you try to butter this guy up, what kind of jokes you tell is a large part of who you are, because you find them funny (or you wouldn't tell them). I can tell a lot about you just from this comment, and it's not positive.

What little you can "tell about me" is mainly shallow biases from pop psychology and the usual normative PC culture of the '10s.

Let me assure you that it's totally irrelevant and BS with respect to who I am (or anybody else you judge that way is).

Let me put it in other words: when the totally friendly, PC, non-sexist guy at the next cubicle back-stabs you to that promotion and treats everybody, especially his female colleagues like shit, you'd learn that appearances are shallow, and what-jokes-one-likes doubly so.

Except if you truly consider every viewer that laughs with South Park to be a misogynist, racist, anti-christian, anti-homosexual, redneck-hater, etc etc... or anybody that ever bought a Playboy.

Re: "Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem

#175

Post by mwcremer » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 6:02 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #34

Lewisham wrote: post #15

What I find particularly disconcerting about this Van Horn story is not that he wanted to present it (which is terrible in and of itself), but that this guy is 28, went through Digg (who never struck me as a company of idiots), already presented a sexist presentation, and still appears at SXSW either by invitation of him or Path. Why would Path or SXSW allow it? Did he not practice this presentation at Path before he…

I think you need to be careful on that line of thinking. We don't want conferences censoring presenters because of reputation issues. That said, certainly in context the humor wasn't funny -- and SXSW certainly could have asked him to rework the presentation to be less needlessly controversial. I guess what I'm most confused by is why a talk titled "Adding Value as a Non-Technical No Talent Ass-Clown." got accepted i…

> We don't want conferences censoring presenters because of reputation issues.

I think what you need here are different conferences.

Re: "Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem

#176

Post by iamgilesbowkett » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 6:02 PM UTC

aspir wrote: post #113

batista wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What I find particularly disconcerting about this Van Horn story is not that it happened (which is terrible in and of itself), but that this guy is 28, went through Digg (who never struck me as a company of idiots), already presented a sexist presentation, and still appears at SXSW either by invitation of him or Path. Why would Path or SXSW allow it? Did he not practice this presentation at Path before heading out?…

I'm really more surprised that Path has let presentations like this continue. I've seen 4 separate MVH presentations, with each one being in step with these complaints. and it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth regarding Matt and Path as a company. I guess it comes down to the repeat occurrence. If it were is first, or even second offense, I could overlook it, but it's a repeated thing. Given that his job (biz dev…

Well, between this, getting caught stealing user data, and the aggravating unpology which followed, I think if you're surprised to see Path getting negative PR, you aren't familiar with Path. It's kind of what they do.

I hate to say it, because it's nearly an ad hominem -- it is an ad hominem if you believe Mitt Romney or the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision -- but the only time I ever see that company mentioned without negativity is when their ads show up in my Twitter client.

Re: "Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem

#177

Post by eli » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 6:03 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #111

fab13n wrote: post #18

> To literally handicap yourself by 50 percent is insanity. This is very PC, but BS nonetheless. At the stage when people can be profitably hired by start-ups, the male/female ratio is nowhere near 50% among technical candidates. I'm not saying that frat culture isn't harmful, nor would I dare to guess why women are underrepresented among development professionals; but defending a thesis with such grossly false asser…

There is one theory which says that men genetically tend to be more "outliers" while women genetically tend more towards the average. Thus there are far more men than women who are wildly rich and successful, but also far more men than women who are failures or in jail. If we're talking about start-ups who need to hire from the top 10% of programmers, who might be from the top 0.5% of the population in terms of logic…

I'm curious, do you think logical ability is the main thing that separates good developers from bad ones?

Re: "Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem

#178

Post by mrgn » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 6:03 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #89

TL;DR; A guy made some jokes anybody would fine perfectly acceptable (if not ho-hum), and a few tight-arsed politically correct prudes walked out as if he was citing from the Main Kampf, in order to show how anti-sexist they are. Political correctness: or why should the far right monopolize all the moralizing, fear of sexual references and plain old dirty jokes? Progressive people can be prudish squares too. Oh: and…

Probably a dozen people walked out of this SXSW presentation before I did (no more than 15 minutes in), I assure you they didn't find it acceptable.

Re: "Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem

#179

Post by byrneseyeview » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 6:04 PM UTC

I find it fascinating that being offended entitles people to extra credibility and lower standards of proof. It would be interesting to imagine a world being offended made you less credible, and forced you to have higher standards of proof.

(Incidentally, can anyone think of a case where you've smacked your head and said "Wow! If only I'd given more credence to the people who are most emotional about this stuff, I would have made objectively better decisions!")

I'm pretty bored of bro culture in general, and startup bro-culture in particular, but the dialogue here seems broken.

Re: "Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem

#180

Post by pasbesoin » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 6:06 PM UTC

Such people are scum. And, everyone has an individual decision to make whether to associate with them -- and thereby enable them -- or not.

Here's the other thing to consider: They are not just sexist. They are classic users/abusers. And that "user" attitude you see them displaying, and perhaps manifesting (though there's probably a fair amount of braggadocio as opposed to effective execution) towards women? Even as a guy, they'll manifest it towards you -- in a second, if they see an advantage.

In short, these are not pleasant people to deal with. My individual choice, enhanced by a few learning experiences, is to avoid getting involved with them -- in any fashion -- in the first place.

And to the potential employer I'll say that, yes, for me this is a non-negotiable "walking point".