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

Introducing Passion Projects

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#71

Post by hnacc10 »

cbeach wrote: post #22
mlent wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put it simply, sexism against men does not exist. You can discriminate against men, but let's be clear: sexism is systematic oppression by those in power on the basis of gender. So...having a series of talks that is for women by women cannot possibly be sexist. You can say it discriminates by not allowing men to be speakers, if you so wish. I can't say I'd find it to interesting to listen to a man tell me what it'…

Sexism towards men does now exist, thanks to attitudes like yours. Fighting fire with fire? What a pity.

Exactly. It is rather ridiculous that people like mlent spew their own definitions for sexism and feel that women cannot be sexist. It destroys any sort of reasonable discourse by being so ignorant.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#72

Post by hnacc10 »

mlent wrote: post #58
Zikes wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand my point. I happily support talks that feature and target women in tech, as I believe I have stated several times, I only worry about such initiatives excluding men from the audience or other means of participation. To achieve integration and inclusion, everyone must get involved to show their support and to learn about the issues at hand. As to the definition of sexism, I would implore you to close…

My perspective is this: people write the dictionary just like people write any other book. It's not the end-all-be-all of any word. There are probably many sources on sexism that agree with me, and many that do not. It goes without saying, such is the nature of a controversial subject. I am not trying to be sarcastic here: Have you read any books on sexism or feminism? Because realistically, I think it's hard to grok…

"Have you read any books on sexism or feminism?"

Books written by women for women examined at female studies classes at Universities which host Women's Centers? See what's wrong with this picture? It's very one sided.

Egalitarianism would benefit greatly from having the male point of view in these gender-based studies. You will however find a very small percentage of men compared to women in these courses.

If you actually want such an informed view, and you actually want to get closer to knowing what sexism really is, men should be much more involved in these courses and thing's shouldn't be so one-sided.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#73

Post by hnacc10 »

arcwhite wrote: post #56

To those saying that "this is discrimination is it is morally wrong" (and I don't think this event constitutes discrimination, but here goes): 1. Should we then do away with gender segregated sports teams? 2. Should other minorities (e.g. LBGTQ groups) no longer have support groups that focus on issues relevant to them? Having groups that cater to certain minorities feels to me both necessary and useful. We are not a…

When will "enough be enough"? When will we have no more need for these separate groups? Instead of actually choosing the best candidates based on their best abilities, we now resort to purposely choosing people based on their sex or race. That is wrong.

There are much more women than men who attend college now. Women score better than men in reading and other subjects. The wage gap IS a myth. More money is focused on women's health issues.

Do you see that any area where women don't already represent at least 50% of the workforce, there will be loud voices decrying sexism at this?

On the other hand, there are 0 efforts on raising standards for boys, or trying to get them into X field. Nothing. As seen in history, once a group starts to gain power and privileges, it will continue in that direction no matter the actual circumstances.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#74

Post by hnacc10 »

jessedhillon wrote: post #7
jamesmiller5 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women are underrepresented in technology. This event is to help promote the potential as well as accomplishments of women in technology. I fail to see how this is segregation, they make no claim that this series is to be representing everyone, just highlighting women. It is an event focused on women's roles in technology and available to the community.

By the self-centered logic of the OP, even if a minority group has only 0.1% representation, they should have no events targeting specifically them and their causes -- the 99.9% majority should be able to attend, and presumably contribute to the conversation with no ability of the event's organizers to moderate the dialog or direct the focus to the minority's experiences. Anything less than that is segregation. It do…

So the typical experience is a "conversation dominated by awkward-to-arrogant, entitled males..."?

How is that not sexist? It's like someone saying gender (female) studies classes are filled with by stupid-to-ignorant, entitled females.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#76

Post by lutusp »

naradaellis wrote: post #64
lutusp wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Women do not have enough power, as it stands, to impose a systemic oppression of men. And men don't have enough power to impose a systemic oppression of women -- for that, they need women to cooperate in their own oppression. Women voluntarily rise to the challenge. > Perhaps in the future, or in some female dominated societies, sexism against men exists...but not in the United States. No. You may have meant effect…

I don't think I can buy the victim-blaming argument. Is a woman who is born into a culture with female genital mutilation, or forced arranged marriage "cooperating in their own oppression"? Both of these acts can occur at young ages.

> I don't think I can buy the victim-blaming argument.

With respect to the topic of women who cooperate in their own oppression, they aren't victims, and no one is blaming them. Would you blame someone for choosing a lifestyle that didn't suit your personal tastes? No? Then we lose the right to "blame" women for making the choices they do. This is what personal freedom means -- the right to make choices others may disapprove of.

> Is a woman who is born into a culture with female genital mutilation ...

Surely you're aware that's not the topic. Such things aren't volunteered for, but the sorts of behavior we see in the West are often chosen by women who have options and rights.

> ... or forced arranged marriage "cooperating in their own oppression"?

Again, not the topic of discussion. Consider the all-too-common example in which a woman, removed from one abusive relationship, promptly seeks out another. How is that "forced"?

Real liberation will come, not when women are given the rights they deserve, but when they accept them.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#77

Post by rmc »

lfborjas wrote: post #33
msoad wrote: post #23

So I started programming (for real) about two years ago. I spent about four months teaching myself coding PHP, JavaScript and CSS. I was able to secure a job after four months. I wasn't really good enough for the position. My wife is doing the same. She is following my path. She have me, I teach her and she is learning much faster. After a year, she is still looking for a volunteer job! Nobody believes she can do any…

I hear you, friend, it's like it's ok for companies to hire us , men, as a "risky bet", I'm not the best engineer but thankfully my employers have all "seen" something in me to have enough faith to give me the chance to learn the job and then become better. Women seem to not get the same kind of good faith: my partner has two engineering degrees and she's by far a better engineer than I (skill-and-attitude-wise), and…

Aye, holding people to different standards is a way to discriminate.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#78

Post by rmc »

sp332 wrote: post #36
mlent wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key element is that women are not able to systematically oppress men for being men, as they do not have the social privilege to do so. You need all the elements in order to produce sexism.

A single individual event or person can be sexist. I understand the idea you are describing. That idea is not what the word "sexism" refers to. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexism

Did you read your link?

"Disadvantage or unequal opportunity arising from the cultural dominance of one gender over the other."

Women do not have cultural dominance over men.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#79

Post by sp332 »

rmc wrote: post #78
sp332 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single individual event or person can be sexist. I understand the idea you are describing. That idea is not what the word "sexism" refers to. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexism

Did you read your link? "Disadvantage or unequal opportunity arising from the cultural dominance of one gender over the other." Women do not have cultural dominance over men.

mlent is saying that discrimination is not enough to constitute sexism, and specifically that discrimination against men cannot be sexism.

Re: Introducing Passion Projects

#80

Post by jessedhillon »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #51
jessedhillon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Good luck trying to convince them to let you in, I'm sure your unassailable logic misses nothing obvious. Make sure you let them know that it's evil for you not to be allowed in.

What? Fortunately I wasn't talking about me, just men victims of rape. And doesn't matter if they follow my logic or not, we are discussing what's right, not the logic of the organizers of such meetings.

If you can't take your knowledge of "what's right" and actually change objective reality with it in a useful way, then it's dubious as to whether what you know is actually true. And IMO you would not be able to convince a female survivors group to let you in with logic, so again, I doubt strongly that it actually corresponds to truth.
Post reply on HN