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

Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

amandablumwords.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 395 posts

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#361

Post by rmc »

superjambo wrote: post #338
rmc wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

among other things, women chose other professions than men But why do they choose other professions? Do people pressure them into not choosing better paid jobs? Isn't that a symptom. Most feminists don't "blame men", but "blame gender roles". It's just most gender roles significantly benefit a lot of men (and harm a small amount of other men).

I think it would be because women tend to value the economic worth of potential mates more than men value the economic worth of potential mates. So any man choosing higher discomfort for more pay isn't just getting more money he's also improving his chance of finding a mate. Meanwhile women have a smaller incentive to take discomfort since they will not get the compensation of enhanced attractiveness.

Except that most of the high paying jobs aren't physically discomforting (e.g. sitting in a nice office all day), and there are loads of jobs that are poorly paying that are very uncomfortable (prostitution, cleaning toilets, etc.).

So your theory doesn't match reality.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#362

Post by rmc »

bloaf wrote: post #352
rmc wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

among other things, women chose other professions than men But why do they choose other professions? Do people pressure them into not choosing better paid jobs? Isn't that a symptom. Most feminists don't "blame men", but "blame gender roles". It's just most gender roles significantly benefit a lot of men (and harm a small amount of other men).

My wife has expressed some interest in learning to program. I asked her why she never took any programming classes in high school or college (aside from the little bit of Matlab they gave to most freshmen interested in technical fields.) She said that in high school she wasn't even aware it was an option. No one ever thought to suggest it to her, they just assumed she wouldn't be interested. Once she got to college,…

It wasn't an oppressive culture

Not offering someone a potential carrer path just because of their gender seems a bit opressive to me.

Sexualised content at tech events just reenforced the idea that "programming isn't for women". Imagine a woman at a tech event where ther'es a lot of straight male locaker room jokes, and the organisers do nothing ans say there's nothing wrong going on, she'll come out of it thinking tech is for men.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#363

Post by nbouscal »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #233
kefka wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I've always found that self-proclaimed feminists are _always_ offended and loud about it when they are. A few I know go to the point by saying females are better and that all masculine references should be eliminated. They need to vote with their pocketbooks: don't pay for a ticket, and don't attend. I went to a 'con recently: The Midwest RepRap festival. I heard no references to sex, sexuality, race, or anything…

Feminists are people who believe men and women should be treated equally. Nothing more, nothing less. Classifying fanatics as "feminists" and acting like all feminists acts that way is ... well... pretty damn stupid.

That's actually really not accurate at all. If feminism were that simple of a concept, discussing it would be a hell of a lot easier. First off you have the whole "wave" notion, where feminism has changed dramatically over time. Second, most contemporary feminists are talking less about equality and more about diversity, and the value of alternate perspectives. As for whether fanatics get to be classified as feminists or not, it sounds like a classic No True Scotsman scenario to me.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#364

Post by mlent »

cameronh90 wrote: post #255
mlent wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article I read, which could be wrong, the phrase was "I'd fork that repo." In and of itself, harmless, but said in the proper tone (don't know if it was), it would remind me of things that have been said about me . I.e. People talking about how they would do 'x' to me. Totally creepy and disturbing, right? A phrase like that is called a 'trigger'. The same reason you don't say the n-word around a per…

But how can you know what someone will find to be a trigger? Someone can find almost anything offensive for some reason, or have it remind them of a bad experience. If they were being particularly graphic, of course, that would be inappropriate, but even if this was a wiggley-eyebrows wink wink nudge nudge sexual innuendo, it still seems pretty harmless (other than going against PyCon's rules which is bad). I could g…

Nah, you can't know. It's just a consideration. Obviously some things are more blatant than others. I'm just offering one possible way what was said could've been taken offensively -- not saying that I personally agree.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#365

Post by mlent »

ramblerman wrote: post #280
mlent wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article I read, which could be wrong, the phrase was "I'd fork that repo." In and of itself, harmless, but said in the proper tone (don't know if it was), it would remind me of things that have been said about me . I.e. People talking about how they would do 'x' to me. Totally creepy and disturbing, right? A phrase like that is called a 'trigger'. The same reason you don't say the n-word around a per…

I don't want to trivialize the power of such a trigger and the strong emotional states they may bring about. But you are arguing sensitivity and general discourse, for which I agree, these comments were misplaced. In the underlying argument "What makes it sexist", you seem to imply if the person set off by the trigger is a woman, then the initial statement was sexist. Which is a little broad for my liking. As for sen…

Yeah, I can see how my post could be interpreted that way, though I didn't mean it like that. Just because a woman was offended definitely doesn't mean the statement was necessarily sexist. I'm just trying to offer one possible way they could be construed as sexist -- not to say that I agree with the interpretation personally, though.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#366

Post by kefka »

nbouscal wrote: post #363
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feminists are people who believe men and women should be treated equally. Nothing more, nothing less. Classifying fanatics as "feminists" and acting like all feminists acts that way is ... well... pretty damn stupid.

That's actually really not accurate at all. If feminism were that simple of a concept, discussing it would be a hell of a lot easier. First off you have the whole "wave" notion, where feminism has changed dramatically over time. Second, most contemporary feminists are talking less about equality and more about diversity, and the value of alternate perspectives. As for whether fanatics get to be classified as feminist…

I try to avoid the no true Scotsman fallacy. If you say you are a feminist, I accept. But what I say stands: every self proclaimed feminist I've met always get offended at the stupidest things. One I know even had a diatribe towards Carlin about the "personhole cover" because of his insensitivity. The usual stance many in this category take is equality regarded in Animal Farm: they are just "More Equal"

I live in Indiana, and had this haopen to me: I went into a car dealership, looking for a used car. Dealer walks up asking if I wanted to test drive or ask questions. Later on in negotiations, he went hardcore slimy. Along with that, said ,"You can trust me, I'm a good Christian."

That was enough to get me to leave on the spot. Usually people with self-proclaimed titles are to be distrusted, or t least listened to with a very critical ear. It's also similar if I run around calling myself "Ub3r Haxx0r". Most of you would justly call BS.

Then, I have also met many who fight for women to be equal with men. They usually aren't much for the labels, yet will fight ferociously for the rights to be equal. Equal pay is the big one right now, considering pay parity is apart by 20%.

Best said by a friend: when a woman hits a man, and the man hits back, and nobody gasps in astonishment, we shall be equal.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#367

Post by malandrew »

kaitai wrote: post #347
tfigment wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain why having 3 kids and a wife should change any decision here? Is it somehow more acceptable to layoff someone that is single?

Of course -- just like it's more acceptable to lay off a lady! Her husband can just get a job :) You single guys supporting your parents or supporting people you're not married to (for whatever reason) or sending money back home to help out, your families are invisible. One could argue that someone with a spouse has a bigger safety net than a single person -- which is actually true and is a contributor to the fact th…

This.

I'm a developer who is single making a decent salary in the Bay Area, but I also have sent a significant portion of my earnings last year to family who have not faired as well in the economic downturn of the past few years.

Just because someone is single with no kids doesn't mean nobody depends on them.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#368

Post by malandrew »

rmc wrote: post #361
superjambo wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be because women tend to value the economic worth of potential mates more than men value the economic worth of potential mates. So any man choosing higher discomfort for more pay isn't just getting more money he's also improving his chance of finding a mate. Meanwhile women have a smaller incentive to take discomfort since they will not get the compensation of enhanced attractiveness.

Except that most of the high paying jobs aren't physically discomforting (e.g. sitting in a nice office all day), and there are loads of jobs that are poorly paying that are very uncomfortable (prostitution, cleaning toilets, etc.). So your theory doesn't match reality.

The job someone earns at the end isn't discomforting, but getting to the point where you deserve that job based on merit and acquired skills is more discomforting. A four year engineering degree is far more "discomforting" than a four year sociology degree.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#370

Post by nbouscal »

kefka wrote: post #366
nbouscal wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually really not accurate at all. If feminism were that simple of a concept, discussing it would be a hell of a lot easier. First off you have the whole "wave" notion, where feminism has changed dramatically over time. Second, most contemporary feminists are talking less about equality and more about diversity, and the value of alternate perspectives. As for whether fanatics get to be classified as feminist…

I try to avoid the no true Scotsman fallacy. If you say you are a feminist, I accept. But what I say stands: every self proclaimed feminist I've met always get offended at the stupidest things. One I know even had a diatribe towards Carlin about the "personhole cover" because of his insensitivity. The usual stance many in this category take is equality regarded in Animal Farm: they are just "More Equal" I live in Ind…

Interesting how well this aligns with http://paulgraham.com/identity.html. You basically seem to be saying that you are more trusting of people who follow pg's advice in that essay, and I'm inclined to agree with you on that particular point.
Post reply on HN