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

Why I won't speak at women-only events

guardian.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 136 posts

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#121

Post by needacig »

prawks wrote: post #41
theorique wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason I don't listen to women in tech presentations I assume you mean "I don't listen to 'women in tech' presentations", rather than, "I don't listen to women, in tech presentations". The former is a political stance, the latter is excluding an entire sex for unknown reason, even if they are talking of emberjs or thorium.

I'll admit I side with the poster a bit, and I'd definitely agree with the former. The problem is that "women in tech" presentation don't try to fix the root-cause of the issue by giving "men in tech" any reason to believe women should be treated as equals. In my undergraduate studies we had an exceptional student who happened to be female. She gave enlightening and challenging technical presentations that engaged th…

> The problem is that "women in tech" presentation don't try to fix the root-cause of the issue by giving "men in tech" any reason to believe women should be treated as equals.

Why is your null hypothesis that women shouldn't be treated as equals?

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#122

Post by 3pt14159 »

arrrg wrote: post #115
3pt14159 wrote: post #20

The reason I don't listen to women in tech presentations: 1. I'm basically not allowed to voice an opinion that isn't completely aligned with the feminist status quo (I believe in equality, fuck me right). 2. I'd rather learn how to build a better emberjs app. Or learn more about thorium. 3. Unlike the vast majority of problems, there are few concrete steps to be taken to correct the imbalances that do exist. Edit: I…

http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341 Lazy asshole.

Yeah see this is exactly what I'm talking about.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#123

Post by jasonlotito »

overgard wrote: post #48
jasonlotito wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing that he doesn't attend "women in tech" presentations, how does he know they are all one-way messages? On a side note: considering he's frustrated at self-sensoring himself from saying something he knew was wrong to say in some manner, I'd contend that in an environment where you do not have a chance to review what you say before saying it out loud, he's at least partially responsible for reactions he receives.

Well he didn't say he never attended one, only that he chooses not to now. Anything else is editorializing. I don't know the guy so I can't say anything about his opinions, but I'm amused at how many assumptions people are making about this guy.

> Well he didn't say he never attended one, only that he chooses not to now

I didn't suggest he never attend one. In fact, I was careful to avoid suggesting that at all.

My question has nothing to do with what happened in the past, but rather, his assumption that everything he doesn't attend is a certain way.

> I'm amused at how many assumptions people are making about this guy.

Casting stones, pots and kettles, and all that jazz.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#124

Post by reedlaw »

needacig wrote: post #121
prawks wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll admit I side with the poster a bit, and I'd definitely agree with the former. The problem is that "women in tech" presentation don't try to fix the root-cause of the issue by giving "men in tech" any reason to believe women should be treated as equals. In my undergraduate studies we had an exceptional student who happened to be female. She gave enlightening and challenging technical presentations that engaged th…

> The problem is that "women in tech" presentation don't try to fix the root-cause of the issue by giving "men in tech" any reason to believe women should be treated as equals. Why is your null hypothesis that women shouldn't be treated as equals?

I did't read it that way. By having separate presentations for women the implicit message is one of inequality. Why not just "tech" presentations where men and women are equally welcome?

The article, on the other hand, seems to be pushing more for indistinguishability rather than equality. E.g.: "That depressing statistic about there being only three female CEOs in the FTSE 100..." It is only depressing if you think men and women being created equal means that they should have a perfect 50/50 split representation across every endeavor.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#125

Post by reedlaw »

gthrowaway wrote: post #120
rmc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I'm basically not allowed to voice an opinion that isn't completely aligned with the feminist status quo (I believe in equality, fuck me right). Many people not involved with feminist groups often think feminists think the same about everything. Which shows they know nothing about actual disagreements within feminists groups. Just look up transexual issues & feminism. That's a big source of disagreement right ther…

Of course "feminism" isn't a unified lockstep movement. But is there a thing, let's call it "pop feminism", which is widespread enough and whose adherents share enough basic ideas and positions, that we can usefully predicate things of it? Absolutely. And, well, that's the problem. For example, when I see people use terms like "patriarchy" in earnest, I tend to grimace a bit. Not because I think they're crazy radical…

> A real solution would seek to push women out of automatically assuming that bearing and raising children is a vitally important life goal [...]

If bearing and raising children is not a vitally important life goal I don't know what is. The failure to do so would literally spell the end of civilization. Perhaps this view accounts for birth rates declining below sustainable levels in developed nations.

> [...] and would seek to push men out of automatically assuming their role doesn't involve caring for kids.

Of course no father should assume this.

But I feel this entire argument is pushing for indistinguishability more than equality. There will never be indistinguishability between men and women. Equality doesn't mean eliminating all differences.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#126

Post by gthrowaway »

reedlaw wrote: post #125
gthrowaway wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course "feminism" isn't a unified lockstep movement. But is there a thing, let's call it "pop feminism", which is widespread enough and whose adherents share enough basic ideas and positions, that we can usefully predicate things of it? Absolutely. And, well, that's the problem. For example, when I see people use terms like "patriarchy" in earnest, I tend to grimace a bit. Not because I think they're crazy radical…

> A real solution would seek to push women out of automatically assuming that bearing and raising children is a vitally important life goal [...] If bearing and raising children is not a vitally important life goal I don't know what is. The failure to do so would literally spell the end of civilization. Perhaps this view accounts for birth rates declining below sustainable levels in developed nations. > [...] and wou…

Read the comment again.

Gender roles are pervasive, but are more obvious for women, who tend to get defined in terms of their wombs rather than any individual characteristics. Essentialists who hold traditional/conservative views don't really go much beyond that -- bearing and raising children is what women are for. Essentialists who hold progressive/liberal views try to hide this, but are still basically assuming that all women really want, deep-down inside, to be mothers above all other goals, so the discourse is all about how to do other things at the same time as that.

And that's a problem regardless of who's doing it or why. A developed civilization can remain viable without needing every woman to be a baby factory first and foremost, so why do we still push that attitude from basically all sides?

And although there probably always will be some life paths that are incompatible with having children, most of the ones that are incompatible today are not necessarily incompatible; they're only contingently incompatible as a consequence of how our society is structured (with its focus on career advancement and measuring one's worth in terms of titles and raw dollar values, and the resulting need to work insane hours). We could tear down all those assumptions, and have a society where everyone has the option of multiple ways to lead a fulfilling life, with raising children being one of those. But we don't do that, and even the popular incarnations of movements which claim to advocate for real equality of opportunity don't try.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#127

Post by epsylon »

newnewnew wrote: post #83
Zikes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There doesn't need to be a single, unified, globally agreed upon feminist status quo, because as soon as a dissenting opinion is voiced the extremist groups are the ones that speak the loudest and the rest of the feminist movement just stands back and watches.

And they wield a ton of power. Ask the programmer that was fired for saying "dongle" within earshot of Adria Richards. Chances are your HR bureaucracy is radically feminist.

Adria Richards was also fired for that.

> Chances are your HR bureaucracy is radically feminist.

Ah, the good old feminist conspiracy. Do you really believe what you said ? I will stand by my words. There is no feminist conspiracy.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#128

Post by epsylon »

theorique wrote: post #68
epsylon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. I'm basically not allowed to voice an opinion that isn't completely aligned with the feminist status quo (I believe in equality, fuck me right). Yes, because there is actually a single, unified, globally agreed upon feminist status quo who tries to silence the voices of brave dissenters...

There isn't a 'single' status quo, but if you question and/or debate the existence or definition of certain articles of feminist faith such as 'patriarchy' or 'rape culture' or various statistics about the relative status of women versus men, watch out.

I'm not debating the existence of extreme opinions among people who label themselves as feminists.

I'm just saying that feminists come in all shapes and colors, and, lo and behold, there are a wide range of opinions among them, and (unsurprisingly) many of these opinions are contradictory, just like in any other group of people sharing some basic ideas.

I'm also saying that you should not base your opinion of social movement around the views of a kernel of extremists. Specifically, if you think that, as soon as someone introduces herself as a feminist, you think that she will stand by extreme opinions and that your differences are irreconcilable, and therefore is not worth talking to, then perhaps you should try to review your judgements.

And I'm also saying that there is a problem with gender equality in our modern societies. Even if you disagree with the methods and propaganda of extremist groups, you should recognize that there is a big problem. And the easiest way to eradicate those extreme opinions is to eradicate the problem that gives a voice to these groups.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#129

Post by rmc »

gthrowaway wrote: post #120
rmc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I'm basically not allowed to voice an opinion that isn't completely aligned with the feminist status quo (I believe in equality, fuck me right). Many people not involved with feminist groups often think feminists think the same about everything. Which shows they know nothing about actual disagreements within feminists groups. Just look up transexual issues & feminism. That's a big source of disagreement right ther…

Of course "feminism" isn't a unified lockstep movement. But is there a thing, let's call it "pop feminism", which is widespread enough and whose adherents share enough basic ideas and positions, that we can usefully predicate things of it? Absolutely. And, well, that's the problem. For example, when I see people use terms like "patriarchy" in earnest, I tend to grimace a bit. Not because I think they're crazy radical…

You're basically describing the patriarchy and modern feminism.

When people now use words like "patriarchy" now, they don't mean "all and any man opressing all women", they mean what you talk about, rigid gender roles. You post basically describes the patriarchy and how it's bad. The idea that women should so some work (e.g. nursing) and men shouldn't do some work (e.g. nursing), is patriarchy.

I can't find any FAQ on Jezebel (since I don't read it much), so I can't find their definition, but there are definitions on http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com, a Feminist 101 site.

Feminists recogise that patriarchy does affect men negatively. (e.g. reddit's SRS Fempire on just that: http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSDiscussion/comments/1a0bef/xpost_... )

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#130

Post by Wintamute »

bilbo0s wrote: post #44
arrrg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just guessing, but I would say maybe completely bonkers bullshit like "feminist status quo"?!

Guys... Would it be ok if we could discuss this without the profanity?

Absolutely not. People are totally free to write and talk however they want to. Your conceptions about profanity are subjective and personal, don't try and impose them on others. If people are using hate speech, or being discriminatory, that's different, but colourful language harms no-one except those intent on being offended for no good reason. A more rewarding path would be to respond to the content of what is written, rather than the tone.
Post reply on HN