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

It's Different for Girls

heidiroizen.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 400 posts

Re: It's Different for Girls

#281

Post by judk »

sp332 wrote: post #244
monochr wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"and she used to tell me lots of stories like this about places she had worked at previously. Vice presidents calling her to their room and offering her promotions if only she would give them weekly blowjobs, prospective customers turning away from million-dollar deals at the last minute after she refused to sleep with them," When you can use your mobile as a universal recording device and you carry it everywhere I f…

That's not legal as evidence in many states. Both people must be aware that they are being recorded or the recording is illegal.

Legal evidence is not the same standard as publishing online.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#282

Post by ShardPhoenix »

tptacek wrote: post #233
ars wrote: post #124

Was the question about the baby really so bad? It seemed to me like the person asking about it tried as hard as he could to ask it in a positive way (i.e. not accusatory, but offering opportunity to explain).

Yes. In an employment setting, it's an unlawful question. The reason it's unlawful to ask a job candidate the question is the same reason that it's unethical to ask a prospective investment target: the premise of the question is bogus, and rebutting it requires the candidate to explain and defend private child care and home life arrangements. Offering a candidate an "opportunity to explain" a question that shouldn't…

It's obviously a reasonable question and the fact that it's illegal to ask is outrageous.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#283

Post by mafribe »

enraged_camel wrote: post #117

I have an ex-coworker who is a really attractive girl, and she used to tell me lots of stories like this about places she had worked at previously. Vice presidents calling her to their room and offering her promotions if only she would give them weekly blowjobs, prospective customers turning away from million-dollar deals at the last minute after she refused to sleep with them, etc. The really sad thing about is that…

Are you in all seriousness saying that attractive women have it hard? You are suffering form a massive case of what modern social though terms "privilege blindness". (And, as an aside, probably have the hots for that girl als well.) Nobody on this plane is more privileged than attractive girls. They don't even have to work if they don't want to.

In your delusion, you also conveniently ignore that (within certain limits) being attractive is very much a lifestyle choice that brings with it all manner of intense advantages. Your ex-coworker made the choice of being attractive precisely because of all these advantages.

The reason women complain about being 'discriminated' is because it works so well for them: there's always, in the lingo of modern social thought, a "white knight" who's willing to believe them because he's so desparate.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#284

Post by ben0x539 »

gfodor wrote: post #207
jdp23 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've shown Shanley's post to quite a few women in technology (including some diversity experts) and they all think her concrete suggestions are excellent. [As do I.] So I strongly suggest any guys who really want to help read it and act on the suggestions even if they would prefer a different framing. And specifically, which of her points do you disagree with? Are you saying that men don't need to work with each othe…

I push back hard on the tumblr-ization of language, much as I do with the Luntz-ification of language perpetrated by right wing outlets like Fox News. Terms like "patriarchy", "privilege", and even "problematic" serve to re-frame the debate in a way that causes many negative consequences. It is pretty much the same tactic used in politics to control the language in order to disarm your opponent before debate even beg…

I think you're ascribing too much malice to academic language. Someone with privilege isn't seen as "inherently flawed", it just describes their position in society (particularly relative to someone else, it's not really useful as an absolute metric I guess). The patriarchy isn't posited as a freemasons-style conspiracy of evil men, it's just a coarse description of our society and the set of gender stereotypes etc.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#285

Post by judk »

vacri wrote: post #262
smtddr wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm of Nigerian descent and I do notice that "black" and "dark" is usually used in the negative. But I know that's not based in racism. The concept of dark/black being scary I'm confident pre-dates any racism towards african americans. Also, there are a few things where black is used as positive. - Finance; If you're "in the black", you're flushed with cash. There's some kinda dark irony here. ;) - Rich people tend t…

Light/dark being good/bad in the European sense stems from good things being light and bad things being dark. Fire is good - it keeps you warm and cooks your food. The soot and char left over from the fire is bad, relatively useless. The day is good - it's when you're out and about, able to see and do things, and it's warm. The night is bad, you can't do much, it's hard to see and get stuff done. Criminals do their d…

In China, white is the color of death. A dead body.and a ghost are pale.

Red is the color of life, of hearty blush in skin.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#286

Post by ben0x539 »

mcantelon wrote: post #135
thenmar wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about how controversial this post seems. It has been bouncing back and forth from light gray to black. Is it that people disagree with educating others? That they have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "patriarchy" and dismiss anyone who uses it? That they idea of "allies training" is somehow repulsive and unfair?

>That they have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "patriarchy" and dismiss anyone who uses it? That they idea of "allies training" is somehow repulsive and unfair? When ideological lingo is used to communicate, it's going to, right or wrong, cause some folks to stop reading.

What ideologically neutral lingo do you propose?

Re: It's Different for Girls

#287

Post by kaitai »

sp332 wrote: post #244
monochr wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"and she used to tell me lots of stories like this about places she had worked at previously. Vice presidents calling her to their room and offering her promotions if only she would give them weekly blowjobs, prospective customers turning away from million-dollar deals at the last minute after she refused to sleep with them," When you can use your mobile as a universal recording device and you carry it everywhere I f…

That's not legal as evidence in many states. Both people must be aware that they are being recorded or the recording is illegal.

This is significant. I have actually thought through the ramifications of such a recording, and since in many states it would not be legal as evidence, I've concluded that it's not useful if one's desired avenue of recourse for harassment is legal. On the other hand, if one is willing to go for some sort of "nuclear option" (with high self-risk if in a two-party consent state) one could just post it somewhere online. We have seen examples of such postings and their effects recently...

Re: It's Different for Girls

#288

Post by ben0x539 »

whiddershins wrote: post #148
news_to_me wrote: post #5

Lack of diversity in the tech industry truly saddens me. I love technology, and I want to encourage everyone else to discover how magical it is. It's a tragedy that the industry can be so hostile to some, for apparently no reason. But as a white male, I feel powerless to do anything. I can't speak for women, or for other races, or really for anyone else. I want to help fix this, but where do I begin?

There's an aphorism that true power is never given, it is taken. If that's the case, it actually is entirely up to the oppressed to take power, and the most the people in power can do to support it is not stand in their way.

I don't think that's the best conclusion to draw. I'm taking that to mean that the oppressed can't just wait for the oppressors to wake up one day and realize they've been wrong all along. But I don't think it means we get to stand around and do nothing.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#289

Post by ahh »

tptacek wrote: post #238
_tlf7 wrote: post #189

I'm a woman who is new to hacker news. I've been told I have to be on this thing if I ever want to apply for YC. I don't know if I'll ever do that but I don't want to ruin that opportunity. I've been reading through all these comments and a lot of them make me sick to my stomach. Articles that surround women in the work force interest me because my startup is in this space, but at what cost of my sanity do I have to…

Something about this topic makes the Internet creepers come out of the woodwork. It seems to be much easier for them to get a charge out of gender-based stories than, say, Java type system debates. What I can tell you as someone who has spent altogether too much time on HN is that for the most part, the people writing the worst comments on these threads are drive-by anonymous trolls, and not serious members of the co…

> Something about this topic makes the Internet creepers come out of the woodwork. It seems to be much easier for them to get a charge out of gender-based stories than, say, Java type system debates.

Java type system debates don't usually come with a side of blaming all men (especially low status men like most engineers) for the actions of a few (usually extremely high status) men. I would expect a lot more angry comments on Java typechecking if that topic impacted directly on every man's chance of social and professional livelihood.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#290

Post by mafribe »

judk wrote: post #280
Castlereagh wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a counter-point to this that is likely to be unpopular, but it's deeply rooted in human biology and isn't going to go away any time soon. Attractive young women may have difficulty getting people to take them seriously, and have to deal with things like frequent unwanted sexual advances, but they have no trouble getting laid . Attractive young women have easy, practically unlimited access to sex (if they so d…

We all want what we can't have. A woman may be able to get sex, but not a husband who will stuck around for years. This often settles down around age 30 when a woman no longer youthful settles down with a nerdy man.

A frivolous statement like "We all want what we can't have" can be used to justify anything: You may as well answer ""We all want what we can't have" when slaves demand their freedom.

It's also deeply offensive to compare as pressing a need as the healthy male's sex drive (typically stronger than the need to eat, as you can easily see when you offer a healthy man the choice between sex with an attractive young woman and food), with something completely frivolous like locking in a husband?

Post reply on HN