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

311–320 of 400 posts

Re: It's Different for Girls

#311

Post by javert »

If you compare an "ideal" man with an "ideal" woman, being a woman is, arguably, a disadvantage. But the vast majority of real men and women are not "ideal."

For instance, what if you are a black man? What if you are short? What if you don't have the right "swagger"? What if you visit the VC when he happens to be having a bad day? What if you have a different accent?

This is why feminism is ridiculously unfair to all men except the "ideal" men, and also not applicable to the vast majority of women, who are not "ideal" women.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#312

Post by javert »

dzink wrote: post #310
mafribe wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 limi…

Imagine being an attractive skinny guy in a prison? Or a token burned-out hacker at a business school where everyone needs a "coder" to be the next Steve Jobs? How will you make friends? How much privilege will you be granted to compensate for the perpetual annoyance/fear of being taken advantage of?

> Or a token burned-out hacker at a business school where everyone needs a "coder" to be the next Steve Jobs?

I think this is mistaken. First, the burned-out hacker can always just say no. Second, he has the advantage, not the disadvantage.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#313

Post by ProAm »

mherkender wrote: post #277
ProAm wrote: post #24

Not that it ties directly to this article but Ive always found the quote "Judge people by their intentions, not by their actions" to help me quite a bit in the professional world. People can often be frustrating, counter-productive, or as in the case of this article sexist, but sometimes they don't mean to be. When you have to deal with others try and look at what they were intending to do not necessarily the results…

I sorta disagree, actions are what really matter. I think it's good to cut people slack and avoid grudges/judgement in general, but how are we supposed to deal with society-level problems if each example of the problem can be written off as a well-intentioned mistake?

I can see where you are coming from but if you boil people down to being good or evil (over generalizing), who do you want on your side? There are people who purposely intend to do bad things and do, and there are people who mean to do good things and do bad. No one is perfect and people make mistakes, and results don't always come out as intended. But the people who intentionally act on bad intent are never people you want to work with. To come back to your original statement actions are not what matters in the end (in relation to what hacker news represents) but results are. In the end we all want positive results, but we are all people, and good people will always get you closer to your goal than bad people.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#314

Post by [deleted] »

javert wrote: post #312
dzink wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine being an attractive skinny guy in a prison? Or a token burned-out hacker at a business school where everyone needs a "coder" to be the next Steve Jobs? How will you make friends? How much privilege will you be granted to compensate for the perpetual annoyance/fear of being taken advantage of?

> Or a token burned-out hacker at a business school where everyone needs a "coder" to be the next Steve Jobs? I think this is mistaken. First, the burned-out hacker can always just say no. Second, he has the advantage, not the disadvantage.

[deleted]

Re: It's Different for Girls

#315

Post by dingaling »

tptacek wrote: post #231
frozenport wrote: post #184

>>My partners are concerned that when you have this baby you are going to lose interest in the company and not be a good CEO As a practical matter this is a legitimate question. For example, "why are you taking this job when you plan to be busy for the next 6 months?" (or even longer).

No, it isn't a legitimate question. In fact, in an employment setting, it's an unlawful question. It presumes that the interviewer can extrapolate from the probably irrelevant detail of someone's pregnancy status to their ability to perform after the birth; refuting that bogus extrapolation requires the candidate to explain and defend their child care arrangements and home life. As a practical matter, if someone in m…

As a man I have been asked whether my performance at work has been affected by raising children.

When I made a mistake I was asked 'Are your children affecting your sleep? Perhaps you should take some time off as you seem to be losing focus.'

Other feedback that came in was 'He seems disinterested in the tasks assigned' with the implication that my children were more interesting than my work ( which of course they are ).

Would you also fire anyone who asked those questions of a man?

Re: It's Different for Girls

#316

Post by vacri »

judk wrote: post #276
vacri wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not "that guy might stop me". It's "they're probably a couple, what's the point". The default assumption is that a mixed-gender pair of people around the same age is a couple. I've been out wandering with female platonic friends plenty of times, only to have people assume we're a romantic pair.

So you think a woman walking with her father would get catcalled like a woman alone?

Do you think a woman walking with her mother would get catcalled like a woman alone?

Re: It's Different for Girls

#317

Post by carrotleads »

dang wrote: post #2

This is a good, substantive article that draws on long experience. Commenters: before posting, please ensure that your comments are both substantive and civil. You should always do that on HN, but for obvious reasons, this topic requires a reminder.

Well I should have realised that before putting in my comments. Got massive downvotes, the reason seem obvious now. Maybe I should have atleast have been substantive. Ah well, lessons learned.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#318

Post by tptacek »

dingaling wrote: post #315
tptacek wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't a legitimate question. In fact, in an employment setting, it's an unlawful question. It presumes that the interviewer can extrapolate from the probably irrelevant detail of someone's pregnancy status to their ability to perform after the birth; refuting that bogus extrapolation requires the candidate to explain and defend their child care arrangements and home life. As a practical matter, if someone in m…

As a man I have been asked whether my performance at work has been affected by raising children. When I made a mistake I was asked 'Are your children affecting your sleep? Perhaps you should take some time off as you seem to be losing focus.' Other feedback that came in was 'He seems disinterested in the tasks assigned' with the implication that my children were more interesting than my work ( which of course they ar…

It's presumably just as unlawful, and obviously the same kind of bullshit. Yes.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#319

Post by sliverstorm »

msandford wrote: post #228
sliverstorm wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intent is huge. If my friend says something incredibly aggressive, but I know they are being facetious or sarcastic or humorous, I will find it amusing. If I know they are being serious, I will not find it amusing. Actions are generally equal regardless intent, but IMO words depend immensely on intent.

I tend to agree but not completely. Someone mentioned further up that there are multiple categories of murder and also manslaughter, the conviction of which depends on intent.

By "actions are equal regardless intent", I was referring to the impact on the victim. Sorry for not being more clear!

Re: It's Different for Girls

#320

Post by solidsnack9000 »

ProAm wrote: post #24

Not that it ties directly to this article but Ive always found the quote "Judge people by their intentions, not by their actions" to help me quite a bit in the professional world. People can often be frustrating, counter-productive, or as in the case of this article sexist, but sometimes they don't mean to be. When you have to deal with others try and look at what they were intending to do not necessarily the results…

The notion of a concurrence of the "mens rea" (the guilty mind) and the "actus rea" (the guilty act) would seem to apply here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrence

A person who did not mean ill warrants different treatment from one who did; but can we ignore their bad behaviour?

Post reply on HN