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

331–340 of 400 posts

Re: It's Different for Girls

#331

Post by stcredzero »

wpietri wrote: post #327
stcredzero wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure the men doing this are thinking consciously about property rights. They're probably going around motivated at the primate level. This doesn't excuse what they're doing, but it makes me suspect that they will continue to emulate the behavior of the other men they observe in their environment and will only change when they see others around them change their behavior. This is what people are like: only…

Territory is a deeply animal behavior, as is alpha male claiming of mates. So I think that property rights are an elaboration of primate instincts.

The actions probably get initiated a full second before the thought of "property" ever enters anyone's head, if it does at all.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#332

Post by wpietri »

Castlereagh wrote: post #257
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…

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…

Dude, peeing when my bladder is full is deeply rooted in my biology. But rather than just whizzing willy nilly in the corner of rooms, I know to go to an actual bathroom to do it. Why? Because I'm more than 4 years old.

Biology is no excuse for behavior. It can explain a tendency, but it does not justify yielding to that tendency.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#333

Post by wpietri »

kaitai wrote: post #293
__david__ wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, good intentions don't lessen impact on victims. I fundamentally disagree with you on this, but I've noticed that people seem very divided on this issue. Personally, if I'm offended by something and I learn that it was a fundamental misunderstanding and no harm was intended, then the anger/hurt/whatever emotion just goes away naturally, without me having to even consciously think about it or calm myself d…

On a personal and emotional level, I agree with you: once I learn it's a misunderstanding and no harm was intended, I often stop feeling angry. Even if I'm no longer angry per se some hard feelings may remain. I have dealt with men & women from very conservative backgrounds who honestly and with great love believe I should not do what I do for a living, because it involves public speaking and evaluation of some men,…

> I have dealt with men & women from very conservative backgrounds who honestly and with great love believe I should not do what I do for a living, because it involves public speaking and evaluation of some men, which they believe violates 1 Timothy 2:12.

Every time I think I have a handle on how crazy people are, boom, a trap door opens. I'm sorry that you have to deal with nonsense like that. But I appreciate you mentioning it.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#334

Post by wpietri »

selmnoo wrote: post #142
evilduck wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think another important thing to consider is that not everyone who takes offense to another's use of language is always a victim, but they'll gladly play the role of victim if we allow it. Sometimes people are actively looking to be offended. Take this one for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc1zGRUPztc

> Sometimes people are actively looking to be offended. Take this one for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc1zGRUPztc That reminds me of a conversation I had nearly a decade ago with a black (African immigrant) friend. I don't remember the details, but basically he said that he was annoyed that the words "dark" and "black" had negative connotations. I knew him well enough to know that he wasn't trolling, and…

If the US did not have such enormous racial issues, I suspect that wouldn't be such a big deal. So if we don't want black people to be bothered by that, we could start with, say, eliminating the enormous amount of racial imbalance here.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#335

Post by wpietri »

yypark wrote: post #95
skannamalai wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a person of color? Are you a woman? Are you gay? Are you trans? Are you disabled? Not trolling, genuinely curious. Edit: I can't reply to the children (might be my karma game) and so I'll reply here. The linked article is about specifically about power and privilege, and how being a woman in the tech business puts you at a severe disadvantage in your job, in your community of choice. The reason why I ask is j…

Why does privilege mean that white, male, straight, or non-disabled people are not allowed to say "lighten up" or even express an alternative opinion on these topics? Why are their opinions now less because of their skin color or sexuality? Privilege goes in both directions: It's now become standard to diminish any white male's opinions on matter of diversity or gender or race, because of their identity, and give exp…

One good reason: ignorance.

If I were to say "lighten up", it would basically be asserting that I am a better judge of the impact of a comment than the person who's upset. But as relatively privileged person, I am much less often on the receiving end of offensive comments, and I have more resources to deal with situations like that.

If I were to say something racially tinged to a black person and they thought it offensive, I would be strongly inclined to credit them because they've had a lot more opportunity and a lot more incentive to think about the nature of racism.

I agree it's not a perfect rule, but it's certainly the way to bet.

Another big reason to do so is power. Things like "lighten up" are used by privileged groups to suppress criticism because that helps maintains the power imbalance. Not consciously, mind you, but as apes we're hardwired for status.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#336

Post by wpietri »

vacri wrote: post #269
typon wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Are you reading the same thread as me? Look at the current top comment, which says that the "big takeaway" from this post has nothing to do with gender.

'current' top comment. As I write this, the current top comment talks about how men in general don't really understand the harrassment women get.

It ended up dropping to second, but it was definitely at the top for at least an hour.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#337

Post by wpietri »

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 name would you suggest for the system that oppressed women for millennia?

Re: It's Different for Girls

#338

Post by wpietri »

ahh wrote: post #289
tptacek wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

Engineers are low status? Please. That might have true in 1984, when Revenge of the Nerds came out. But it sure isn't now.

Also, as a man, I have benefited from literally millennia of people advantaging my gender. If I occasionally get blamed for that, I think I can handle it. Maybe you can too?

Re: It's Different for Girls

#339

Post by wpietri »

ShardPhoenix wrote: post #282
tptacek wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When we raised money, nobody asked my male cofounder if he was going to be distracted by his young children. Why? Because they knew it would make them look like assholes. That they don't treat women the same way is a hint.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#340

Post by wpietri »

throwwwaya2 wrote: post #53

I would love to write "It’s Different for Boys", not as a rebuttal, but to explain how two-sided this problem is from a man's perspective. That sexual harassment and the weirdly dysfunctional sexual culture of business is perpetuated on men as well as women. I arrived on the scene in the Bay Area start-up culture ~5 years ago from a very different industry / cultural perspective. I was in LOVE with the idea of the Ba…

If you do write this up, definitely avoid the false equivalence that one could read into your comments here. I agree that being around the CEO picking up a hooker could be uncomfortable, but Roizen's story involves much more career risk and personal impact.
Post reply on HN