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

An open letter on feminism in tech

modelviewculture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 335 posts

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#191

Post by _bfhp »

joshuapants wrote: post #171
juridatenshi wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you've found the strawfeminists. http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341 HSSSSSSSSSS!

> Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman. Our Blood by Andrea Dworkin, 1976 It's not a strawmyn when it's based on reality. Not all feminists, not even all radical feminists espouse views like this, but they exist and to brush them under the rug impedes meaningful discourse.

This is pretty lazy. Understanding radical feminism and its context both in the 70s and today takes time, reading, and empathy. You're opting for feel-good MRA and it's boring.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#192

Post by mreiland »

beat wrote: post #154
optimusclimb wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@danilocampos - I think it matters for getting to a solution. If there's something inherent in tech, or its male work force that makes the problem worse, then knowing that might help get at the root of the problem a little faster.

We already understand the roots of the problem quite well... comparing to other industries won't make much difference. 1. Male-dominated environment, women are a significant minority. 2. Inexcusable tolerance of sexist behavior - not calling it out when we see it. 3. "Why are you blaming me? I'm not one of those guys. Men might listen to you if you'd just stop the blanket accusations." (extra credit: count how many c…

it should be noted that pointing out #3 doesn't make it an invalid point, and it certainly has nothing to do with why the issue exists in the first place.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#193

Post by litmus »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #164
swombat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen those kinds of more extreme articles (and writers) on modelviewculture before, so I think it's fair to judge a publication by what it publishes. And some of these talking points were adopted by ultra-feminists.

How about judging this article by what it says?

Somebody stating their views based on past experiences interacting with the community the authors are part of is something other readers might be interested in. See the post by "226jg5" below.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#194

Post by user24 »

_bfhp wrote: post #182
mreiland wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think all men are out to get you. I also don't think there's a huge misogyny problem in the industry in comparison to some other industries and cultures I've mixed with. (Perhaps my bad luck.) This is my opinion from listening to the perspectives of the people around me and watching their behaviour around women. However I do think we have a significant diversity problem and that it's altering the interaction…

There's no such thing as the "male gender" ('male' refers to sex). You have a bias. For one thing, it's your years of socializaton as a boy and now a (young?) man. Understanding what feminists are trying to say takes work. You haven't done enough work yet. No one in 2014 is saying that it's terrible that you're male.

> There's no such thing as the "male gender"

Maybe it's a cultural thing but here in the UK at least I think male and female are seen as genders... What word should the parent commenter have used? "man gender" is not grammatical, so I can only think of one other option; "male".

(edit: and in case I'm misunderstood, I don't mean any kind of subtext on the wider debate here, I'm just asking because I think 'male' is a gender and am confused).

(edit: right, found this: http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html so basically it's the difference between sex and gender. I wasn't acutely aware that the words male vs masculine carried such an important distinction. I'm not sure if they are commonly used in that distinct way).

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#195

Post by hkmurakami »

lhnz wrote: post #75

>> We are not the 'nice feminists' of this community. > Being nice doesn’t work. We’ve been nice. In this article you were actually all nice and I read right to the bottom. I certainly do find it a lot easier to listen to and agree with people that aren't spilling hatred at me. I never want to feel like I'm giving time to somebody trying to extract some psychological harm as revenge on my gender - whether or not they…

>In this article you were actually all nice and I read right to the bottom. I certainly do find it a lot easier to listen to and agree with people that aren't spilling hatred at me. I never want to feel like I'm giving time to somebody trying to extract some psychological harm as revenge on my gender - whether or not they have a reason to be angry with the status quo, the target market often doesn't last long enough to receive your message.

This is true, yet such a delicate matter. Allow me to digress from the primary issue at hand to share an anecdote.

When I first read about the "check your privilege" controversy at my alma mater [1], my reaction was "we definitely have acute class issues, but by opening in such a confrontational way, we're taking away any possibility of having a constructive dialogue." Delivery so profoundly affects how we respond to the raising of an issue, and can be the difference between an instinctive defensiveness or a considered opening of the psychological gates.

The letter to the editor to the NYT piece puts it well:

"Most disturbing about the “check your privilege” comment to people making arguments at Princeton University is its utility in changing the subject away from their ideas, conservative or liberal. This kind of dismissive labeling needs to be called out for the ad hominem attack that it is. Recognizing it for what it is could undermine what it does, which is to sabotage debate."

It's a delicate line to walk -- being assertive and resolute, yet communicating understanding and cooperation. But if our goal is actual, gradual change for the better, rather than simply feeling good about ourselves for putting someone down or taking the pulpit for ourselves, then I feel that the means we choose must not fail to encourage our intended audience from lending us their ear.

It is so hard though, since each person's interpretation of language differs in so many subtle ways. We can see it in this very thread, where the same given post is interpreted in a wide range of intent.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/nyregion/at-princeton-priv...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/a-hot-topic-at-pri...

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#196

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mreiland wrote: post #116
danilocampos wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just want to develop software So do they.

Many of them do. The ones going on crusades do not, they are the ones I'm specifically referring to.

I hear you.

But I hear them, too. They just want to develop software, and to ignore all this other BS, and the BS keeps hitting them, and they're tired of having to deal with it. I can see why, too. I can see how this stuff would get to you after a year or two, or a decade or two.

I think the takeaway from their point is, they need to attack specifics when they occur. But I think your point is, they need to not make that their focus, or it's going to ruin their ability to actually work with males.

That's a tough balance to maintain. It stinks that they have to do so.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#197

Post by mreiland »

_bfhp wrote: post #182
mreiland wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think all men are out to get you. I also don't think there's a huge misogyny problem in the industry in comparison to some other industries and cultures I've mixed with. (Perhaps my bad luck.) This is my opinion from listening to the perspectives of the people around me and watching their behaviour around women. However I do think we have a significant diversity problem and that it's altering the interaction…

There's no such thing as the "male gender" ('male' refers to sex). You have a bias. For one thing, it's your years of socializaton as a boy and now a (young?) man. Understanding what feminists are trying to say takes work. You haven't done enough work yet. No one in 2014 is saying that it's terrible that you're male.

Not sniping on someone because they've used a definition for a word you disagree with might be a start to getting people to your side of the argument.

Just an thought.

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

> Depending on the context, the term may refer to biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex) ...

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#198

Post by rjknight »

epeus wrote: post #20
optimusclimb wrote: post #3

It makes me sad to read this stuff, but a genuine question for other male readers. Have you heard of, or come into contact with any of this abhorrent behavior that's mentioned? I have never seen it anywhere I worked, or heard of that sort of thing through word of mouth, but obviously that's a terrible sample set. My experiences related to women in tech: * Everywhere I've worked, it's been a boys club, but we'd LOVE t…

You won't see most of these incidents, because harassers do it when there are few witnesses. Ask your female colleagues for their stories. They all have them. So how does this fit with your "Most of the engineers I know in tech are decent, upstanding guys." - it fits perfectly. Clearly you know some who aren't decent. It only takes one to harass, and he can harass a large number of women; in fact the pattern is commo…

> "not all men" attitude is a key way that harassers are sheltered.

I'm not sure that this makes sense. Saying that someone's behaviour is unusual - not typical of most men - does not sound like sheltering them. Most men don't harass women, ergo the men that do are a minority whose views and behaviour are out of step with their peers. I think we need to say this more.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#199

Post by fred_durst »

anuleczka wrote: post #190
fred_durst wrote: post #130

Sometimes I feel like there are people that confuse just being a jerk in general, with being a jerk specifically to women. In this industry I've met a lot of really great people, and unfortunately a ton of arrogant, egotistical, pretentious and aggressive jerks. I've felt like crap being around those people tons of times. Sometimes they say mean things about women, sometimes about liberals or republicans or people fr…

That's the thing, though. By promoting a more feminist, egalitarian, diverse culture for tech, we by definition eliminate the jerks. Why do we have to take as a given that we have to take the jerks along with the money?

I absolutely agree. I was only relaying that maybe if we focus more on the jerk part, and less on the specifics of the brand of jerk we might help solve the problem of all the people who have to deal with jerks in this industry, not just one specific group.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#200

Post by GHFigs »

Article conflates feminism with women. Not all women are Feminist or seek to be. Women are human beings and should be treated as such. Feminism is an ideology and should be treated as such. Why confuse people by taking about them like they're the same thing?
Post reply on HN