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

221–230 of 335 posts

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#221

Post by vezzy-fnord »

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?

Your implication here is that people who identify under your listed banners cannot be jerks. This is simply an outright falsehood. An ideology that insists it cannot have jerks among its ranks is one that probably needs to look in the mirror.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#222

Post by xamebax »

mreiland wrote: post #208
jdp23 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most women in tech I know have multiple examples of stuff like the authors describe happening to them. Multiple guys in this thread confirm that yes, it happens and is observable. Remember that the authors weren't only talking about harassment. And of course that doesn't mean it happens in your organization, but you can also see and come into contact with it elsewhere -- conferences, networking events, online discuss…

Why is them confirming that it happens more significant than the ones who confirm they don't see it happen?

Because, putting it shortly, saying "I didn't see it happen" is too close to saying "I didn't see it happen, therefore it doesn't exist".

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#223

Post by bowlofpetunias »

I wish we could leave codebabes.com out of the equation when it comes to women in tech. This is not an industry thing, and opinions on whether or not it's okay for these kind of things to exist are divided, and not across gender lines and including amongst feminists.

It falls in the same category as porn. It's a valid debate, but it's a separate debate.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#224

Post by jdp23 »

mreiland wrote: post #208
jdp23 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most women in tech I know have multiple examples of stuff like the authors describe happening to them. Multiple guys in this thread confirm that yes, it happens and is observable. Remember that the authors weren't only talking about harassment. And of course that doesn't mean it happens in your organization, but you can also see and come into contact with it elsewhere -- conferences, networking events, online discuss…

Why is them confirming that it happens more significant than the ones who confirm they don't see it happen?

If an overwhelming majority of observers report something happening frequently, and a relatively-small percentage report not seeing it, then what would you conclude?

That said, I'm not sure I can remember the last time a woman told me she doesn't see it happen.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#225

Post by _bfhp »

GHFigs wrote: post #200

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?

>Feminism is an ideology

This is where you're factually (yes, factually) wrong. Try: !w feminism

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#226

Post by mreiland »

freerobby wrote: post #65
taybin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare that with http://jacobian.org/writing/what-can-men-do/ , which is linked to in the OP in which he criticizes Jeff Atwood for doing it wrong. So wrong that he won't even link to him, even though he acknowledges that his intentions are good. Edited to fix pronoun.

I assumed that was a dig at Jeff Atwood, who initially refused to link to Shanley's piece on the grounds that it was hateful.

That isn't actually what he said, and this is the sort of thing that hurts relations rather than helps them.

What he said is that he doesn't link to Shanley in general because all of her stuff is so vitriolic. He then went on to post links to twitter posts of her's showing where she has been extremely vitriolic.

He stated that his reasoning is that he does not want to send people to such a place.

He didn't simply refuse to link to "Shanley's piece", he refused to link to Shanley at all. But it should be noted that he did link to other authors who are feminist in nature. He has every right to have a problem with a specific person for non-gender reasons, and your portrayal of him otherwise is unfair and deserves to be moderated in order to preserve actual conversation.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#227

Post by anuleczka »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #221
anuleczka wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Your implication here is that people who identify under your listed banners cannot be jerks. This is simply an outright falsehood. An ideology that insists it cannot have jerks among its ranks is one that probably needs to look in the mirror.

If you do not believe in the inherent equality and humanity of men and women (along with all other marginalized groups), then yes, it's safe to say that you are indeed a jerk.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#228

Post by mreiland »

taybin wrote: post #87
freerobby wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed that was a dig at Jeff Atwood, who initially refused to link to Shanley's piece on the grounds that it was hateful.

I wasn't aware of that context. Generally, I'm not a fan of not linking to pieces you're criticizing.

the poster is misrepresenting Jeff Atwood, see my response to him.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#229

Post by beat »

baddox wrote: post #126
sequoia wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a genuine question for other male readers. Have you heard of, or come into contact with any of this abhorrent behavior that's mentioned? Why do you need a "male reader" to confirm this to you? Your question reads thus: 'I can't believe this if I only hear it from a woman-- is there a man in the audience who can confirm this?' To turn it around a bit, why do you find these stories unbelievable & why do you need a man…

> Your question reads thus: 'I can't believe this if I only hear it from a woman-- is there a man in the audience who can confirm this?' I think it's more like "I would find it odd, though not impossible, for only women to have observed these things."

The phrasing was very poor. A "Could men here share their own observations?" would have been very different, but as phrased, it's asking if male witnesses of sexist behavior even exist.

Whether intentional or not, it's a dismissal of the female point of view.

Re: An open letter on feminism in tech

#230

Post by arbutus »

exo762 wrote: post #100
kmf wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a general rule of thumb: if women have it bad, men have it worse. Can you honestly write that and actually believe it? Even better, can you give some examples to justify it? That's a pretty big claim, and one that, at face value, seems pretty unlikely.

Here is the list (US only). * Domestic violence (men can't be the victim in eyes of public and law). * Divorces (70% initiated by women, child support calculated basing on one month of his highest income ever, women get the children). * Body integrity (circumcision anyone?) * Sexist sentencing (men get on average twice as high number of years in jail for the same crimes) * Education (man are lagging behind women in b…

You should probably read this article: http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-t...

Specifically, this part from the bottom of the article:

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

Post reply on HN