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

Subtle -isms at Hacker School

hackerschool.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 136 posts

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#101

Post by thumbtackthief »

ibejoeb wrote: post #92
thumbtackthief wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 'conditioning' to be polite and think about what you say. It's sad that you think that's a negative.

I'm going after the debate embargo. I don't think it's good for business. I choose not to embrace it. I also think that codifying subtly is a snipe hunt. In doing so, It's conditioning people to be afraid to speak lest someone be offended. The throwaways here are evidence. It's encouraging hypersensitivity. I'm also going to point out that rather than attacking my argument, you called my thinking sad. In my reading o…

"After this, we ask that all further discussion move off of public channels." I don't see anything wrong with keeping such discussions private. Especially when you are dealing with a minority standing up for himself or herself, keeping it to one-on-one instead of having to face off against a squadron of privileged people who for the first time in history are being asked to acknowledge viewpoints other than their own seems like a decent idea to me.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#102

Post by thumbtackthief »

GHFigs wrote: post #99
thumbtackthief wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 'conditioning' to be polite and think about what you say. It's sad that you think that's a negative.

It's terrible that you think reflexively apologizing is the same thing as politeness.

That was not at all what I said, but if you need to make things up to stand by your viewpoint, have at it.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#103

Post by thumbtackthief »

Zikes wrote: post #91
thumbtackthief wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the 'no debate' is more two-pronged: 1) No need to defend yourself, because no one is saying you're terrible, and 2) Keep the debate private, as opposed to long threads on the HS boards that just deteriorate into this. The one time I was accused of being subtly-sexist, I disagreed with the commenter and I told her so (privately). She stuck to her point, and by the end I didn't 100% agree with her and I thought…

> 1) No need to defend yourself, because no one is saying you're terrible Accusations of sexism in technology need to be taken extremely seriously, as just the accusation alone can be all it takes for someone to be publicly vilified[1] or even fired[2]. In today's technology culture, the accusation of sexism can be even more damaging than the sexism itself. That's a key reason for all this debate taking place. HS is…

So, in that first article, the point was not that the person used the sexist gendered pronoun, but _absolutely insisted_ on it.

Here's my example, and if the person in question is reading this, he/she can feel free to chime in. I posted in our internal forums about how I was planning my wedding (to another man) which "was getting very expensive, even without a bride." Someone called me out on sexist language, saying that not all women needed elaborate weddings/dresses/whatnot, and so on and so forth. We debated (privately) for a while. In the end? Honestly? I appreciated her viewpoint a little more, but I still think she was being a little over-sensitive. HOWEVER, I went back and edited my post to remove the offending remark. It was a minor change for me to make (and she wasn't totally wrong), and if it made someone feel a little more comfortable and promoted harmony, great. It ended there. It also would have ended had I _not_ gone back and edited my post. But if I made a giant stink about it, involved other people, treated her poorly thereafter, and otherwise was a giant unpleasant jerk to work with, well then yeah--I'd expect some consequences. Does she hate me now? I don't think so. Am I a terrible misogynist? I hope not. But I got reminded that people with different viewpoints and backgrounds will think differently from me, and I should respect that, and that's a very good thing.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#104

Post by GHFigs »

thumbtackthief wrote: post #102
GHFigs wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's terrible that you think reflexively apologizing is the same thing as politeness.

That was not at all what I said, but if you need to make things up to stand by your viewpoint, have at it.

I'm not clear on what you think I made up or what viewpoint you think I'm standing by.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#105

Post by GHFigs »

cfqycwz wrote: post #100
whiskypeters wrote: post #95

"we've been trying to stop using "you guys" to refer to mixed-gender groups." Am I the only one that finds this over the top? "No 'subtle -isms' is about recognizing the ways we're unconciously [sic] making our friends' lives a little worse." I'm sorry, if your life is made worse by a completely benign (and friendly) statement like "ok guys, have a nice weekend" then you are naive and irrational. Creating an environm…

The "you guys" instance seems a bit silly at first but is a good example of the way our language promotes the idea of male as the default. Note that there are no feminine words which we gender-neutralize in a similar way--we refer to a collective as "guys" or humanity as "mankind," but never use "gals" or "womankind" to refer to a mixed-gender group. In this way we construct women as an other, in opposition to men: t…

It's subtly transphobic that you limited the discussion to men and women.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#106

Post by GHFigs »

rev_bird wrote: post #98
invadedby wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>why have women been almost intentionally excluded from IT until relatively recently? I have never excluded women. Also IT, tech, hackers are not interchangeable terms. >Do you mean "good" for people in general, or "good" for you? I meant good for hackers. People with a certain world view, goals and sense of humor. >When you say "we are being invaded," who is "we"? Again, hackers. We never cared for race nor sexualit…

You say you've never excluded women, but you are aggressively dismissing an attempt -- it seems, mostly from women -- at improving what they perceive as sexist undertones in the workplace. If someone says "hey, we should work on addressing this sexism," and the response is, "be quiet, there isn't any sexism, you just hate fun," that seems pretty stinking sexist , doesn't it? Dismissing someone's concerns by saying th…

Dismissing someone's concerns by saying they aren't real doesn't address the concerns, it just sweeps them under the rug because they aren't perceived as being important enough to give a shit about.

Conveniently, you've also accurately described what happens when someone expresses concern about negative side effects of new social rules.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#107

Post by cfqycwz »

GHFigs wrote: post #105
cfqycwz wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "you guys" instance seems a bit silly at first but is a good example of the way our language promotes the idea of male as the default. Note that there are no feminine words which we gender-neutralize in a similar way--we refer to a collective as "guys" or humanity as "mankind," but never use "gals" or "womankind" to refer to a mixed-gender group. In this way we construct women as an other, in opposition to men: t…

It's subtly transphobic that you limited the discussion to men and women.

That is very true and a mistake I do make pretty often but am working to be more cognizant of. Framing the discussion around women and men does nothing to further those who are identify as both or neither, nor those who are in transition from one binary gender to the other.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#108

Post by wmj »

thumbtackthief wrote: post #103
Zikes wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) No need to defend yourself, because no one is saying you're terrible Accusations of sexism in technology need to be taken extremely seriously, as just the accusation alone can be all it takes for someone to be publicly vilified[1] or even fired[2]. In today's technology culture, the accusation of sexism can be even more damaging than the sexism itself. That's a key reason for all this debate taking place. HS is…

So, in that first article, the point was not that the person used the sexist gendered pronoun, but _absolutely insisted_ on it. Here's my example, and if the person in question is reading this, he/she can feel free to chime in. I posted in our internal forums about how I was planning my wedding (to another man) which "was getting very expensive, even without a bride." Someone called me out on sexist language, saying…

> HOWEVER, I went back and edited my post to remove the offending remark.

This is exactly the kind of self-censorship through mobbing that we're trying to counteract.

It's unconscionable and it's unacceptable.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#109

Post by wmj »

davorak wrote: post #21
fred_durst wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have to agree. To me "Subtle-isms" could lead to a culture of fear. When a mistake is vague and hard to understand, there becomes a certain amount of probability involved in making a mistake. Therefore those who are the most active could end up with the most mistakes. In this case, those who engage most with those around them, will likely break the most "Subtle-isms". This policy may simply reward the quiet s…

> I would have to agree. To me "Subtle-isms" could lead to a culture of fear. If someone points out a subtle-ism it seems like it would be fine to ask for clarification and/or additional concrete examples. They do try to address this issue by making the "social rules are lightweight" and tell students "feel free to talk to faculty." > those who engage most with those around them, will likely break the most "Subtle-is…

> If someone points out a subtle-ism it seems like it would be fine to ask for clarification and/or additional concrete examples.

Or to reject the accusation. That's also fine. It's fine especially when the accusation is absolute and utter bullshit.

If you think your accusation has merit, see me in court.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#110

Post by wmj »

thumbtackthief wrote: post #75
nawitus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusation of sexism (etc.) is public and brings shame to the accused (whether or not the accused is guilty). It's also clearly a ritual. In conclusion, I think these social rules explained the blog article are indeed shaming rituals. You might not agree, which is not surprising since you're one of the founders.

Just like anything else, tactful people will do this privately and with discretion.

That's not what the rules dictate.
Post reply on HN