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

111–120 of 136 posts

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#111

Post by wmj »

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.

It's subtly otherkinphobic that you limited the discussion to human beings.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#112

Post by wmj »

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…

> 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?

No.

Replace sexism with unicorns and reread your premise.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#113

Post by HarrietJones »

mcguire wrote: post #26
HarrietJones wrote: post #4

Well today's my day to be the not-so-subtle-ist asshole at Hacker News. It's one thing to recognise that systemic forms of bias and discrimination can be subtle and invisible to those trying to fix them, but all this sort of thing does is hand more keys over to a small subset of people who are less interested in making the world more equal and more interested in grabbing, holding and exercising social power. Shaming…

" Shaming rituals, however light in touch they are, rarely improve things. They're just another small-p political tool to be used by politically minded people to exert social control. " This is absolutely true. The only thing that will improve someone's manners is their mother slapping them when they got out of hand while growing up. Once they're an adult, their concepts of social roles and the appropriate ways of in…

Thanks for the sarcasm.

We're not talking about egregious examples of bad behaviour. These subtle-isms are vague; they're hard to identify and explain; they crop up unconsciously.

It's not bad manners if you don't know you've upset someone, or you're unaware that you're enforcing damaging social norms.

We should change & we should question our moral compasses. For me, this is an absolute. But the proposed solution only works in situations where all actors are acting in good faith. It's too easily subverted. I have no beef with Hacker School for trying this, but time and again, groups that work within these frameworks devolve into politicking and rules lawyering.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#114

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

Seems to me that if you say something racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc, then there are a couple possibilities.

Either (a) you meant it or (b) you didn't mean it. If (b), a gentle nudge from a Hacker School pal is good, in the same sense of a friend telling me my fly is open. If (a), well, fuck you.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#115

Post by thumbtackthief »

cfqycwz wrote: post #107
GHFigs wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can everyone see what just happened here? This is all it has to be. It was a cis-sexist remark. Now, I tend to make similar remarks and I also try to be aware of them, and there's indeed a limit to what you can do. But this is _all we're talking about_. OP was being facetious, but a subtle '-ism' was pointed out, and the commenter just said, "Oops, yeah, working on that." And we all happily move on with our lives.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#116

Post by thumbtackthief »

I'm going to say one last thing and then move on with my life. It seems that most of the dissent revolves around asking that debates about when these things are pointed out be kept private.

So, I got almost no work done today, and I'm all sorts of grouchy and irritable because of this discussion. I probably didn't convince anyone, and no one convinced me. So what did this debate accomplish? Who feels better now? All HS wants to do is keep this sort of nonsense from happening. Person A says something, Person B objects, Person A either apologizes or doesn't, and they move on. If they really need to discuss, they don't bring in People C through Z and ruin their days and productivity as well. Whichever side you're on, that seems like a pretty good idea to me.

Furthermore, we all make innocuous comments that are ignorant of another group's situation. When someone asks me about my wife, I don't flip out and call them a homophobe for assuming I'm straight. But if they fight me when I point it out and refuse to acknowledge the fact that maybe they could stand to broaden their experience, I start to wonder why they're fighting me so much and what prejudices they're hiding.

These rules work in Hacker School. They work because they're lightweight and no one feels like a terrible person for breaking them. If other communities are organically adopting them because the structure has been successful, I don't understand why you'd fight it so much.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#117

Post by j-m »

Good God, this is why I changed my OkCupid profile to omit the fact that I work at a tech startup.

A bit dishonest, to be sure, but I just want to have a chance to demonstrate in person that I'm not the kind of insensitive, entitled dickbag that makes comments like the ones in this thread.

Downvote away, guys, because hey, I'm engaging in some SHAMING here. Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#118

Post by rev_bird »

wmj wrote: post #112
rev_bird wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? No. Replace sexism with unicorns and reread your premise.

That's silly -- a unicorn's presence is, for the most part, a measurable binary, it's either there or it isn't. Sexism is subjective, or at least more up for debate than "is the unicorn in the room or is it not."

If somebody says, "hey, this is some bad sexism," that's a lousy argument, because it's a vague statement that can't be proven either way. You could respond with "no it isn't, shhh" and it would be just as reasonable a rebuttal as any other.

But if someone says "these are things I think contribute to an unnecessarily exclusionary environment, here's why it should change," then I think it's disingenuous to just say "meh, no" without addressing the concerns. It's basically someone saying, "I think my opinions are being written off without being properly discussed," and responding with "That's not true, discussion over, it's written off." There's got to at least be a discussion, no?

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#119

Post by gluejar »

HarrietJones wrote: post #4

Well today's my day to be the not-so-subtle-ist asshole at Hacker News. It's one thing to recognise that systemic forms of bias and discrimination can be subtle and invisible to those trying to fix them, but all this sort of thing does is hand more keys over to a small subset of people who are less interested in making the world more equal and more interested in grabbing, holding and exercising social power. Shaming…

When the concept of "subtleism" (note the spelling) was explained to me by one of the Hacker School founders, I thought it was brilliant. Precisely because it transformed a "shaming ritual" into an olive branch. The idea is that subtleist remarks are NOT *-ist, individually, but the aggregate of hundreds of subtleisms could be oppressive. So, nothing's wrong with saying "you guys", if only it didn't come in a flood of subtleisms. It's ok, you're forgiven, but we can do better.

Compare the word "micro-aggression". That's an accusation and the beginning of on argument. "Subtleism", by contrast, is a word to promote healing.

Re: Subtle -isms at Hacker School

#120

Post by davorak »

wmj wrote: post #109
davorak wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

This makes me think you are not talking about lightweight social rules at private institution.

Post reply on HN