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

A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 174 posts

Re: A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism

#111

Post by listrophy »

davidf18 wrote: post #105

Many men who program computers, especially those who are very competent, are ASD (on the Autistic Spectrum), eg, perhaps some form of Aspergers. In Autism Researcher Simon Baron-Cohen's terminology they are "hyper" systemic but "hypo" empathic. Thus, they may be acting socially unaware, especially compared with women and people should keep that in mind. Also, women should consider at working and at least understandin…

1. Being ASD is not a carte blanche.

2. Suggesting that "simply knowing more" is sufficient ignores the way many men will discount a woman's knowledge compared to a man's knowledge simply because she's a woman.

3. Can we not resort to putting people into their place to establish dominance hierarchies? What about synergistic differences? Those are tremendously valuable.

4. Many meetups can be frustrating or downright hostile to women. Even well intentioned organizers can have a difficult time attracting women if attendance is already primarily male. Let's not forget that women make about 70¢ per $1 that men make, so they tend to have less opportunity to spend leisure time at a meetup.

This is a problem, and we can't ask women to simply try harder. They've been trying harder their whole lives. Perhaps it's time for us men to try harder for once.

Re: A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism

#112

Post by stmchn »

dominotw wrote: post #108

Wow another privileged woman speaking about her "feels". I take a bus with Mexican woman whose husband beats her but she is too scared to go to law enforcement( her being an illegal immigrant and all). The contrast between two women is insane. Yet we talk everyday endlessly about the former not the latter. I am disgusted by this whole thing. Seriously WTF.

Just because other issues exists in the world doesn't invalidate issues elsewhere. There will always be someone who has it worse than you.

The next time you talk about your "feels" as you put it, see how you'd feel if someone guilted you because at least you're not a starving impoverished child with ebola in a third world country.

Re: A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism

#113

Post by ElComradio »

leif wrote: post #36
bdamm wrote: post #12

Well she writes like a junior because she is. But the main points she makes - subtle sexism regarding capability in the face of equivalent effort - are certainly observable and do ring true. When I see articles like this (and the issue of sexism in computing does pop up quite often) I usually agree. It is there. But what can be done? I myself have been a disgusting example of a male engineer at times. And as much as…

You've successfully completed steps 1 and 2: 1. Acknowledge there is a real problem. 2. Acknowledge you are part of the problem. Now, on to steps 3-n! 3. Don't be discouraged, accept that there are things you can do to help! This is good , you're about to become a more valuable member of society. 4. Accept that you need to put in some effort. Not much, don't worry. Most of it is shutting up. 5. Read what women write…

Not that you can replace "Note that you can replace "woman/women" in the above with any minority/disenfranchised/disadvantaged group"" with "Note that you can replace woman/women with any person of any group who faces hurdles or has disadvantages"

When you can do that, you have successfully transcended the "gotta get mine!" and "shut up and give me your stuff!" subtext of most of today's egalitarian rhetoric.

Re: A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism

#114

Post by 8_hours_ago »

intev wrote: post #109
dominotw wrote: post #108

Wow another privileged woman speaking about her "feels". I take a bus with Mexican woman whose husband beats her but she is too scared to go to law enforcement( her being an illegal immigrant and all). The contrast between two women is insane. Yet we talk everyday endlessly about the former not the latter. I am disgusted by this whole thing. Seriously WTF.

Just because the Mexican woman is in a worse situation compared to the Stanford grad, it doesn't make the Stanford grad's situation any less worse. If you were not allowed to eat any food once a week, and I told you "there's starving children in Africa with NO food 3 times a week" does that make you feel better about your situation? You also happen to be posting on a tech website, so that would explain why we talk ab…

In case you were wondering, that argument is known as the fallacy of relative privation: "an opponent's arguments should be dismissed or ignored, on the grounds of there existing more important problems, despite these issues being often completely unrelated to the subject at hand."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

Re: A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism

#115

Post by hotdoggystyle »

blkhp19 wrote: post #52
asadotzler wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, bklhp19, we don't need your analasys to tell us whether or not there are sexism and gender issues in tech and tech education. It's a fact and we know it so all you're offering here is a dismissal of this person's concern. Is that how you like to show up in the world, challenging or dismissing people around you when they take the time to communicate their experience of known problem space?

Bad journalism deserves to be pointed out, does it not? I am not dismissing the issue, I am claiming that her points lack substantial evidence. Just because something is a touchy subject doesn't mean the writing is infallible.

It's not journalism, it is an opinion piece. Hence the tag "Commentary". It doesn't need to have the utmost journalistic integrity or writing.

It just happens that, what she experienced and how she interpreted it, resonated with a lot of people.

Re: A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism

#117

Post by bluecalm »

jneen wrote: post #23
kleer001 wrote: post #13

Yup, sounds like standard fare. I would have been impressed if she'd documented and reported this shitty behaviour. Then again Confrontation is difficult, no matter the context.

As someone who has tried to document and report shitty behavior, it's important to keep in mind how risky that is. Here are a few patterns I've observed: pattern (a) MAN: does shitty thing ; WOMAN: hey please stop; WOMAN's performance review: "has conflicts with MAN" pattern (b) MAN: does shitty thing ; WOMAN: reports shitty thing ; MANAGER: oh MAN is a nice guy, why don't you try working it out yourself pattern (c)…

This happens in hierarchies regardless of genders. Anyone bullied in school or a workplace can tell you this. You would need to measure if it in fact happens more often if it's a woman being a victim which is very difficult as most of those situations are not reported by neither gender.

Re: A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism

#118

Post by tracker1 »

jneen wrote: post #6

I have heard most of these things, and it sucks. This is hella real.

It's not easy for anyone though... Firstly, there are some people that are just assholes. Second, men in general (not all men/women), tend to be more aggressive than women. This can be intimidating or plain off-putting at times. Excessive arrogance has always bugged me a lot. The third is that some people are socially awkward in general, which can lean towards other issues.

Lastly, an all-male or all-female group will be much more crude or open about thoughts, jokes or concepts than in evenly mixed company. Groups that are very one-sided tend towards this as well. When I was younger, I worked in a few offices where I was the only man that worked there... What I overheard in those years of my life is far worse than what I've heard from any all-male or mostly-male offices I've ever worked in.

With time, as the numbers tend to even out, the feel of a space that is more equally mixed (genuine assholes aside) will be more even... Personally, I prefer to work with all men day to day. I do have to interact with women in another office, and have worked with them fine. I am just less distracted without women around, and that is on me.

Re: A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism

#119

Post by ezy »

msandford wrote: post #100
ezy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, duh, but the whole thing about "invalidation" is there is a subtext here: that she wouldn't know that she had been misattributing sexism to someone. If all your friends with Fords of various colors and models had problems -- you would rightfully have cause to focus in on Ford as the problem. Do not pretend to be objective by discounting context, or acting like everyone else is an imbecile. I'm not saying that e…

> Think about how analytically you are viewing what she wrote about her experience vs. how uncritically you might view articles from PG (especially the earlier ones unassociated with YC). Wow, way to go! I read HN so I must be a PG cheerleader and ergo I'm definitely sexist! PG makes some good points and some of them are a lot less tenable. I don't switch off my brain because I'm reading PG (though I do occasionally…

> Wow, way to go! I read HN so I must be a PG cheerleader and ergo I'm definitely sexist!

For someone who is all about psychological errors, you seem to have constructed quite a narrative. I'm not talking about cheerleading -- just the level of analysis. I'm not trying to make you into some horrible monster or anything -- that is your projection onto my criticism.

Speaking of psychological blinders: I stand by my assertion that, as long as anyone doesn't mess with your ego, you will not apply this level of analysis to what they write. It's human nature. At the risk of repeating myself, I just don't think you're reading PG's articles and thinking that what he says happened to him, didn't happen.

> Should anyone be able to wear anything to any job without any consequence?

Oh come on. Really? RTFA. You're veering away from the misattribution you original claimed as a possibility here.

I just wrote a whole comment about context, and you ignored it because it bruised your ego. Being obstinate about "drawing a line" is not a triumph of reason -- it's ignoring the world. Reductio ad absurdum relies on symmetry, of which you have none here.

She's obviously not wearing hot pants, a bikini top to work, and even if that were the case, she would be notified in an official capacity in short order (e.g. "told to go home") -- not "complimented" repeatedly in a creepy way.

There is no "murky line" because we are talking about a repeated pattern she illustrates in her article which shows it highly likely not to be misinterpretation. If she misinterpreted one of those examples (e.g. the "Facebook" example is the one I'd choose, actually), ok. But how likely is it she misinterpreted all of them, and the misinterpreted the social environment that made her pull together the examples in the first place?

> Please realize that there's a difference between saying "it might not be sexism" and "it's definitely not sexism" and that I'm trying to very cautiously propose the former, not the latter.

If I have a bug, it might be cosmic rays, a compiler bug -- or it could be my shitty code. All of these are possible. It isn't about what's possible, if you want to be analytical about it.. it's the likelihood.

So, when you say "it might be a compiler bug" when code breaks, you should know how ridiculous that sounds, even though you are technically correct[1]. There is a reason people say those kinds of things (without much more evidence) and it has a lot to do with how attached they are to their code.

[1] The Best Kind of Correct.

Re: A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism

#120

Post by CHY872 »

One of my female friends has been through broadly similar experiences, and so sadly I'm not particularly surprised by this article. I'm glad that it's been posted, and am somewhat saddened by the defensive nature of a lot of the replies here.

Yes, a few of her examples are a little weak, but I think it paints an overall picture that isn't hugely encouraging for the state of SV, and one that I have no trouble believing.

Post reply on HN