A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by emmab » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 12:06 AM UTC

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…

Well, you could try anti-androgens like finasteride or spironolactone. They would lower your libido.

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

#122

Post by makeset » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 12:08 AM UTC

I do sympathize because people shouldn't have to put up with discrimination for any reason, especially at work, but her message gets eroded through poorly chosen arguments.

There's a difference between discrimination and assumption. If I wear scrubs while visiting a friend at a hospital because I like walking around in scrubs, people will assume that I'm medical personnel working there. If you're a woman in a dress at a company where all other women in dresses are recruiters, people will assume you're probably a recruiter, until they find out otherwise. They are not discriminating against you, it's just the prior probability. It's not okay to take this personally and lash out and call them a sausagefest.

An extroverted man wearing more fashion-conscious clothing in an introverted company-shirt crowd will stand out, and might face less sympathetic reviews in interview situations. That's discrimination, and it's not okay, but it happens. Having to look the part or not when it matters is a compromise we all face. This is not a good argument for her case.

And look here: > And if that wasn’t enough, my achievement was questioned by male colleagues. I’d occasionally hear, “Oh you’re a woman, you’ll get a job at Google or Facebook just fine!” Which was the most discouraging encouragement. If I did get the internship, it was because I was a woman and if I didn’t, I’d just failed to leverage my upper edge.

They said it because there is truth to it -- she won't get the job because she's a woman, but she will have higher chances because she's a woman. In the very least, it will muddle the reasons behind the decision. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're in support of gender diversity awareness in hiring, you've given up the license to complain about it. Saying "Let's hire more women!" when selecting from a decidedly male-dominated pool fully implies that women at large are given higher chances solely for being women. Sad, but true.

At that point I'm starting to doubt the interpretation of other examples like the older guy who called her dresses "fun." Was it a creepy guy making underhanded passes, or mere a fatherly figure lending his support for her unique choices? I personally don't doubt her judgment that it was the former, but it's hard to be convinced given the way the rest of the article reads.

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

#123

Post by emmab » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 12:09 AM UTC

dudifordMann wrote: post #61

blkhp19 wrote: post #22

First of all, calling a group of guys a sausage fest is reverse sexism. If I called a classroom full of girls a barbie play-date, or a tea party, or a "fashion" class - regardless of the real reason for their gathering, people would be outraged - and rightfully so. None of those things are true and it's disrespectful to say something like that. Second, the guy who said "well I should have applied for that" might have…

Side note: My relative who works in HR has told me time and again, the appropriate way to say "you look nice" to a co-worker in a professional setting is to not say it . In that setting, beyond grossly inappropriate work attire (at which point all comments should go directly to HR and not the employee), there is no need to make a subjective-comment on someone's appearance, you're there to work. (edit) grammar

What about things like "Wow that's a really cool dress! May I ask where you got it?"

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

#124

Post by cplease » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 12:13 AM UTC

ahelwer wrote: post #57

blkhp19 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at it objectively, there simply isn't enough evidence to say that her examples were purposeful sexism. As others have said, people should be mindful of how they word things. There are plenty of articles that do provide substantial evidence showing sexism. I just fail to see that caliber of evidence in this article. Her tone honestly gives off the vibe that she thinks everyone is against her.

I would caution you against falling into the intellectual trap of believing your interpretation to be objective, especially here. Why must sexism be purposeful? Is it not a more damning implication of the culture for non-purposeful sexism to exist?

Indeed. Lea writes a cogent article about a pervasive problem of sexism and hostility to women in education and industry and her personal experiences with it. From a thousand yards, a few of her individual examples seem that they might be a bit overblown and unfair to the other party, perhaps based on her own assumptions from being on the receiving end of so much blatant sexism. But picking them apart one by one to debunk her experience and narrative is invalidating her experience and condoning blatant sexism and hostile workplaces. It's real and it's wrong, and even those whose intentions are harmless should pay more attention to what they are saying and doing and be fucking professionals. You don't code with your dick, so there's no need to wave it around in the workplace.

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

#125

Post by davidf18 » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 12:30 AM UTC

There seems to be something wrong with this commenting system. I tried to respond to someone who responded to what I wrote and the response did not take twice.

This is what I wrote: Changing others, changing men, changing culture is very difficult. Nice to talk about it but it really doesn't happen. What one can do is to change themselves and part of that is understanding that those people are ASD are more likely to be insensitive than others and that is partially a genetic phenomena. There is nothing wrong with women being more competitive than men in general and learning new technologies by going to meetups and otherwise. For example, most programmers know Java/Hadoop and far fewer really work with Scala/Spark. Learn advanced machine learning algorithms. Have a good understanding of computer architecture and computer chip fabrication.

I have been to a number of meetups and I have never seen any hostility towards women. These tend to be rather technical where meritocracy is respected.

In sum, those in technology are not wishful thinkers. One cannot change others, only themselves. Men are not going to change at least in the short term. I have given examples of a realistic means for dealing with the situation that I have seen women and others use.

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

#126

Post by dominotw » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 12:32 AM UTC

stmchn wrote: post #112

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.

This is our country I am talking about not a third world country. Do you want to live in a society where one section of population is treated like precious princesses and another like dirt?

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

#127

Post by alialkhatib » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 12:32 AM UTC

As a PhD student here at Stanford, I find this really distressing.

For what little it may be worth to anyone reading this who is(/was) thinking about coming to Stanford, I have heard professors and grad students talk about ways to be more inclusive in their actions and language. I've heard my advisor stumble over "you guys" only to stop and correct himself with "you all". I can't speak for every lab (there are numerous, each with different cultures and norms), but hopefully I speak for everyone when I say that we grad students and the professors are at least open to learning about how we can make the CS program (and the field as a whole) a safer space for everyone, if not actively working toward that goal. If nothing else, we can promote an inclusive culture in how we speak, behave, and in what behavior we (don't) tolerate.

For Lea (and for countless others), I worry her perception of CS has been irreparably damaged. Hopefully that won't be the case going forward.

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

#128

Post by dominotw » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 12:35 AM UTC

8_hours_ago wrote: post #114

intev wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I knew someone would post this. I am talking about two people who work in the same office but one is treated like a princesses and another like invisible.

This whole gender gap thing is used by profiteers like "diversity consultants", media outlets like the original post for page views.

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

#129

Post by dominotw » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 12:36 AM UTC

seanflyon wrote: post #110

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.

It is right to be disgusted with domestic violence, but that does not mean that you should not care about other problems. We should not limit ourselves to only care about the single worst problem.

I never said we should limit ourselves but the attention given should be proportionate to the suffering.

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

#130

Post by foxhedgehog » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 12:46 AM UTC

One of the best TA's that I ever had, in any discipline, was a female CS instructor at Cal who was also likely a PhD candidate. My operating theory was that she not only had to be smart enough to be admitted into that program, but that she additionally had to overcome some degree of adversity stemming from gender-based perceptions (which I definitely observed in our department). The entire class was disappointed when our regular professor returned from a conference after she had been instructing for a week because she was so much better at teaching than he was.