Live data from Hacker News

Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

thedatingring.tumblr.com

131–140 of 175 posts

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#131
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As for the first article, as I've already said, I already knew (in an intellectual sense) that being poor is a disadvantage. This is not the point of the essay. > I'm in dire need of enlightenment it seems. Heh. Ok, I'm out! :)

> Heh. Ok, I'm out! :) Well I've said what I wanted to say about my impressions. If you found my tone too hostile, which I'm guessing why you're saying 'bye', it might be because I found you to be too patronizing, which is just my impression. And from how you've engaged some other people in this thread it seems that you don't simply "bow out" because you're a gentleman that don't want to get tangled up in a messy arg…

I don't find your tone too hostile. I think you're being insincere and aren't actually interested in having a conversation about any of this.

I wrote what I wrote in my original comment not as a preemptive "defense" — as if I was gearing up for a fight — but as a way to get whoever read those essay to hold back from replying reflexively and actually spend time trying to understand them as the author intended them to be understood.

Likewise, I'd ask you to do the same for my comments. Can you imagine a world in which what I am saying makes sense or would even be the "obvious" thing to believe? Can you imagine several? Are some of them more plausible than others? Why or why not?

I bow out when the conversation starts to feel like the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&t=1m18s

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#132
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so what should I do now that I recognize that I have privilege? Do I quit my job and forfeit my college degree, since I acquired both unfairly (I guess my own perception that I sometimes work hard and plan well is delusional)? Seriously, what is the end game of this concept of "privilege"? All anyone seems to say is to "check your privilege." Great, I accept that I have privilege according to your definition of…

There is an excellent list of suggestions at http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146 . The short answer is, no, you don't quit your job and forfeit your college degree; you aren't bad for having privilege and "checking your privilege" isn't supposed to make you feel guilty for having it. The post is a little long, but I think you would get more benefit out of reading it yourself than you would out of my…

That post is extremely long, and there's no way I'll make it far when it begins with things like:

> One of the greatest things we, as privileged people, can bring to a discussion being held by non-privileged groups is our closed mouths and open ears/minds. When you enter a minority space, you need to realize that this is their soapbox, not yours. Your privilege gives you many other soapboxes that you can take advantage of, so when participating in a discussion held by a non-privileged group or individual your primary goal is to pay attention to what they say about their issues, lives, and oppressions.

What rubbish. My views are worth less because of my privilege. In other words, any time there is a discussion or debate between two people, the person with less privilege is right, or at least has a greater right to express ideas. This idea of intellectual worth-asymmetry seems to always accompany claims regarding privilege, and I'll have nothing of it.

> Well, finding a balance between accepting your privilege and fighting against it is not easy. I still struggle with it on a daily basis. But, one way to start is to listen to and take feedback from non-privileged groups. They are a good judge of how your actions come across to them.

Of course, the best judge of an individual's reaction is that individual. That's a truism. But here we have another clear implication that the reactions of an individual with lower privilege are more proper or more valuable than the reactions of an individual with higher privilege.

> You Can Only Sympathize, Not Empathize...But, no matter how strong the link is, the facts remain that no two oppressions are the same. And it’s you, as the privileged party, who needs to be extra careful about when and how you draw links. While the intent may be to show solidarity, the result is all too often that you come off as defensive, trying to one-up the non-privileged groups and appropriate their oppression. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ever try to make connections, but rather that you should think about how the connections you’re drawing will come off to others.

In other words, analogies are generally not allowed in discussions involving a privilege disparity. There goes one effective means of discourse.

> Revisiting “Politically Correct”...Part of engaging in a language of respect and equality is in recognizing the validity of a person’s choice to use language, and “politically correct” terms, even if you may not understand or agree with them.

Surely the irony of appealing to linguistic subjectivity to defend political correctness isn't lost on the author(s).

> The same power dynamics that create privilege have created a hierarchy of prejudice so that discrimination against a privileged group is not the same as discrimination against a non-priivleged group. This is because discrimination against a non-privileged group is backed up with institutionalized power, whereas discrimination against a privileged group is often a singular act and therefore easier to avoid.

Wow, let it never be said that arguments against this type of belief are straw man arguments, unless of course this article is satire. The notion that a male getting raped by a woman can in any way be seen as inherently different or less of an injustice than a woman getting raped by a man is, simply put, appalling.

> Intent Isn’t an Excuse...while malicious intent may add icing to the cake, it does not dictate whether or not an offense has been made. “That wasn’t my intent,” all too often translates into “your reactions to what I did are invalid because I didn’t mean any harm.”...It, in essense, privileges the sayer/doer’s opinion/feelings over that of the non-privileged person or group that they have offended.

And this article repeatedly makes it clear that the non-privileged person's opinions and feelings are more valuable.

> Make an Effort to Learn the Lingo...What’s not fine, however, is telling a non-privileged group that their terms are wrong. You, as the privileged participant, don’t get to define what is and is not appropriate usage in a minority space.

Well there goes linguistic relativity. Now it's clear that any terms used by less privileged people are correct, period.

That's as far as I made it. If there is eventually a reveal that the entire article is satire, then the joke is on me, although I wouldn't be surprised. There some serious Poe's law going on here.

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#133
post #72
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the basic premise is that there is nothing in biology that makes computer science more interesting to men than it does to women. Since it is not an imbalance that can be pinned on biology (perhaps unlike an imbalance in world weightlifting records?) , the cause of the imbalance must be somehow 'nurture' related. Even if we do not consider the imbalance itself to be problematic, the imbalance is considered t…

Well, here's my take on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6977753 Most of the men I know and have talked to specifically about fighting for pay, have in fact put up a fight for their pay, while the women I worked with believed that their work will pay for itself and have no fought for a higher pay raise. The women that are top tier managers, were actually just as vicious as the guys, and by being this way, hav…

Have you ever read the research available on the different reactions people tend to have when a woman asks for higher pay/displays entitlement to better conditions in general, vs when a man does?

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#134
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So only feel guilt if you help reinforce the imbalance (like commenting on a girl programming, which carries an implication of noteworthiness (since it was noted) and thus perhaps surprise (which could imply by extension social wrongness)). Why is it wrong to consider a girl programming to be noteworthy or surprising? If it's true that females are underrepresented in programming or technology careers, which is the…

It's okay to be privately surprised, as long as you think about WHY you're surprised (e.g. "girls don't code" vs. "there aren't as many women coders as you might expect given the # of women in the US"). The dick move is to belabor the point and treat the programming woman as a performing dog instead of a person. Think of it this way: you meet a woman at a meetup about a technical topic, and you find you have projects…

> The dick move is to belabor the point and treat the programming woman as a performing dog instead of a person.

Sure, but that's basically saying that "being a dick is being a dick." You could also be a dick by treating a world-class athlete as a performing dog. You can be a dick about anything, regardless of how unoffensive that thing is on its own. But that's not what the original statement was talking about. It explicitly said that considering it noteworthy or surprising is inherently bad.

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#135
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said: > Women are so entitled nowadays. I don't know if you're just incredibly tone deaf, callous to what your words mean, or are trying to be funny. If you think that women have equal ability to men (by your comment, maybe you don't), and you think that people should hold jobs equal to their abilities, then you should wonder why 50% of your colleagues aren't women...

I manage a top tier development team at the worlds largest bank. I go through 100's of resumes. The percentage of women applying for pure CS related jobs (not business jobs, but specifically tech) is very little. It's not my problem that a small part of the resumes I get are women. It's not sexism. It's just statistics. I work a majority of women actually, they out number us very very hard. I've yet to find a substan…

Nancies? You know that typically refers to gay men, right?

edit: gay or effeminate, as a slur.

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#136
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that it's an implication of arbitrary social momentum. Where a hacker immediately brings to mind a twenty-something white male, other groups would need to expend more effort to be associated with it. Say a brilliantly clever black woman joined a discussion, she shouldn't stand out, but likely would; that's the social imbalance in play: brilliant and clever may not be the foremost and outstanding char…

> So only feel guilt if you help reinforce the imbalance (like commenting on a girl programming, which carries an implication of noteworthiness (since it was noted) and thus perhaps surprise (which could imply by extension social wrongness)). Why is it wrong to consider a girl programming to be noteworthy or surprising? If it's true that females are underrepresented in programming or technology careers, which is the…

There's nothing wrong with noticing. However, pulling from some personal experiences: you should refrain from highlighting that you noticed by saying "oh, you're not a guy!" or "are you really x?" or "I was expecting a guy!"

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#137
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's okay to be privately surprised, as long as you think about WHY you're surprised (e.g. "girls don't code" vs. "there aren't as many women coders as you might expect given the # of women in the US"). The dick move is to belabor the point and treat the programming woman as a performing dog instead of a person. Think of it this way: you meet a woman at a meetup about a technical topic, and you find you have projects…

> The dick move is to belabor the point and treat the programming woman as a performing dog instead of a person. Sure, but that's basically saying that "being a dick is being a dick." You could also be a dick by treating a world-class athlete as a performing dog. You can be a dick about anything, regardless of how unoffensive that thing is on its own. But that's not what the original statement was talking about. It e…

Yeah, I was wrong in the severity of the statement. What I can say that it could offend, since it has (at least for me). As always, you may be sufficiently tactful in person to avoid the whole issue.

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#138
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an excellent list of suggestions at http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146 . The short answer is, no, you don't quit your job and forfeit your college degree; you aren't bad for having privilege and "checking your privilege" isn't supposed to make you feel guilty for having it. The post is a little long, but I think you would get more benefit out of reading it yourself than you would out of my…

That post is extremely long, and there's no way I'll make it far when it begins with things like: > One of the greatest things we, as privileged people, can bring to a discussion being held by non-privileged groups is our closed mouths and open ears/minds. When you enter a minority space, you need to realize that this is their soapbox, not yours. Your privilege gives you many other soapboxes that you can take advanta…

Did you read the first link, "A Primer on Privilege?" It's actually quite good: http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#139
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said: > Women are so entitled nowadays. I don't know if you're just incredibly tone deaf, callous to what your words mean, or are trying to be funny. If you think that women have equal ability to men (by your comment, maybe you don't), and you think that people should hold jobs equal to their abilities, then you should wonder why 50% of your colleagues aren't women...

Why should 50:50 be the desired ratio? Are you proposing that every industry which isn't at or near that ratio rife with gender discrimination? Do you also believe there is significant sexual discrimination against men in every industry dominated by women? Have you even considered the possibility that men and women are just interested in different things, simply due to natural proclivities, and not because one gender…

50:50 is the ideal ratio if you think that there is no biological reason that men would be better at anything than women (as I do). The key point is interest. Why would women be less interested in CS?

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#140
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, just lost me here. What is the point of recognising privilege if you are not trying to get rid of it?

1) To understand the perception others may have of of things I say and to know when I don't understand something enough to talk about it. Knowing that my life experience has differed from that of others and that my statements are perceived differently because of my privileged background allows me to more efficiently communicate and prevents faux pas (like the original PG one that caused this whole furor in the first…

> I see people complaining frequently about the use of the word "privilege" as though it's some kind of pejorative being used against them

If the people using this term didn't want it to be taken as a pejorative, perhaps they could have chosen a less loaded term, that didn't already have a legacy usage with negative connotation.

"Asymmetrically advantage", "special powers" etc. all would be fine. But when you tell someone they're "privileged", it's very hard for the average speaker of English who doesn't have 100+ hrs of reading feminist literature to not be somewhat offended. The vernacular implication of the term is that someone who is privileged "had it easy", or the effort they've put into achieving their position and status is somewhat invalidated because they had "natural advantages".

My observation is that one of the core dysfunctions of discussions about diversity in tech is that people don't properly respect how impossible it is to go from talking about ensembles and populations, to talking about the behaviors of individuals. Those are two entirely different regimes of theory. We might come up with all manner of fancy terms and bodies of theory to talk about systemic cycles of oppression, vicious cycles of privilege, etc. etc. But to use any of that theoretical framework to talk about the motivations or actions of a single individual is certainly fraught with error and presumption.

Physicists recognize that you can't go from a thermodynamical description of an ensemble of atoms to individual particle trajectories without explicitly having a statistical model of the distribution of particles. But people are so quick to jump down each others' throats with accusations and assumptions about "you're blind to X!" and "you're assuming Y!". It's really just kind of sad. Just as "heat" is a bulk property of a body of particles and is pretty much meaningless when talking about a single particle, I think that a concept like "privilege" is meaningful when talking about a particular demographic versus another demographic. But to say that any given individual "is privileged" because of the color of their skin or their parents' tax bracket is assuming too much, and informs nothing. Individual variance within the distribution is just too high. The Asian immigrant kid with the perfect SAT and lawyers for parents might have taken up coding to escape his parents yelling and fighting every night. Is that more or less privilege than the black girl in a middle class suburb with a huge supportive extended family? What does "privilege" even mean when regarded in such individualized context? What are the broad patterns of systemic inequality that is affecting each of these individuals, and how can you possibly demonstrate that they are the dominant (or even significant) factors in the trajectories of these two lives?

Post reply on HN