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

131–140 of 174 posts

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

#131

Post by mrits »

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)…

Why would you report shitty behavior? Is that against some sort of code of conduct where you work?

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

#132

Post by notduncansmith »

theVirginian wrote: post #32
knowtheory wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully you can understand that intent isn't everything? Being considerate of others isn't just saying "pshht i didn't mean anything by it!" it's actually thinking about how other people might react in the circumstances they've been put in. You can call sexism a lens, but it might also help to understand the experiences others have lived (from their POV, not yours) to see why it's a lens that others are brought to…

Perhaps, but there certainly are some incidents which are ambiguous. I fear that by taking that mindset we will create an environment where people have more incentive to not speak to or interact with women because they might get in trouble for an action that was either careless or consciously intended not to be sexist but gets twisted around and made to look that way. I certainly think that saying something like "you…

> people have more incentive to not speak to or interact with women because they might get in trouble for an action that was either careless or consciously intended not to be sexist but gets twisted around and made to look that way

This is how I feel about most tech gatherings now, even online discussions (I'm actually a bit nervous about this comment). Any interaction I have with a woman in tech, or any discussion about women in tech that I might participate in, has the potential for career-threatening blowback. So far I've been following the War Games strategy: "The only way to win, is not to play." But that doesn't feel great either, because now I'm consciously avoiding people who otherwise might have been great to have a conversation with.

The worst part is, I didn't have that problem until the whole women in tech thing was dragged into the light. I'm not saying that shouldn't have happened: it's obvious by now that there are problems that need solving. There have been consequences, however, of which I'm not sure the more vocal members of this movement are cognizant.

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

#133

Post by jgalt212 »

> I’ve had middle­-aged coworkers (not at Facebook, another internship) literally GChat me pickup lines (that aren’t even clever) to the point I’d avoid certain portions of the office altogether;

Not to be trite, but the only thing worse than being a girl who gets Gchated pick up lines, is one who doesn't.

OK, now. What am I driving at? My view on a primary reason why there doesn't seem to be more progress is because the Liz Lemon and Jenna Maroney archetypes have yet to come up with a common strategy.

This bit of dialogue basically sums up their differences:

Jenna: Oh, I’m not worried because I have something the other actors don’t. A secret weapon.

Liz: Don’t say your sexuality.

Jenna: My sexuality!

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

#134

Post by jneen »

bluecalm wrote: post #117
jneen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See, I actually know it has to do with gender because I used to have a beard. I got treated very differently back then.

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

#135

Post by dominotw »

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…

I am talking about women from the same society,I am not comparing women living under ISIS and the Standford grad. Why twist my words?

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

#136

Post by dominotw »

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…

> Outside silicon valley no one cares about the former

Are you kidding me?

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

#137

Post by johnny22 »

Jimmy wrote: post #48
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…

Stop feeling ashamed of yourself, for one. It's almost certainly because you're paying too much attention to external standards of behavior that have been imposed upon you.

i'm just having a hard time you're actually being serious.

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

#138

Post by Jimmy »

johnny22 wrote: post #137
Jimmy wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop feeling ashamed of yourself, for one. It's almost certainly because you're paying too much attention to external standards of behavior that have been imposed upon you.

i'm just having a hard time you're actually being serious.

What makes you say that?

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

#139

Post by msandford »

ezy wrote: post #119
msandford wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ass…

> 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.

I never said that what happened to this woman didn't happen, nor did I say I didn't believe her. I fully believe that she was treated differently when she wore dresses versus stereotypical tech clothes, I believe she (to paraphrase) got skeezed on by a bunch of dudes, and I totally believe that people mistook her for a recruiter.

I believe basically all the facts that she wrote in the article and I have no problems with them. That's not what I'm arguing. Her experience is ABSOLUTELY VALID!

What I don't necessarily believe is her assertion that being treated differently because she wore a dress or a kimono is ipso facto sexism. I think it's entirely possible that guys who don't adhere to the "company tee shirt and pants" dress code get treated differently as well. There are a lot of programmers (both male and female) that use "suits" as a derogatory term for business people, often in part because they dress differently, and often because that difference in values is made apparent by their attire.

The point is if PG says "we didn't get the deal" that's a fact and there's no problem with it.

If he says "we didn't get the deal and they said it's because we weren't a big enough company" that's probably a fact and it's easy to swallow.

If he says "we didn't get the deal because we're too young and hip for those old fuddy-duddies" that's moved from the realm of fact to speculation and I would analyze that just the same.

> 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.

I totally believe that all this happened, but it's probably less sexism and more that she's young and attractive. It might be sexual harassment, but unless these guys are skeezing on every woman irrespective of her looks and age, it's not really sexism. That doesn't make it OK! It's still unacceptable behavior and I wouldn't condone it. But calling it sexism isn't really accurate either.

> It isn't about what's possible, if you want to be analytical about it.. it's the likelihood.

Agreed completely! Here's a quote:

"I noticed I got better feedback from interviewers when I “looked the part.”"

That means that people are evaluating her by what she wore (which she has a choice in) not by her biology (which she does not). To me, that's not sexism. It might be somewhere between unfortunate and criminal depending on who you ask, but again not sexist.

Post reply on HN