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

Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

thedatingring.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 175 posts

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

#141

Post by pwang »

jfarmer wrote: post #106
baddox wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm putting up resistance because there is still very little I have heard that makes sense. I do consider myself a skeptic, and I think skepticism is a requirement for critical thinking rather than an obstacle to it.

A person willing to learn says, "That's interesting and it doesn't make sense to me for X, Y, and Z reasons. I'm obviously not getting something and am probably confused about something important." That is not what you're saying. Being a skeptic is orthogonal to having that attitude. Anyhow, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, ... I'll just end it here and you can reply however you'd like or not at all. :)

> That is not what you're saying.

That's very much what baddox is saying, but with less self-deprecation. He/she is continuing to ask questions and indicating that the concept does not make sense to him/her. Asking critical questions about the utility of the concept, etc. are all very well in line with skeptical approaches towards anything.

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

#142

Post by [deleted] »

pwang wrote: post #141
jfarmer wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person willing to learn says, "That's interesting and it doesn't make sense to me for X, Y, and Z reasons. I'm obviously not getting something and am probably confused about something important." That is not what you're saying. Being a skeptic is orthogonal to having that attitude. Anyhow, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, ... I'll just end it here and you can reply however you'd like or not at all. :)

> That is not what you're saying. That's very much what baddox is saying, but with less self-deprecation. He/she is continuing to ask questions and indicating that the concept does not make sense to him/her. Asking critical questions about the utility of the concept, etc. are all very well in line with skeptical approaches towards anything.

[deleted]

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

#143

Post by jfarmer »

pwang wrote: post #140
bri3d wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

It doesn't require that one has "100+ hrs of reading feminist literature." I don't have that many hours. Indeed, I don't know if I've read anything that could be classified as "feminist literature" at all, but the idea of privilege or of being privileged is fine with me.

Louis CK has lots of good material on this. Here's one about being white: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY Here's another about women: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4LkrQCyIz8 Here's a bit he did on Leno that's good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=derzWWYf3-w

Here are a few things worth reading:

    http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html
    http://nymbp.org/reference/WhitePrivilege.pdf
    http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146
    http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/
    http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/
I don't know whether you consider these things "feminist literature," but regardless it's less than 1 or 2 hours of reading total. My challenge to you is to read and watch all that, digest it, and then come back to comment. If you find yourself compiling a list of objections as you read, I'd also challenge you to pause and really try to understand what the author was trying to say before jumping to conclusions (as you say).

If you think the way people ("feminists" as you say) talk about privilege is counterproductive, I encourage you to read the above if you haven't and come up with a better way of explaining it! I'd love to read it, myself.

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

#144

Post by MaysonL »

auggierose wrote: post #102
jfarmer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "solution." To abolish privilege? That's neither possible nor desirable, IMO. Privilege exists wherever there's a differential in power for any reason. The problem is being blind to it and not understanding how it operates in your life and the lives of others. The solution to that problem is being committed to developing a deep sense of empathy.

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

So that all those assholes born on third base who think they hit triples will stop looking down on and discriminating against those who weren't.

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

#145

Post by glenra »

jfarmer wrote: post #128
Caligula wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The existence of privilege is not a scarlet letter on young white dudes who code. But the forceful, repeated, insidious denial of the existence of that privilege is a problem: it reinforces the privilege and allows it to feed on itself." Seriously what the fuck does this mean? These words try so hard to appear to be insightful but are utterly meaningless. I lack the privilege of understanding this.

He's talking about the reflexive defensiveness many young dudes in the technology industry have when the topic of privilege is brought up. Often it's associated with a feeling of shame, as if the person using the word were trying to put a scarlet letter on the young dude's chest. They fall prey to bad logic: "If privilege exists then I am a bad person. I am not a bad person. Therefore privilege does not exist." The p…

If you think his quote is clear and concise, can you unpack it a bit? I find it opaque and confusing. Maybe focus on the part after the colon.

Suppose you accuse me of being a witch. I deny it. In response, you claim that my repeated, insidious denial of being a witch just reinforces my witchiness and allows it to feed on itself. do you see how you've just (a) changed the nature of the accusation in a way that makes it weird and meta, (b) unfairly rendered the attack unanswerable?

Or consider: "Only a witch denies being a witch - denying it just makes it worse! You have to first ADMIT you are a witch and come to terms with it. I admit I'm one and I struggle with it daily - so should you!"

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

#146

Post by jfarmer »

glenra wrote: post #145
jfarmer wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's talking about the reflexive defensiveness many young dudes in the technology industry have when the topic of privilege is brought up. Often it's associated with a feeling of shame, as if the person using the word were trying to put a scarlet letter on the young dude's chest. They fall prey to bad logic: "If privilege exists then I am a bad person. I am not a bad person. Therefore privilege does not exist." The p…

If you think his quote is clear and concise, can you unpack it a bit? I find it opaque and confusing. Maybe focus on the part after the colon. Suppose you accuse me of being a witch. I deny it. In response, you claim that my repeated, insidious denial of being a witch just reinforces my witchiness and allows it to feed on itself. do you see how you've just (a) changed the nature of the accusation in a way that makes…

You know your analogy is loaded and constructed in a way to make any rebuttal logically impossible. That's doesn't seem particularly sincere, especially given that the core element of what tptacek said was that one shouldn't feel ashamed to be privileged. It would be hard for me to think of a worse analogy, honestly, since it fails in the most single important dimension! There's also something poetic since claims of "witchery" are a centuries-old tool used to silence women.

The quality and provocative nature of your analogy not withstanding, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The comment to which you're replying is my attempt to unpack it. What about my comment wasn't clear for you?

For example, I see in your intentionally provocative analogy the same mistaken logic I described, that somehow the existence of privilege and the idea that you are privileged in certain ways is equivalent to being a witch and therefore that being privileged makes you a "bad person." I spelled out how that's a mistake many people make when thinking about privilege and yet you seem to be making it in this very comment.

Anyhow, I'll try to illustrate why privilege is not a scarlet letter but denying it can make one complicit.

Here's a hilarious Louis CK skit on the subject of racial privilege: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

"I'm white. Thank God for that shit, boy. That is a huge leg up, are you kidding me? I love being white, I really do. Seriously, if you're not white, this shit is thoroughly good. Let me be clear, by the way, I'm not saying that white people are better. I'm saying that being white is clearly better. Who could even argue? If it was an option, I would re-up every year!"

Here's a way in which I am privileged: I can spend $1000 on a pair of glasses I really like and not have to think twice — or even once — about it. I don't think this makes me a bad person for doing it, let alone being able to do it. Nevertheless, most people would not just balk at paying that much, but wouldn't even consider the idea. Growing up my family couldn't really afford glasses (or doctors visits or dentist visits or....), so the situation still feels really weird to me.

Here's another way: I will never have to so much as think about being stopped and frisked in NYC, unlike, say, Forest Whitaker (http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/02/16/forest-whit...).

Here's yet another way: if I'm in a room with a female engineer I know talking to two other men that neither of us know, I would bet hard money virtually all of the technical questions will be directed at me. At that moment I have a choice. I could answer those questions and go on my way. I could point out what's happening, perhaps by asking, "Why are you asking me all the questions? Tara is just as capable of answering them as I am." I could maybe take a more tactful middle-ground and say something like, "I'm not sure. You should ask Tara those questions — she's the expert." And so on.

I am not a bad person for benefitting from that privilege, but if I were to deny it I would be complicit in reinforcing those patterns of behavior, abuse, and oppression.

So, yeah, totally like being a witch! Good analogy!

I'll end with this: http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341

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

#147

Post by lancewiggs »

spindritf wrote: post #69
erikpukinskis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that there is an immense amount of money being left on the table by this whole "startup world" ignoring women and people of color.

Is there? With so many people, including well-off, successful entrepreneurs like tptacek above complaining, somehow there's no one to step in? They could in one swoop contribute to fixing an injustice, receive acclaim and make money, yet no one does? I don't buy it.

Golden Seeds (1) is an Angel Group/ VC firm based in NYC focussing on female founders. They are, apparently, getting very strong returns. That's one, and I'm sure there are more.

(1) http://www.goldenseeds.com

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

#148

Post by redbad »

baddox wrote: post #115
jfarmer wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person willing to learn says, "That's interesting and it doesn't make sense to me for X, Y, and Z reasons. I'm obviously not getting something and am probably confused about something important." That is not what you're saying. Being a skeptic is orthogonal to having that attitude. Anyhow, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, ... I'll just end it here and you can reply however you'd like or not at all. :)

I said: > My questions are actually genuine and not rhetorical. I would appreciate responses, or perhaps corrections of my impression of the concept of privilege. Whether or not I was lying then, I am unable to express any more clearly or convincingly that I am willing to learn. And I believe I have explained what doesn't make sense to me.

    > And I believe I have explained what doesn't make sense 
    > to me.
You haven't explained those things, but rather attacked them.

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

#149

Post by mercer »

jfarmer wrote: post #109
auggierose wrote: post #102

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?

I don't want to derail the conversation since the #1 hurdle is the collective blindness people have to the concept on HN and in the tech community at large. It's a complex thing to understand and I don't claim to understand it perfectly or even well. Everyone is privileged in certain ways that make them blind to other types of privilege. Feminists use the word "intersectionality" to describe this state of affairs. An…

Spot on! Maybe it's beneficial to use a term that doesn't make people defensive ('privileged? me? I worked hard to get where I am!), but I do agree it's important to make people aware of it.

A week or so ago one of our former Dutch politicians wrote a column about 'the elite' in Holland. This resulted in a highly entertaining but tragic borderline-flamewar between said politician and some well-known Dutch people. Entertaining because it was fascinating to see such 'impactful' people commenting on an internet forum, and tragic because the discussion became about the term 'elite' and the perceived insult by the 'accused' individuals, rather than about the point of the article: pointing out the reality of there being an 'elite' and asking some relatively open questions on what this realization means.

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

#150

Post by mercer »

kyro wrote: post #57
tptacek wrote: post #29

Paul Graham isn't keeping women out of technology. Nor do I believe he wants to. If anything, his interests would be served by there being more women in technology, and thus more candidates for YC. Also, Valleywag is a cesspool. I ponied up for the whole interview at The Information. I'd rather eat a bug than talk about what a Gawker publication has to say. But Paul Graham has said some things on this issue that I th…

I didn't find his comments sexist in the least. If anything, they were almost purely observational, and I tend to agree with him. But they were also quite discouraging in regards to picking up programming later in life and how it correlated with success. As someone who was interested in computers at 13, but never had the opportunities or support to pursue that interest until much, much later in life, it's a bit sad t…

I feel this is an inherent risk of 'observational' statements, and perhaps a risk taken disproportionately by the more 'geek' types.

It happens so often that I will make an observational statement that is interpreted as a value judgment, that I've started avoiding it. Because even if I carefully point out that it is an observation, and even point out that my observation might be wrong, it often results in a discussion that I didn't want to start.

I've noticed this disconnect especially often with my more artistic friends. It's like they can't discern a statement from an opinion. They also tend to have an intense hatred for any statement that aggregates, preferring to stick to direct observation, but that's another story.

Post reply on HN