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

My positive experience as a woman in tech

lea.verou.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 403 posts

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#151

Post by venomsnake »

ulikunkel wrote: post #128
cubano wrote: post #27

Here is my personal experience with the fringes of this issue over a lifetime of watching it play out before my eyes... If a female is attracted to the guy, things he says or does are considered "cute", "flirtatious", and/or "interesting". If not, the same actions are often considered "creepy", "jerkish", and yes even "sexist". I think its just human nature to perceive things in this way, and since women grow up in s…

I agree. And any guy can be "creepy". It doesn't matter how attractive he might be to other females. It is just how the mating game works. Men should learn not to pursue office relationships. They are almost always a bad idea. Don't shit where you eat.

> Men should learn not to pursue office relationships.

Of all the cases I know of office relationships (and I know a LOT) the man have been pursuing and being pursued roughly 50/50. I have not found observable differences in the ability of both sexes to be horny and able to get into a big mess in the workplace.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#152

Post by yummyfajitas »

blowski wrote: post #22
sktrdie wrote: post #3

Am I the only one who thinks "sexism" is overrated? It's misinterpreted by so many and I'm not sure I understand what it means most of the time. I think humans are prejudice about so many things that it's hard to keep track and "give a name" to every single prejudice. Obviously "sex" does set us apart much more strongly than, say, race, or probably any other thing, so I really find it normal that there are stereotype…

Exactly. Sexism is not identical to misogynism. Where the latter is about being nasty, sexism is believing something about somebody solely based on their gender. So if I assume you don't like pizza and football because you're female, so instead buy you frozen yoghurt, I'm being sexist even if it's with the nicest of intentions. We're all human and we all make mistakes, but sometimes people blow those mistakes out of…

Is it sexism to make assumptions that are probabilistically correct?

Consider the following procedure:

1) For a woman I don't know, I buy her frozen yogurt. 2) For a man I don't know, I buy him pizza.

Now suppose my stereotypes are actually accurate - i.e., P(likes froyo > pizza|woman) > 0.5 and P(likes pizza > froyo | man) > 0.5. This procedure, based purely on stereotypes, will make everyone happier than flipping a coin. It's actually the best possible way to allocate pizza and frozen yogurt if the only information I have is gender.

Are you really saying that to not be sexist, I need to ignore information and make worse decisions?

(My supposition that stereotypes are accurate has actually been studied: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o... )

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#153

Post by reitanqild »

Don't see why this was flagged. It us a well known fact that a lot of women thrive in tech.

I've said this to many times already but I've been told by women how much they enjoy working with men because we are so straightforward.

Edit: that said, didn't vote at all on this one, but flagged to death? No.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#154

Post by tomp »

reitanqild wrote: post #144
tomp wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you use wrong words Intentionally, that's the point! It's absurd that some words are "right" and some are "wrong", when they essentially mean the same thing - a murderer killing others , for some definition of others .

Absolutely not absurd. First lets agree that bot all soldiers are good and just and that you can fight for a good cause without using a uniform. That said : > essentially mean the same thing - a murderer killing others, for some definition of others. There is a again a massive difference between a good cop ending a life to save others and a brutal robber ending a life to bet away after a robbery.

So who exactly is good in this situation? And please don't say the "soldiers" who invaded Iraq...

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#155

Post by asuffield »

userium wrote: post #133
indifferentalex wrote: post #19

10/10 Will read again. The sexism debate has indeed painted a bleak picture, people so often try to show a different side of the picture but end up using the wrong words or simply adding ambiguity to the discussion, most of the time only making the matter more complicated, and worst of all, pulling us even further from a potential solution. This one showed us not only a potential solution, but also proved it's effect…

Based on discussions we have had with women in tech at https://keepwomen.com , it's not just sexism, but many women leave tech due to working conditions (low salary, no advancement), work-life balance (too much travelling, commuting), or the company environment (poor cultural "fit"). Some solutions for retaining women in tech are e.g. flexible working hours, personal development opportunities and workforce diversity.

I would say, based on everything that I've seen and heard, that the problems you describe here are far bigger and more important than the things which usually dominate the debate. These problems are also not specific to gender: they affect most minority groups and also other wide swathes of the population (based on personality type, lifestyle, etc).

The tech industry norms have ended up favouring a very specific type of individual, and that is the fundamental problem that we need to address in order to get the genuinely diverse workforce that I believe we need. What usually frustrates me about the "sexism" debate is that it studiously avoids addressing these issues, and drowns out most attempts to focus on them.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#156

Post by falcolas »

userium wrote: post #133
indifferentalex wrote: post #19

10/10 Will read again. The sexism debate has indeed painted a bleak picture, people so often try to show a different side of the picture but end up using the wrong words or simply adding ambiguity to the discussion, most of the time only making the matter more complicated, and worst of all, pulling us even further from a potential solution. This one showed us not only a potential solution, but also proved it's effect…

Based on discussions we have had with women in tech at https://keepwomen.com , it's not just sexism, but many women leave tech due to working conditions (low salary, no advancement), work-life balance (too much travelling, commuting), or the company environment (poor cultural "fit"). Some solutions for retaining women in tech are e.g. flexible working hours, personal development opportunities and workforce diversity.

If I'm honest, it sounds like the same issues everybody in tech faces. We're all consistently under-compensated for the value we bring to the company (sometimes because measuring the value is genuinely hard, other times because the tech industry is solely focused on making investors money), have to leave a job to advance our careers, fight the internal politics and cliques which form between departments and teams...

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#157

Post by reitanqild »

tomp wrote: post #154
reitanqild wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not absurd. First lets agree that bot all soldiers are good and just and that you can fight for a good cause without using a uniform. That said : > essentially mean the same thing - a murderer killing others, for some definition of others. There is a again a massive difference between a good cop ending a life to save others and a brutal robber ending a life to bet away after a robbery.

So who exactly is good in this situation? And please don't say the "soldiers" who invaded Iraq...

I specified good because we both know not all cops are good.

As for the soldiers that invaded Iraq I'd say you should judge the politicians first.

I guess a lot of the soldiers felt a lot like the German soldiers that invaded certain European countries and were surprised to be shot at when they were told and many honestly thought they came to protect the locals against an imminent attack from British forces.

Edit: and lets not forget that it was lame European pacifist politicians that let Hitler get so far.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#158

Post by jessaustin »

cabalamat wrote: post #64
Chris2048 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also asked how prevalent those programs are compared to IT. "Women in Tech" is now a common phrase in IT, is "Men in Education" as well?

According to Google, "men in education" is the more common of the two phrases, for whatever that's worth: "men in education" = 2,070,000 "women in tech" = 528,000

"women in technology" = 9,310,000

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#159

Post by yummyfajitas »

pron wrote: post #115
forgottenpass wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'm sick of this game. You clarification of the definition isn't clarification. It's unnecessary linguistic prescriptivism. If you want to talk about the type of sexism also often refereed to as "institutional sexism" then that's fine. If you want to call it just "sexism" thats fine too (but puts an unnecessary complication on the reader). But "sexism" is an overloaded term whether you want it to be or not. Just…

> If you want to talk about the type of sexism also often refereed to as "institutional sexism" But I was not talking about institutional sexism. Sexism can be individual (and often is), but unlike misogyny it does not imply disdain towards women; simply behavior (that can feel neutral or even positive) that results in increasing the imbalance of power. > But "sexism" is an overloaded term whether you want it to be o…

The term was defined by Pauline Leet in 1965. She defined it as:

"...both of them [racism and sexism] are making decisions and coming to conclusions about someone’s value by referring to factors which are in both cases irrelevant."

(This is in the context of a poetry group, so "value" most likely refers to ability to create good poetry.)

The first time it appeared in print (by Caroline Bird) it was defined as:

"Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn't matter."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism#Etymology_and_definitio...

If you think this is wrong, by all means cite some sources and update wikipedia.

It may be the case that academic usage has shifted, but lay usage has not.

Re: My positive experience as a woman in tech

#160

Post by theinternetman »

mycroft-holmes wrote: post #63
cubano wrote: post #27

Here is my personal experience with the fringes of this issue over a lifetime of watching it play out before my eyes... If a female is attracted to the guy, things he says or does are considered "cute", "flirtatious", and/or "interesting". If not, the same actions are often considered "creepy", "jerkish", and yes even "sexist". I think its just human nature to perceive things in this way, and since women grow up in s…

I'd say you're absolutely correct. I laugh when I see feminist friends of mine who complain about "creepy" guys approaching them at coffee shops and days later they'll talk about how they hate being single and want to meet someone.

It's creepy when it's someone undesirable.
Post reply on HN