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

151–160 of 174 posts

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

#151

Post by totony »

modfodder wrote: post #103
ad-hominem wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another new poster That is an ad-hominem attack - are we better than this on HN? What does his account age matter if the point is valid?

Why does the fact she used this word matter if the rest of the article is relevant. And if the poster has a problem with the rest of the article, why focus on this word choice rather than make a counter argument? And I believe my post wasn't ad-hominem because his point isn't valid.

I didn't see the post you're referring to, but, even if it is invalid, it is ad hominem to try to get your point accross by doing this.

Also, the terms used in an article matter, whatever the argument. Would you appreciate an article calling an office full of women a titfest?

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

#152

Post by totony »

jneen wrote: post #134
bluecalm wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How are you sure that what your experienced was solely based on gender?

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

#153

Post by msandford »

ezy wrote: post #145
msandford wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Ok, I think I see where we depart. To me, treating women as sex objects in the workplace is absolutely part of sexism, and that's probably her assumption too. I see how you might make a distinction, but I don't agree with it. The idea that the harassment wouldn't happen if she were old and ugly doesn't make it not about sexism -- anymore than a guy who only patronizes a certain kind of woman (the kind he is attracted…

I wholeheartedly agree that she faced a lot of prejudice. But not all prejudice is sexism, just ask any other kind of minority! There are minority men who are on the receiving end of prejudice who will tell you that there's a lot more to it than just sexism.

> The idea that the harassment wouldn't happen if she were old and ugly doesn't make it not about sexism

Yes, yes it does.

From the dictionary:

sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

synonyms: sexual discrimination, chauvinism, gender prejudice, gender bias "your hiring practices have generated numerous complaints about sexism"

According to that definition a man who likes women and hits on some of them isn't sexist, unless he also happens to think that men are better than women.

My point is simply that sexism isn't defined as "all things that happen to a woman that she doesn't like" or else literally everything bad that happens to a woman is sexism and I think it's obvious that her alarm failing to go off isn't sexism or getting in a car accident isn't sexism.

It sounds to me like she experienced sexism, sexual harassment, ageism, dress-ism (is that the right word?) and voice-ism (???) and they're all bad. But they're not all sexism.

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

#154

Post by shokley »

gavinpunk wrote: post #143
dneronique wrote: post #69

I am a female developer about 6 years older than the author. I absolutely love the end of this article: > Slowly but steadily, I am learning to see my dresses and high­-pitched voice not as hurdles to my success, but as symbols of the perspective I bring to the table. This conclusion is fantastic and shows a sense of confidence and maturity that I think all professionals of all genders need to project.

How are the examples in the article exclusive to the computer field? Pretty girls are hit on by older men in every profession. Even Margaret Thatcher had to tone down her high pitched voice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28_0gXLKLbk I suppose the next headline will be "Man in dress harassed by peers. Sexism in computer industry to blame." Go ahead, mod me down. Throwaway account.

Right on brother. Nobody makes it in fortune magazine by telling everyone how polite the men were. Reminds me of:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2949530/Men-T...

Yeah, I get it. All men bow down to your new female overlords.

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

#155

Post by jongraehl »

For a typical high-achieving man (in other words, a narcissist) to make it through a program where he's even slightly outside the social mode without a persecution complex, he'd have to possess extraordinary emotional poise. And we've seen that fine analytical minds are at least as prone to biases (system 2 reasoning is the rationalizing one, not the automatic system 1).

So, this woman's reaction is not to her discredit. Almost any person would have it. What's maybe a little sad is how much play such "dear diary" reactions get. I guess people really love a good shouting match (see the many flagkilled comments).

Those capable folks who enter a field out of genuine desire and with no obstacle other than a (real) feeling of social friction will stick with it and prevail. Good luck, outsiders. Anyway, ridiculous feelings of persecution (e.g., they think they're better than me with their college degrees - I'll show them all!) can be harnessed for productivity, so if you can't zen away your angst, use it.

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

#156

Post by VikingCoder »

Rush's brain: "Wow, one of my classmates made it to Facebook? Cool." Rush's brain a moment later, "Wait, TWO of my classmates made it to Facebook?!? Oh... well then I should have applied for that internship." I'm sympathetic to the view that Rush was being sexist. But could it possibly be that Rush was just adding up the numbers and realizing that his odds weren't as bad as he realized?

"and I’ve been cornered by a stranger at night outside Stanford’s Gates Building when leaving office hours." This doesn't strike me as an indictment against Stanford or against Computer Science - just against men in general.

"Worst of all, a 50-­year-­old married, male coworker at one internship would regularly make it a point in passing to comment on how “fun” my dresses looked." I wasn't there, and again, I'm sympathetic to the idea that this could have been sexism - but I again wonder if this wasn't just a compliment. As a 40-year-old married male, I wonder if I can compliment my female co-workers on how they look. And at what frequency would it become the "worst of all" sexism that female had ever encountered?

"I noticed that management listened more to what my male counterparts had to say even though I was offering insightful feedback." I've seen this first-hand, and it's disgusting. I saw blatant sexism and racism in my college, as well.

I am sympathetic, but some of the examples cited seem questionable to me.

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

#157

Post by snowwrestler »

emmab wrote: post #123
dudifordMann wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

Yes, generally it is better to comment on the clothes than the person. "I like your dress" is safer than "you look great."

The reason for this is that clothes are the result of decisions and choices that people make. So, complimenting a piece of clothing is sort of complimenting something a person did.

Whereas, complimenting their overall look (and especially their body) is sort of complimenting something a person is--which most people feel a lot less control over. And, it runs the risk of creating a sense that their body is itself an object to be considered and critiqued.

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

#158

Post by ezy »

msandford wrote: post #153
ezy wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I think I see where we depart. To me, treating women as sex objects in the workplace is absolutely part of sexism, and that's probably her assumption too. I see how you might make a distinction, but I don't agree with it. The idea that the harassment wouldn't happen if she were old and ugly doesn't make it not about sexism -- anymore than a guy who only patronizes a certain kind of woman (the kind he is attracted…

I wholeheartedly agree that she faced a lot of prejudice. But not all prejudice is sexism, just ask any other kind of minority! There are minority men who are on the receiving end of prejudice who will tell you that there's a lot more to it than just sexism. > The idea that the harassment wouldn't happen if she were old and ugly doesn't make it not about sexism Yes, yes it does. From the dictionary: sexism: prejudice…

Oh well, we will not agree.

Again, I will say, especially to your concluding remark, this is a distinction without a difference. Because (eg.) if someone is prejudicial against a human with breasts, that does not make them simply "breast-ist" because to boil down to that level is ridiculous and entirely context-free. SImilar to everything youw rote, because all of this is occurring in a particular context.

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

#159

Post by modfodder »

totony wrote: post #151
modfodder wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the fact she used this word matter if the rest of the article is relevant. And if the poster has a problem with the rest of the article, why focus on this word choice rather than make a counter argument? And I believe my post wasn't ad-hominem because his point isn't valid.

I didn't see the post you're referring to, but, even if it is invalid, it is ad hominem to try to get your point accross by doing this. Also, the terms used in an article matter, whatever the argument. Would you appreciate an article calling an office full of women a titfest?

If women had been in power for all of history and used that power to keep men subjugated, yes, I would appreciate calling an office full of women a titfest. History and context matter, unless you are part of the "men's movement".

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

#160

Post by totony »

modfodder wrote: post #159
totony wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't see the post you're referring to, but, even if it is invalid, it is ad hominem to try to get your point accross by doing this. Also, the terms used in an article matter, whatever the argument. Would you appreciate an article calling an office full of women a titfest?

If women had been in power for all of history and used that power to keep men subjugated, yes, I would appreciate calling an office full of women a titfest. History and context matter, unless you are part of the "men's movement".

I don't even know how to answer to that... but I will try.

On a post where one desires equality, you reply that people should not be equal (regarding what we can say to them/laugh at them), because people sharing their traits (i.e. gender) did something in the past?

So equality, for you, is that we can mock males, but not women (i.e. titfest vs sausagefest), because in the past women have been seen as inferior to men? Please explain to me how that is equality in any way or form.

Also, can you elaborate on what is wrong with what you call "men's movement" and why you are inclined to say that they disregard history?

Post reply on HN