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

The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions

lastwordonnothing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions

#21

Post by solipsism »

nuclearburrito wrote: post #12

This is why I hate identity politics and why I believe all jobs for a given role should pay identically. Men/women are created equal but different. Praise people for their merit, not their sex. I know women who can run circles around men in coding and sysadmin work. I sometimes have to remind myself that I'm working with a woman when we're sat together working on something. I just tend to notice that this person is s…

This article is about how professional women are described, and it takes as a premise the fact that women are equals with respect to merit.

Given that, your comment seems off topic. No one is talking about whether women can hang in our industry. Is it necessary to derail this discussion by opening up that can of worms?

Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions

#22

Post by 1auralynn »

abalashov wrote: post #10

And yet, anyone assuming this position might be wise to ask themselves whether, if the suggestions were actually implemented, many women would be up in arms about a _lack_ of special recognition of their gender-distinctive qualities, "doing it all" and the rest. I'm sure I'll be downvoted, but I'm coming from a place of sincere intellectual commitment to this concern. There is a rift among the feminist-minded about w…

Many ambitious women want recognition, period, not to be asked about their clothes, husband, etc. Articles that focus on those things might get more views, which I think is the more interesting thing to discuss.

Speaking as a woman, I'm pretty sure you're wrong that other women would be up in arms if there were more straight-up articles about womens' achievements.

Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions

#23

Post by jordigh »

bvc35 wrote: post #19
jordigh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article isn't saying that we shouldn't focus on women in science or that we shouldn't be writing articles about them. It says we shouldn't emphasise stereotypes about their femininity, but it still talks about how we have to address the inherent sexism that exists. > The issue, she says, is that when you emphasize a woman’s sex, you inevitably end up dismissing her science. That's the point. Write about women. We…

Why write about women specifically unless your intention is to emphasize the accomplishments of their sex in the field? This sounds a lot like "write about women more, but don't say you're writing about someone because she's a woman."

Yes, I'm saying what it sounds like. The reason you should do that is because there's a sexism problem, and by talking about women without talking about them being women, we can normalise their presence.

Let me add: there's no point in saying "I didn't do it!" or "don't blame me!" or "don't blame men!" or whatever. Blame and guilt are pointless and sexism exists no matter whose fault it is. Fix the problem of sexism, forget the blame.

Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions

#24

Post by gms7777 »

rayiner wrote: post #18

Where this discussion gets confused is that it fails to recognize that there are actually two different issues and two different kinds of articles at issue. To make the discussion neutral, instead of women in science let's talk about startups. There are many (but at least two) kinds of articles about startups. Ones that focus on the technology, and ones that focus on the "human interest" angle. There are articles abo…

I agree, and I think there is definitely space and a need for "women in science" articles, because there are topics that are of particular interest for women in science. The issue that the author is pointing out is that it seems like when it comes to female scientists, it seems like every article about female scientists is written from this "women in science" perspective.

Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions

#25

Post by rayiner »

nuclearburrito wrote: post #12

This is why I hate identity politics and why I believe all jobs for a given role should pay identically. Men/women are created equal but different. Praise people for their merit, not their sex. I know women who can run circles around men in coding and sysadmin work. I sometimes have to remind myself that I'm working with a woman when we're sat together working on something. I just tend to notice that this person is s…

> Men/women are created equal but different.

Identity politics is a reaction to people who say stuff like that.

Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions

#26

Post by throwawayjava »

> For instance, in a profile of biologist Jill Bargonetti, The New York Times quotes one of Bargonetti’s colleagues saying that, “Jill makes a fantastic role model... because she is married, has two children and has been able to keep up with her research.” It’s hard to imagine anyone saying this about a scientist named Bill. The story’s subtitle piles on, reinforcing the stereotype that women are nurturing and selfless with “A Biologist’s Choice Gives Priority to Students.”

The paragraph hits on so many ways in which the popular (press) conception of science and academia is toxic, and sexism is only one part of that toxicity.

Yes, the disparity in how female scientists are described in a problem. But that fact that these attributes are absent from descriptions of male academics is also troubling. How are there so many profiles of Professors that don't mention teaching or mentoring even once?!

When new phd students ask for advice on choosing a Ph.D. advisor, I give them three strictly ordered criteria:

1. Is this person a good mentor? (Where are their former students? Do those students speak positively and also candidly about their advisor?)

2. Does this person have a work-life balance? (Family? Intense hobby? Good friendships outside of the department? Encyclopedic knowledge of their favorite TV series? An inappropriate percentage of their net worth invested in cars/wines/whatever? Literally, any non-trivial time invested in something other than work most weeks.)

3. Are you excited about the research agendas that they currently have (relatively fresh) money to explore, and do you think this person has the expertise needed to help you push those agendas in the way you want?

Those three questions, in that order. If you can't find someone who meets some minimum reasonable threshold for all three, maybe consider expanding your research interests or finding a new department.

Profiles of male academic scientists should go beyond individual contributions to discuss teaching/mentoring and work/life balance. After all, it's a profile of a person who is a professor! Teaching/mentoring is a huge chunk of the job, and the person is more than their work.

If there's nothing to say about the person other than some brilliant results? If their former students resent them and their family life is in shambles? That's a tragic personal interest story. If the person has a normal relationship with their students and a normal personal life? Then there's no personal interest story at all and the article should maybe just talk about the results instead of profiling the person.

Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions

#27

Post by abalashov »

1auralynn wrote: post #22
abalashov wrote: post #10

And yet, anyone assuming this position might be wise to ask themselves whether, if the suggestions were actually implemented, many women would be up in arms about a _lack_ of special recognition of their gender-distinctive qualities, "doing it all" and the rest. I'm sure I'll be downvoted, but I'm coming from a place of sincere intellectual commitment to this concern. There is a rift among the feminist-minded about w…

Many ambitious women want recognition, period, not to be asked about their clothes, husband, etc. Articles that focus on those things might get more views, which I think is the more interesting thing to discuss. Speaking as a woman, I'm pretty sure you're wrong that other women would be up in arms if there were more straight-up articles about womens' achievements.

I can only speak from anecdote, but, being of academic social background, I've known many women — some of impeccable "culturally liberal" credentials — who would and do say things like:

"But all they did was talk about her work, and left out the obstacles she's had to overcome to achieve it!"

There are even those who would, from a more niche women's studies angle, critique a strictly work-substantive biography for the "masculinised" psychological priorities it reflects and that it fails to capture the "unique female experience" or what have you. These are usually allied to the folks who bemoan the "medicalisation" of pregnancy by male technocrats, and with it the suppression of ineffable qualitative experiences of femininity that come with pregnancy and giving birth.

These are real things. The matter of a reasonably universal and inter-subjective conception of gender equality is unwieldy.

Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions

#28

Post by solipsism »

notadoc wrote: post #16

Interesting. It's notable that you read the exact same type of statements emphasizing masculinity when an article mentions a male who is a nurse, teacher, veterinarian, yoga instructor, social worker, or any of the other professions that are dominated by women. Perhaps it's that, when someone does something slightly outside of the norm or expectation, that becomes a notable storyline or contextual reference.

True, but it's still worth asking whether that practice is harmful to the goal of increasing gender diversity in these fields.

This could even be discussed without ratholing on whether or not this is a worthy goal.

Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions

#29

Post by dang »

mieseratte wrote: post #7
crooked-v wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, this sounds like an excuse to pretend that systematic inequality doesn't exist, and thereby imply that not being able to rise above it is a personal failing.

To me it sounds like you don't like anyone who dares challenge your personal orthodoxy.

Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone else may be, so please don't post like this to Hacker News.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(Incidentally, no one likes anyone who challenges their personal orthodoxy, and we all have one.)

Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions

#30

Post by viridian »

rayiner wrote: post #25
nuclearburrito wrote: post #12

This is why I hate identity politics and why I believe all jobs for a given role should pay identically. Men/women are created equal but different. Praise people for their merit, not their sex. I know women who can run circles around men in coding and sysadmin work. I sometimes have to remind myself that I'm working with a woman when we're sat together working on something. I just tend to notice that this person is s…

> Men/women are created equal but different. Identity politics is a reaction to people who say stuff like that.

It's not society and nurture stopping a woman from deadlifting 800lbs, or a man from breastfeeding. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

My girlfriend and I were just talking about how it's pretty unfortunate that there are basically no top level female smash players, but the fact is that reaction time is such a huge advantage that only a fraction of a percent of men can perform at the top level, and the female bell curve just doesn't stretch that far. The opposite is true for some traits as well, like top percentile flexibility.

Post reply on HN