On Paul Graham and Duck Dynasty • Hacker News Board

Re: On Paul Graham and Duck Dynasty

#21

Post by bobosha » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 6:17 PM UTC

smadge wrote: post #9

bobosha wrote: post #2

Can't speak to the Duck Dynasty guy, but the skewering of PG is perfect example of the pc lynchmobs preventing a conversation about the absence of women in tech. As a techie, I see think there's significant truth to PG's opinions. Surely it takes two to tango, the tech industry is keen to hire and encourage women entrepreneurs, but it's not like women are being turned away at the gates, by sexist VCs.

But women chose not to join the tech industry because it is not an appealing option. It is not an appealing for any reason intrinsic to either women or the tech industry, but because the tech industry is currently dominated by men who are unable to create a comfortable work environment for women and because the tech industry enforces the norm that it is not for women. When an influential leader in the industry says t…

"But women chose not to join the tech industry because it is not an appealing option"

The point I am making is, people (women, blacks, latinos etc. and that includes the rabble who whine about "greedy companies hiring foreign workers") should not expect things on a platter. There is no giant conspiracy to make things "uncomfortable" for women or minorities.

A case-in-point is the success of Indian-Americans & other Asians in tech. I recently read that nearly 1/2 of startups in the valley has an Asian co-founder. It's not like tech had welcome buffets & red carpets laid out for the Asians.

While I too find the absence of women and non-Asian minorities in tech troubling. That change can only be wrought by starting up (pun intended). Reminds me of the saying by Gandhi "Be the change you want".

Re: On Paul Graham and Duck Dynasty

#22

Post by smadge » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 6:18 PM UTC

csallen wrote: post #13

smadge wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But women chose not to join the tech industry because it is not an appealing option. It is not an appealing for any reason intrinsic to either women or the tech industry, but because the tech industry is currently dominated by men who are unable to create a comfortable work environment for women and because the tech industry enforces the norm that it is not for women. When an influential leader in the industry says t…

What? Where did PG say "there is an intrinsic reason women cannot be in technology"? He never said anything remotely close to that.

He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age. But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking. Either he believes women are intrinsically non-hackers, or he acknowledges it is a cultural/social issue but refuses to hire or fund anyone who does not have the exact life trajectory of Mark Zuckerberg.

Re: On Paul Graham and Duck Dynasty

#23

Post by smadge » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 6:24 PM UTC

bobosha wrote: post #21

smadge wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But women chose not to join the tech industry because it is not an appealing option. It is not an appealing for any reason intrinsic to either women or the tech industry, but because the tech industry is currently dominated by men who are unable to create a comfortable work environment for women and because the tech industry enforces the norm that it is not for women. When an influential leader in the industry says t…

"But women chose not to join the tech industry because it is not an appealing option" The point I am making is, people (women, blacks, latinos etc. and that includes the rabble who whine about "greedy companies hiring foreign workers") should not expect things on a platter. There is no giant conspiracy to make things "uncomfortable" for women or minorities. A case-in-point is the success of Indian-Americans & other A…

The dominant American stereotype of Asians is that they are intelligent and hard working. It's called the "Model Minority" theory. It makes sense that the industry would be inclusive of Asian Americans.

Re: On Paul Graham and Duck Dynasty

#24

Post by csallen » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 6:27 PM UTC

smadge wrote: post #22

csallen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Where did PG say "there is an intrinsic reason women cannot be in technology"? He never said anything remotely close to that.

He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age. But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking. Either he believes women are intrinsically non-hackers, or he acknowledges it is a cultural/social issue but refuses to hire or fund anyone who does not have the exact life trajecto…

> He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age.

No, he never said that. He said that there are fewer women in tech, not that "women cannot be" in tech.

> But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking.

He never did this either. Find me one quote where he blamed women for their lack of interest? The only thing he said was that the real way to solve this problem would be to get girls interested in hacking at a younger age, but that that's a difficult task. Does anyone actually disagree with that?

> ...but refuses to hire or fund anyone who does not have the exact life trajectory of Mark Zuckerberg.

YC invested in me, and I'm black. There were girls in my batch, too.

Rather than actually listen to the points being made, reflect on the nuances, and engage in conversation honestly, you'd rather feign outrage over falsified "facts" and make-believe quotes. This is exactly why discussions like this are always of such low quality.

Re: On Paul Graham and Duck Dynasty

#25

Post by bobosha » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 6:30 PM UTC

smadge wrote: post #23

bobosha wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But women chose not to join the tech industry because it is not an appealing option" The point I am making is, people (women, blacks, latinos etc. and that includes the rabble who whine about "greedy companies hiring foreign workers") should not expect things on a platter. There is no giant conspiracy to make things "uncomfortable" for women or minorities. A case-in-point is the success of Indian-Americans & other A…

The dominant American stereotype of Asians is that they are intelligent and hard working. It's called the "Model Minority" theory. It makes sense that the industry would be inclusive of Asian Americans.

Yes, but this "model minority" had to work for it, hard-work, perseverance and grit. It's not like, a group of elites decided one fine day "OK, today we anoint Asians"

Re: On Paul Graham and Duck Dynasty

#26

Post by 1337biz » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 6:30 PM UTC

borski wrote: post #5

bobosha wrote: post #2

Can't speak to the Duck Dynasty guy, but the skewering of PG is perfect example of the pc lynchmobs preventing a conversation about the absence of women in tech. As a techie, I see think there's significant truth to PG's opinions. Surely it takes two to tango, the tech industry is keen to hire and encourage women entrepreneurs, but it's not like women are being turned away at the gates, by sexist VCs.

I'm genuinely afraid of stating opinions about women in tech, almost no matter what they are. Being a white male, I have a lot of fear of being completely ripped apart in TechCrunch or ValleyWag for stating my opinions or making suggestions, because I'm never sure if I'm totally PC or not. It sucks, because I want to help somehow, but I don't want to be misunderstood and have my name be raked through the coals either…

Same here. It is pretty much pointless to discuss this issue. Any opinion that doesn't align with a hyper PC standard is getting framed as "controversial".

Votes/Flags are the silent voices of those who can't afford to get drawn into a battle with potentially severe consequences about an issue which they have personally relatively little to gain from.

Re: On Paul Graham and Duck Dynasty

#27

Post by mtrimpe » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 6:33 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #20

mtrimpe wrote: post #4

One of the things that's always bothered me about HN is how quickly articles about women in tech get flagged off the front page. It took me a while to realize that this is actually a feature and not a bug as HN exists as a promotional tool for YCombinator. Having much needed discussions around sensitive topics might be good for the community as a whole; but is much too risky a proposition for YCombinator to take on.

It doesn't fall off because of some skittishness on YC's part about taking a stance on these things or w/e. It falls off because HN is designed to throw off anything that is more inflammatory than interesting to read. I believe that this is for the sake of community preservation. This is going to fall off because it's going to be a comment section full of people misunderstanding things and shouting at each other, not…

No; it's going to fall off the front page because 10% of readers were irked by the story.

That is taking a stance on how to approach discussions on sensitive topics and is exactly what I was talking about.

What would happen if that weren't the case is pure speculation; because for all we know a common consensus would quickly emerge if these discussions would be allowed to run their course.

Re: On Paul Graham and Duck Dynasty

#28

Post by smadge » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 6:44 PM UTC

csallen wrote: post #24

smadge wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age. But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking. Either he believes women are intrinsically non-hackers, or he acknowledges it is a cultural/social issue but refuses to hire or fund anyone who does not have the exact life trajecto…

> He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age. No, he never said that. He said that there are fewer women in tech, not that "women cannot be" in tech. > But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking. He never did this either. Find me one quote where he blamed women for the…

Ok. I'll drop the feigned outrage and state my point objectively, without indicting PG.

Women aren't in technology because gender norms enforce at a young age that technology is not for girls. The industry perpetuates this norm by being dominated by men who do not make an effort to change the culture to be less of a "boys club." Women who do join technology have their qualifications and contributions second guessed, and have to endure work environments that are more like a fraternity house than an office, including greater chances of sexual harassment. The solution to this problem is going to have to come from within the industry. People within the industry will need to make an active effort to fix the problem, rather than just lamenting the status quo and shifting the blame to society and education.

Re: On Paul Graham and Duck Dynasty

#29

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 6:44 PM UTC

bobosha wrote: post #25

smadge wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dominant American stereotype of Asians is that they are intelligent and hard working. It's called the "Model Minority" theory. It makes sense that the industry would be inclusive of Asian Americans.

Yes, but this "model minority" had to work for it, hard-work, perseverance and grit. It's not like, a group of elites decided one fine day "OK, today we anoint Asians"

> Yes, but this "model minority" had to work for it, hard-work, perseverance and grit. It's not like, a group of elites decided one fine day "OK, today we anoint Asians"

The comparative difference is closer to the latter than the former, actually, though neither is complete and the reality is more complex: the difference in racial stereotypes is not mostly due to real differences in the groups to whom various racial identities are ascribed, but due to different perceptions that are a combination of deliberate engineering (in the case of Asians, by elites who had a positive interest in importing their labor to undercut domestic wages for the "hard working" bit -- in the case of persons of African descent, by elites who had an interest in keeping them in "their place") and different responses of not-necessarily-representative subsets in often non-equivalent circumstances, plus subsequent reinforcement through confirmation bias.

Sure, there are plenty of hard working, intelligent persons of asian descent in the US -- also plenty of hard working, intelligent people of hispanic or african descent in the US.

Re: On Paul Graham and Duck Dynasty

#30

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 6:46 PM UTC

dreamdu5t wrote: post #19

Subtext of the article is... white people are the gatekeepers to wealth, Paul Graham is racist and sexist, and white men pick and choose the new wealth class. And we should be angry at people like Paul Graham instead of Phil Robertson for judging people based on race or gender or sexual identity.

[deleted]