Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#261

Post by jazzyk » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 7:40 PM UTC

mordocai wrote: post #125

Snargorf wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If women are disadvantaged Except they're not. In fact, in tech, they're advantaged. Female names on resumes get more callback than male names. This has been studied. The reason there are fewer of them is because fewer of them are interested.

> The reason there are fewer of them is because fewer of them are interested. Which is at least somewhat due to societal pressures though.

At my daughter's high-school, there was a lot of societal pressure for girls to be interested in tech/science. Most of them remained uninterested in math/computers, though quite a few went into life-sciences.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#262

Post by spoiler » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 7:40 PM UTC

I agree 100% with the author.

Another thing that I feel this "let's talk about women in tech" attitude is causing is causing a negative effect, rather than a good one. An example of this is my (female) friend who rolls her eyes at any mention of "women in tech" and makes jokes about all these online "troll" feminists[1].

We should as a community—like the author herself said—focus more on inspiring women to join the industry; not talk them into it. I think the author's suggestion to have confident women talk about their awesome tech is a great start!

[1]: I am not trying to discredit feminism. We can't deny there are some people who take it too far when they have online discussions; this happens regardless of the topic being discussed.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#263

Post by beevai142 » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 7:41 PM UTC

runeks wrote: post #218

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a member of a disadvantaged group, you often do not have the ability to identify as a professional first and a group member second. That is the effect of being disadvantaged. Other people will make your life seem primarily about being a group member. Think about dealing with sexist/sexually-charged comments, racial tension at the office. Even if you want to just be a professional, other people will get in…

> If you are a member of a disadvantaged group, you often do > not have the ability to identify as a professional first and > a group member second. That is the effect of being disadvantaged. > Other people will make your life seem primarily about being a group > member. The only power other people have over you is the ability to alter your thoughts. Thoughts, however, can be ignored. Some thoughts are just harder to…

Other people have power to not hire you, fire you, not offer you opportunities to advance, not invite you to the "old boys club" to network etc. Add to that your caveat, and good luck with that.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#264

Post by kaitai » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 7:41 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #44

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Digression: That's an old tired dead horse. When the minority organizes, somebody always calls 'double standard'. "They're racist/sexist too!" Forgetting these folks don't have the institutional power to harm others. Forgetting that the rest of the world is a de-facto mens/white/whatever club already. Lets just retreat to the ivory tower.

Forgetting these folks don't have the institutional power to harm others. Really? I'd say an accusation from those groups can ruin a career.

Like Christian Ott of my alma mater? Seems to be doing fine!

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#265

Post by iamdave » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 7:46 PM UTC

smokeyj wrote: post #248

iamdave wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm by no means asserting it isn't reasonable, In fact I'm using it to bolster my point in suggesting an opposite side to the same coin of "card carrying member of x" in a manner that demands attention to perhaps what informs and enforces the perception of "identifying as a card carrying member of %group%" with a dash more nuance than what exists on the surface. For some people, their identity and association as a me…

Not exactly sure the point you're making, but I really enjoy Paul Grahams essay on the topic of identity. http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html > Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

>Not exactly sure the point you're making

Some women choose to openly identify as (for example) feminist and embrace all of the connotations and reactions that come with that.

Some women choose to identify as feminist more privately and live their life being fair with others and only discussing their group association among certain circles they feel allow them to do so free from worry of being ostracized or criticized for that group association.

Some women choose not to identify as feminist at all, want nothing to do with the modern brand of 'feminism', but might still have to put up with some of the externalities of being a woman in certain spaces that sometime get associated (sometimes unfairly) with, or are critiqued by modern feminism.

This is an example. This is my point.

The comment I referenced above perfectly illustrates an example: just because I am a member of the black community doesn't automatically mean I desire to constantly be the spokesperson for position n that impacts the black community. Some individuals choose to be in that role, other's don't; however that there are those who don't want that burden shouldn't be taken as an indicator to mean they're immune from the biases and assumptions that come from onlookers who see me as an opinionated and (I'm trying to hold back from typing this word because of the baggage inherent to it in this context) articulate black man and ask me "Well what do you think about Black Lives Matter?"

Does that clear it up at all?

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#266

Post by ksenzee » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 7:46 PM UTC

prodigal_erik wrote: post #237

onetwotree wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fewer women are interested because they don't want to work, go to school, and socialize in sexist environments. While I'm sure that not all "tech environments" are sexist, enough of them are to convince women not to pursue careers in this field. That's a disadvantage, especially because tech careers are luxury careers these days.

I spent a lot of my teenage years hunched over a Commodore 64 Programmer's Reference Guide. The "environment" was me and a computer that didn't care about my sex. Certainly nobody encouraged me, least of all my friends and family. Where were the teenage girls who shared my obsession? For that matter, where are the women who hack for fun and ignore the shit the industry is up to?

> Where were the teenage girls who shared my obsession?

We were around. I spent my teenage years hunched over computers in my garage too (TRS-80 and IBM XT for me). As it happens, I didn't get into the BBS scene -- my parents wouldn't have looked kindly on tying up the phone -- and knowing how girls get treated in chatrooms, it's a good thing for my career that I didn't.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#267

Post by iamdave » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 7:48 PM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #251

iamdave wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe identifying as a card carrying member of a "disadvantaged" group isn't the healthiest outlook to have. Maybe some people don't walk around looking for every opportunity to trumpet their social group like an American Express card and just have certain realities that they deal with that individuals who aren't say a minority, a woman or physically disabled aren't privy to and sometimes have baggage thrust upon th…

Ah, I get it, you're not talking about the comment itself, you're talking about the behavior the comment is addressing.

Yup, you nailed it!

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#268

Post by dmansen » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 7:49 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #231

skylan_q wrote: post #188

If there is no gender parity, there is a problem. No, there isn't. We don't have a "gender parity problem" in nursing, pre-k education, garbage collection, nor boilermaking. Just because it isn't 50/50 doesn't mean it's a problem.

> We don't have a "gender parity problem" in nursing, pre-k education, garbage collection, nor boilermaking Says who? I'm less familiar with the latter two sectors, but I've certainly seen considerable gender issues raised with the first two.

this is brought up every time we have one of these discussions and is inevitably ignored by the commenter

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#269

Post by jazzyk » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #181

refurb wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgetting these folks don't have the institutional power to harm others. Really? I'd say an accusation from those groups can ruin a career.

I've been reading some depressing articles recently about top scientists who have been accused repeatedly, and who kept their careers for decades. http://mashable.com/2016/01/12/astronomy-professor-sexual-ha... So maybe one day a single false accusation will be able to ruin a career, but it seems at the moment, multiple factual accusations won't. Meanwhile, these men do threaten to, and follow through on threats to,…

Remember ShirtGate? I don't think it ended this guy's career, but it was a close call.

"What should have been the best week of Matt Taylor's (Rosetta project scientist) professional life ended with him weeping on TV as he apologized for his alleged crime."

More at:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-rosetta-...

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#270

Post by james-watson » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #73

jondubois wrote: post #61

I don't think women have it particularly hard in tech. Some aspects are harder but other aspects are easier.

Some of the "harder" aspects are being sexually harassed and intimidated in ways that aren't possible to do to men. I have a friend who was raped by her boss, and then he raped another coworker. They were afraid of getting fired, so they didn't tell anyone. Finally her friend spoke up and was fired. (This was at a VC-backed, Silicon Valley firm, by the way.)

Wow. Rape is a felony. She was "afraid of getting fired"?

Pretty sure she could sue the VC and retire off their millions if they fired her for opening a rape case. By the way, you don't report rape to HR. You report it to the police, immediately after it has happened. And you go to the hospital and get a rape kit done. Rape isn't some microagression accusation you can just throw around when something uncomfortable happens. It is a felony.

If she does not report her rape to the police, she is allowing these alleged rapists the freedom to rape again. She is encouraging criminal behavior.

As such, the more likely story, is that your friend wasn't raped. She was "raped", as in, there was a consensual but unconformable sexual experience that she later upgraded in her mind to "rape". That word has been so diluted by social justice warriors that it has lost all meaning outside of the court of law. Once again, if she was raped, she can send her rapists to prison for a very, very long time. And sue the company for millions.

So, why isn't she doing this? Probably because she wasn't raped.