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

31–40 of 62 posts

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

#31

Post by dang »

abalashov wrote: post #27
1auralynn wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents.

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

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

#32

Post by solipsism »

unit91 wrote: post #8
nothis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes neither side is in a disadvantage when it remains unmentioned. Which isn't the case.

Does it? Or does it just mean it isn't relevant to this scientific article? I think the latter. I grew up very poor, got my degrees on academic scholarships, and have published scientific findings. I'd hate it if my work attracted media attention, only to have the bulk of it focus on my impoverished childhood. What about my work? Why doesn't that merit a focused discussion?

Whether the subject hates it is one factor among many. There's also: personal ethics, professional ethics, what the reader wants, political agendas, etc.

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

#33

Post by abalashov »

dang wrote: post #31
abalashov wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry, that really wasn't my intent. I thought it to be germane to the issue at hand, though of course, the issues raised by the article participate in a larger ideological nexus.

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

#34

Post by DoreenMichele »

“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.

I'm actually cool with the Finkbeiner Test being a thing. But I will note that there are reasons such things get talked about.

I was one of the top ranked students of my graduating high school class. With having also been State Alternate for The Governor's Honors Program -- a live in summer enrichment program for the gifted -- I was one of the best students in my entire state. And I turned down a National Merit Scholarship, attended the local college for a bit, quit school and spent a couple of decades as a full-time mom and homemaker.

I spent a lot of years trying to figure out why I failed to get the two career couple lifestyle I fully expected when I first got married. There were a lot of factors there, but a lot of it is rooted in old fashioned gender roles.

I'm handicapped. This is a contributing factor to my lack of a real career. But Stephen Hawking was also seriously handicapped. He had a real career.

I have two special needs kids. So do lots of men with serious careers. When there are special needs in the family, it is typically some woman who ends up with the task of dealing with it.

I was a military wife and the entire military structure is rooted in a historical expectation that men are soldiers, they are heterosexual and have a wife at home and she is largely doing the homemaker thing and supporting his career. This actually works fairly well in many ways -- until you get divorced and find you have no references for a resume because you have little work experience, you moved around, you didn't keep in touch, etc. Meanwhile, the ex still works for the government doing similar work to what he did when he was active duty military and his finances are just fine, judging by the big house, new wife, nice vehicles, etc.

So part of why we mention those things is because a lot of women -- me included -- sit around wondering "What the hell do I need to do different? Is it just not possible to be married and also have a serious career as a woman? How does this work?" So it's valuable information to know that, yes, there are married women with actual careers. And then the next question is "So, okay, what is different about their marriage compared to mine? What do I need to change here if I am ever going to stop being a second class citizen?"

And that's not something you really want to ask personal acquaintances. That's a good way to find yourself blacklisted, so to speak. So we go searching articles and hoping for crumbs of clues.

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

#35

Post by munchbunny »

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."

That's exactly the point.

If you take it out of the context of gender issues, it makes sense.

Want to destigmatize homosexuality? Write about people going about their lives normally, who happen to be homosexual. Make TV shows of "two dads" or "two moms" where they're just like any other TV couple. Do it for a few years and people become more comfortable with the idea, as if the new default was always the case.

With gender stuff, in my experience no matter how you do it someone will always have a beef with any active effort to correct subtle gendered dynamics in a field. If you believe that correction is needed, then what's left is choosing which potentially objectionable (to certain people) way you're going to do it. If you don't, then the debate isn't about how to do it, the debate is about whether there's a problem that needs a solution.

If you say "hey look she's a woman and she did this amazing thing!" someone will complain that you should be celebrating that a person did it, rather than pushing a woman-specific agenda. So instead, another way to do it is to not call out the woman part, crank up the frequency, and get people accustomed to "Oh, yeah, she's a woman too." Someone who knows that's what you're doing might accuse you of intentionally skewing representation. That's a valid objection, but that's a tradeoff. The benefit is that this method is more more likely to work in the long term on people who already have their guards up.

Over time, the hope is that turns into "What do you mean? Of course women are capable of that, what's the big deal?" Pretty sure that's an end state most people would want.

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

#36

Post by dang »

abalashov wrote: post #33
dang wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry, that really wasn't my intent. I thought it to be germane to the issue at hand, though of course, the issues raised by the article participate in a larger ideological nexus.

I believe you. It's just that we have a lot of experience with these tangents where discussions become both more generic and more ideological. If you imagine a 2x2 matrix of those variables, that's the flamewar quadrant.

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

#37

Post by nuclearburrito »

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.

Hardly. God created men and women different, but equal. There is equal value in both. We should never attempt to dismantle the differences, but embrace them within the roles both sexes play. My wife is smarter than I am by far, gorgeous, and is a doctor. I'm a nerdy guy with glasses and a buzz cut. We compliment each other, but we are at the same time equal and different.

Women are more nurturing, more patient, better at handling conflict. Men are stronger, better at ending conflict should it arise (soldiers, police due to size and strength), and better at protecting families. There are exceptions. Neither sex is smarter. There are physical limitations for both. When I served in the military, for example, men had to do 20 dead hang pull ups. Women had to do a 70-second dead hang from the same pull up bar. Very few men could do the dead hang because women's muscles are different in their core. Maybe 1 out of 100 women could do the pull ups. It takes tremendous upper body strength to do 20 dead hang pull ups.

The desire to wipe away the differences between the sexes is wrong. I see beauty in the feminine and embrace it in its proper context. My wife cannot do some of the things I can do, and I certainly cannot perform as a doctor for women's health care in the same way she can. I'm at a loss, hence my wife and I both agree that men and women are better than the other in certain roles, but certainly equal.

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

#38

Post by xamuel »

As a male scientist with a family, I wouldn't mind if someone wrote news articles about my work and mentioned I'm "a loving father of two" or whatever. Just as long as it doesn't dominate the whole article and distract from the actual science. A family is something to be proud of!

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

#39

Post by moduspol »

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.

I think it stems from a world view that presumes any difference in outcomes must be the result of oppression, and that no other contributor could be notably relevant.

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

#40

Post by nuclearburrito »

notadoc wrote: post #20
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. Praise people for their merit, not their sex. Many people will find those mere statements to be offensive and inflammatory. You must know that we have reached a point where large segments of society find acknowledging achievement and/or biology to be a cultural faux pas and highly controversial.

I can appreciate your comment, but I respectfully disagree. So many high-profile people and groups want to completely eradicate any differences between the sexes. This is wrong. Women should be praised for who and what they are. Being smart,feminine, caring, and nurturing are virtues for women, much as strength and physical performance is for men. Notice I didn't mention fashion, physical possessions, or the ability to acquire them.

I appreciate the everyday woman and man far more than those who exist to toot their own horns. There is something to be said for the woman that can juggle a coding job and then be a mom at 5 PM. Kudos to her. Ditto, men should be praised for their abilities to hold down a good job, provide for and protect their wives and children should they have them. Yes, I am a social conservative, but I'm not misogynist or blind to the modern world. Every family has a different dynamic. Everyone has to work things out for their own situation. I'm old school enough to realize what identity politics is, can spot it a mile off, and reject it. But... we can never erase the differences as they are innate. Women should be celebrated as feminine and men as masculine. To do anything else is disingenuous. This is not to say women are sex objects, for example. They are not. Nor are men to be idolized for their prowess on the field. This crap can be taken too far and injures both sexes and compartmentalizes them.

In a nutshell, I tend to embrace sci-fi author, Robert Heinlein's, famous quote in life:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

Post reply on HN