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

Speaking up

sazzy.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 342 posts

Re: Speaking up

#311

Post by hopeless_case »

andrewcooke wrote: post #305
hopeless_case wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are conflating these two statements (the apex fallacy): 1. Most of the those who have power are men. 2. Most of those who are men have power. They are very different statements and one does not imply the other. The average man has no more power than the average woman.

first, the apex fallacy is about, say, most ceos (most people at the top ) being men - it's about assuming things given the extremes. but in the case of the tech industry, most programmers (most people at all levels ) are male. we simply dominate - we are a clear majority. so it's not about bias from extremes. we dominate even in the middle. second, arguments based on the apex fallacy assumes that power can be treate…

> but in the case of the tech industry, most programmers (most people at all levels) are male. we simply dominate - we are a clear majority. so it's not about bias from extremes. we dominate even in the middle.

I don't get how dominating the tech sector translates into a general dominance of the society, whereby a woman's sexist remark against a man can be thought less damaging than a man's sexist remark against a woman.

>which is why these kinds of arguments are popular only in fringe anti-feminist groups)

I think feminists have a long and proud tradition of employing the apex fallacy, whereby they argue that men have all the power worth talking about because of their representation at the top (CEOs, high government posts, ...) and ignore their over-representation at the bottom (prison, homeless, suicides (3x), high school and college drop outs, lower educational attainment (college enrollement and graduation is skewed 60/40 in favor of women now)).

Which anti-feminist apex fallacy arguments have you run into?

Re: Speaking up

#312

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

wilkie wrote: post #260
FireBeyond wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"since men at large are not discriminated against based on their gender" Some examples at random: percentage of males in teaching professions, and/or daycare? Breast cancer funding and research versus prostate cancer funding and research, despite the relative frequency of each? Hint - 1:6 men will get prostate cancer, 1:8 women will get breast cancer. But the National Cancer Institute allows for $1,318 worth of resea…

That's totally a valid point. I wish more men would speak out against this and, honestly, that it is not used to diminish the equally valid point of sexism in technology. But we have to understand that in those situations it is not oppression. And that is a key point. Men are not oppressed by society when they are discriminated, because by-and-large, men make more money, have more opportunity, stay within their indus…

>Women currently get more college degrees in general today, yet the gender pay gap remains. That's evidence of systemic oppression.

No, that's a correlation of two things.

Re: Speaking up

#314

Post by nollidge »

fatbird wrote: post #253
nollidge wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody said it reflected the majority of males. Nobody said it makes the whole industry sexist. Nobody said everyone is sexist. Nobody is basing their opinion on one incident. Tell me more about this "straw man fallacy", though.

See his reply to mine above :)

That's what I was referring to, perhaps a little too obliquely :)

Re: Speaking up

#315

Post by dhimes »

mwetzler wrote: post #142
jellicle wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, naming names is probably one of the best ways to combat this. Silence helps the asshole keep doing it. I understand the reasons why you might not want to. It's tragedy of the commons problem; you get no benefit and possible detriment from naming names - only society as a whole benefits. Nevertheless you should. It's the right thing to do.

It is indeed tricky. I want to give developers a positive association with our company and with me as an individual. Being confrontational does the opposite.

You are wise. You may have more of an impact with a discreet riposte to the person at the time the incident happens. Not to embarrass him (the first time), but a simple "this sucks and here's why" kind of non-emotional response. It's the kind of thing you have to be prepared to deliver- maybe even rehearsed (we all have those situations in our lives that take us by such surprise that we're stunned for a while).

It's entirely possible that the guy thought he was being funny, has no idea he wasn't and genuinely finds women painful because he's so ignorant. By adopting the role of teacher, you may win a valuable ally.

But there is a more subtle effect here (if you're still reading and haven't thrown something at the monitor yet). This response from you, if you do it the way I have in mind (even if I'm not articulating it properly), will be entirely patronizing, in fact it will be patronizing in exactly the way men like this patronize you (and I know you know what I'm talking about-- see below). It is delivered from a position of strength, not weakness, in the sense that you are giving sage advice: is he smart enough to see it? Some will be, some won't.

Beyond this, remember to trust your gut. Sometimes the guy is just an asshole (a big clue is if other guys think he's an asshole) and words like I've written above are totally off-the-mark for the situation.

My wife is in a male-dominated (at her level) role, and I hear these stories all the time. Sometimes my advice is helpful- often she tells me to just STFU and listen. YMMV.

Re: Speaking up

#316

Post by nollidge »

rdl wrote: post #173
mwetzler wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think two things make it more likely for me to encounter incidents of sexism: 1) I do some programming for my job, but a majority of it involves going out and meeting other developers, learning about their work, and seeing how we can make our API better for them. I live in SF so I can't get a coffee without bumping into another developer. I bet I have many more interactions than someone who is developing full time…

Also I guess people are more likely to either be "careful" or to adapt their behavior successfully if there's one woman on a 5 person team and one or more of the guys are in some way sexist or inappropriate, than if it's a casual interaction with someone at a coffeeshop or conference. I don't know how I feel about the "Beards of Experience" thing. I guess I'd be annoyed if it were a permanent branding of the site, bu…

I think you're making the mistake of critiquing the beards thing in isolation. The point is that it's a drop in a bucket. You can look at any individual marketing campaign and come up with perfectly valid reasons it's not really sexist, but in aggregate it's problematic.

The key word in mwetzler's comment is "microaggressions". It's the small things which are probably defensible in isolation but when viewed together exhibit some pretty obvious patterns.

Re: Speaking up

#317

Post by nollidge »

mnicole wrote: post #200
knowtheory wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Are there? Show me some examples. What indications do you have that defending a woman is a sexually motivated act?

I have only seen it happen once or twice in-person, but I've run across it multiple times online. Had one guy, known for being awkwardly friendly (as in, had a motive) with the women in the group, even try to invite himself to stay with me multiple times while he would "be in town" and even when others would say "Dude, please stop," he would retort with "Once she meets me, she can decide!" Wouldn't let up on it, even…

I think they were asking for examples of white-knighting, which is not what your story was about. Not that it wasn't worth sharing, it just didn't answer knowtheory's question.

Re: Speaking up

#318

Post by chaostheory »

mwetzler wrote: post #298
chaostheory wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did this happen? I'm reading this and I'm a little shocked. I don't understand why people can be such jerks.

Here is SF. I think the guy thought he was flirting with me. It was not effective :)

When I think about it, people in SF should know better; but based on personal experience bad offensive remarks happen a lot more often than most people would think for such a progressive city. It's one reason I hate the thought of working in the city again.

The last part better explains it. It doesn't change the fact that it was sexism, but I categorize this one as stupidity and awkwardness instead of malice.

Re: Speaking up

#319

Post by hopeless_case »

konstruktor wrote: post #177
h2s wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well done you. It's about time somebody stood up for men brave enough to pitch improbable edge-case possibilities in order to anonymously undermine a woman reporting her experience of sexual harassment.

If you actually read TFA, you will notice that Sarah Parmenter is consistently using gender neutral pronouns to refer to the person(s) who put online those pictures and male pronouns for the guys wrote her inappropriate messages. That is very conscious use of language. Put that in contrast to the person who is calling somebody who is stating that the perpetrator might have been one (sic) female a ""conspiracy theoris…

>Put that in contrast to the person who is calling somebody who is stating that the perpetrator might have been one (sic) female a ""conspiracy theorist"" and talks about "obvious truth".

all the while supposing that there is a consipracy among men to make women feel uncomfortable at tech conferences.

If irony had mass, this thread would undergo gravitational collapse and form a singularity.

Re: Speaking up

#320

Post by zamryok »

Tichy wrote: post #170
zamryok wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, it seems clear that the way she was attacked was specifically designed to exploit at least the following : - the fact that she is a woman adressing a predominantly male audience (the fake porno) - the ambient objectification of women in society How can that not count as sexist?

Excuse my ignorance, just wondering: is it established that porn is sexist? Are they demeaning to the male actors in porn, too? Or is the underlying value that it is demeaning for a woman to have sex? It seems to me a universal judgement isn't easy to come by?

A huge discussion within feminist movements has taken place and continues to take place on the subject, and I cannot do it all justice in a short comment (keywords to research: Sex-positive feminism), but my understanding is that it is best to stick with the idea that women (or any human being really) should be able to choose what they do with their bodies and with their bodies' representations -- the question is the extent of real control women are allowed to have compared to men. I'd say that since you have a general context in society where women are not equal to men and are objectified, it makes it all the more difficult to have a porn creation process that doesn't reinforce this, although exceptions exist in feminist porn.
Post reply on HN