I'm not a Woman in Tech • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#431

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:19 PM UTC

problems wrote: post #353

alaaibrahim wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can make nasty off-handed comments to my friends in private chat all day, with very little fear that it'll see the light. And then, someone decides to take a screenshot, out of context, and post it somewhere for the whole world to see.

It's possible, but it's far, far less likely than a post on social media with your name tied to it - it's also completely deniable and contains only usernames.

This crosses the Internet boundary too - see e.g. the well-known case of a guy who lost his job because someone overheard his meatspace conversation and decided to post it on-line...

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#432

Post by unidentified103 » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:22 PM UTC

meej wrote: post #267

"You’re victimising me when you do that. You’re indicating that it’s most likely I need special, extra support. Just because I’m female." This is exactly how I felt during my Microsoft internship in 1998 when the internal women's organization, HOPPERS, decided to change their successful "intern buddy" program from opt-in to opt-out. (Well, not really opt-out, because until I got upset with them about it they clearly…

I don't quite understand how a corporate policy like an "intern buddy" can be compared to a ghetto or even how it remotely hurts you in the same way that an unspoken "boys club" office setting would. A corporate policy like that is pretty clearly an impersonal management-type fluff program that does not solve every problem that could possibly arise from sexism, but that serves a resource for a few people desperately in need of it (and pretending that there are not people desperately in need of it is part of the problem). Furthermore, refusing to participate in a program that could give you connections and special insight out of some misguided principle that we must maintain the appearance that everyone is treated equally is very strange to me. While you were refusing assistance out of principle, your colleagues were offered opportunities, encouraged into management, etc. at varying rates based on process that can in no way be described as meritocratic.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#433

Post by femwarrior » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:22 PM UTC

fruzz wrote: post #14

There's sexism in tech, and to address it you have to call it for what it is. I'm glad her experiences are such that she hasn't encountered these barriers, but other people have, and they need these words and spaces. Take my previous job. Women were objectified on Slack. A woman was groped, though she didn't report it out of concern for the repercussions. In meetings execs, male execs would only address/look at the m…

Actually since there are so many more men than women in tech, most things you describe happen more often to men than to women. For every women who nobody listens to in a meeting, there are ten men who nobody listens to in meetings. For every woman who doesn't get promoted there are ten men who don't get promoted - and so on (running with your example of 90% men).

Maybe sexual harassment is different, because men are less likely to make a move on other men, and if there are fewer women obviously fewer women will make moves on men than vice versa. Unfortunately the scale of sexual harassment is very difficult to gauge as so many different things are being lumped together. For some sexual harassment is "disagreeing with a woman" (as seen in a recent Pando article on YC which will not make it on HN), others have legitimate complaints. Still, why should the tech be worse than other walks of life in that regard, except for the disproportinate gender quotas? (Meaning if more men hit on less women, odds are higher for unpleasant incidents/bad apples than if less men hit on more women).

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#434

Post by DavidWoof » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:22 PM UTC

kowdermeister wrote: post #426

DavidWoof wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would be the "web guy" > smalltalk meetup in London and he sad it was a couple of guys in their 50-s These examples sound to me like the exact opposite of what was being discussed here. In both cases, these are examples of labeling based on technical skill or interest, the complete polar opposite of what's being discussed here. > than being constantly pissed off I don't see how either myself or OP said anything l…

How is this the complete opposite? Tangent at worst :) Labels are labels, it doesn't really matter to me if it's a tech label or something I can't control. If I can't control it, then I don't care about it.

Well, because the discussion is about labelling people based on non-technical personal attributes. You're discussing the exact opposite type of label.

If you honestly don't see any difference between somebody being called "the web guy" on a daily basis and making assumptions about your skill based on that title, as opposed to somebody being called "the black dev" on a daily basis and having people making assumptions about skills based on that title, then I don't think anything I say here can possibly make a difference.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#435

Post by dang » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:23 PM UTC

artilect wrote: post #401

Quite obviously not a woman, looking at the picture. Hope other people don't think that's a woman.

We've quite obviously banned this account. Would you please not do this here?

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#436

Post by richmarr » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:25 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #206

richmarr wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't downvoted you but... "informed" is a tricky beast. Many people, but especially white men, especially engineers, think that they're qualified to comment on fields where they are a novice. (see Dunning-Kruger and others) In the field of discrimination, women and minorities are statistically more experienced; so on the whole you'd expect them to hold more informed opinions than white men. At the best of times…

In the field of discrimination, women and minorities are statistically more experienced; so on the whole you'd expect them to hold more informed opinions than white men. Maybe so, but I think it would be a mistake to understate the extent to which white men can experience discrimination. That is, there are far more parameters on which one can discriminate than just gender and ethnicity. For example, you could be a wh…

Yes, you could in theory be disciminated against for your shortness, or fatness, or mirth, or fashion sense, opinion, or eyebrow girth.

However...

Have you ever been held captive & forced into labour on the basis of your atheism?

Has your father ever been told you deserved no democratic vote because of your weight?

Have you ever told you weren't allowed to marry someone else because of your height?

Have you ever been held in an internment camp because of an intellectual opinion?

Have you ever been restricted to a particular school, or public toilet, because of your accent?

Maybe you see why comparing those characteristics with race/gender/orientation might not be appropriate.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#437

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:27 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #355

> So you just don't like to hear opposing views? Personally abrasive escalation takes threads into flamewar, so please edit such things out of your comments here. As a bonus, the signal/noise ratio of your comments will get higher. Edit: fixed now, so I've detached this from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14703776 and marked it off-topic.

[deleted]

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#438

Post by tomc1985 » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:27 PM UTC

unidentified103 wrote: post #432

meej wrote: post #267

"You’re victimising me when you do that. You’re indicating that it’s most likely I need special, extra support. Just because I’m female." This is exactly how I felt during my Microsoft internship in 1998 when the internal women's organization, HOPPERS, decided to change their successful "intern buddy" program from opt-in to opt-out. (Well, not really opt-out, because until I got upset with them about it they clearly…

I don't quite understand how a corporate policy like an "intern buddy" can be compared to a ghetto or even how it remotely hurts you in the same way that an unspoken "boys club" office setting would. A corporate policy like that is pretty clearly an impersonal management-type fluff program that does not solve every problem that could possibly arise from sexism, but that serves a resource for a few people desperately…

The mere offering of assistance to people who do not need it, and feel they should not need it, can be construed as insulting.

EDIT: As mentioned to in another comment, "Special treatment feels condescending."

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#439

Post by abandonliberty » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:30 PM UTC

paperpunk wrote: post #38

She makes a good point when she says "I’m already here, people. So I’m not the problem you’re trying to solve." I think what a lot of these kinds of posts miss is that efforts to bring women into tech generally aren't aimed at the kind of women who have always done tech, have always wanted to do tech, and participate in the tech community despite their gender. Those women are the die-hards who largely will ignore gen…

We have to increase the supply of women.

Trying to hire the same number of men and women is sexist when 4/5 CS graduates and 12% of nursing graduates are men. At 7%, men are underrepresented in nursing against their graduation rates. Imagine if we gave men special treatment in this obviously sexist field!

Is it any surprise that affirmative action of any kind offends high achievers of both genders? Accomplishments are called into question. It brings gender into roles creating 'women developers' hired for their gender rather than capability, leading to lower compensation used to further highlight the sexism in the field.

Preferential treatment based on gender should not exist. This is a simple, equitable principle. Men and women should be equally affected by the time they take to rear children. Hire based on merit, not gender. With EQ and mounting evidence on female managers, this means that we may see men losing out to women.

Let's eliminate the mysoginists and misandrists. It'll create a lot of job openings for the rest of us :)

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2474991/it-careers/wome...

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#440

Post by abiox » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

jd75 wrote: post #376

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because if I learned anything, anything you say can and most likely probably will be used against you. Even right now, writing on a niche message board using a fake name, I'm hesitant to voice my honest opinions about anything related to race or gender or other topic like that. it's like there's an army of internet people waiting for you to mess up and will punish you with controversy and/or honestly try and get yo…

> it's like there's an army of internet people waiting for you to mess up and will punish you with controversy and/or honestly try and get you fired. It sounds like you can relate to existing as a person who is different in tech, then.

seems unclear that being `different in tech` implies that `people [are] waiting for you to mess up and will punish you with controversy and/or honestly try and get you fired`.