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

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#441

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:36 PM UTC

hosh wrote: post #400

eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get none of those reactions. BLM are simply asking for equal treatment, not special treatment. Considering the "all lives matter" movement, if you can call it that, is more of a spiteful and petty response to BLM, I'm not sure it's a great example. A movement does not need to devolve into "us v. them" and cause those kind of responses you list. The only reason BLM would be offensive and cause those reactions is if…

> The only reason BLM would be offensive and cause those reactions is if this statement is offensive to your being -- black people having equal rights as white people. Yes, that's the obvious response. There is also the other responses: that you can live with white people without fear, resentment, anger, disgust, or despair. Like being able to go onto a bus and not have judgements made on you that you're dangerous or…

I don't think movements and communities are mutually exclusive, which you seem to imply (or i'm still misunderstanding). In fact, I would say the movements are often responsible for invigorating and restoring/refurbishing a community. The Lutherans, despite forking from Catholicism, actually also improved Catholicism. The civil rights movement made America better, but it was inherently adversarial because at some point you're going to have to say "hey i'm not being treated as fair as you are!" There is no way to fix a community without identifying its warts. It's like any problem, how do you solve it unless you call it out and identify it and agree mutually that it is a problem?

We definitely need better communities, especially as religion becomes less popular in America and that was the traditional community before. Stable life-long jobs and unions are also leaving which are another form of secular community. So people are definitely more isolated. And if we are isolated from people who are different than us, including black people, it will make these kind of fears more pronounced as we often fear the unknown or give in to the loudest stereotypes.

I also live in a yuppie neighborhood, in Denver, which has one of the highest homeless rates in the country. My view on the homeless is that I really don't mind them as a group, but some of them are trouble, just like some non-homeless people are trouble. Never had a violent interaction with a "homeless person" or felt scared by the existence of homeless people. The homeless are part of my community, they live in my community. They are people...without homes, but they are still humans.

So, you ask whether you can maintain loving kindness in the face of threat/danger/aggression? I'm saying there is no such thing that exists on a daily basis. I don't fear any homeless person unless they approach me in a way that says they mean harm to me personally.

I think it's important for Americans to see the homeless in our neighborhoods, ESPECIALLY us yuppies, so that we can be reminded of what a shameful failure it is that the richest country in the world still has a homeless problem this bad. And we can privatize and segregate ourselves as much as possible in our homes and parks to shield us from it, but we can't eject homeless people from a city that we have to share.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#442

Post by gkya » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:42 PM UTC

rdiddly wrote: post #333

Dove wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but as a group, it's undeniable that there's extra obstacles I'm not sure you can really say that. It's true, women as a group encounter problems with being treated as sex objects, and there are cultural reasons for that, blah blah blah. So women have a unique experience. BUT! Men experience a pressure to succeed that we as women can hardly fathom. Consequently, they wind up in jobs they need , in a way we never wi…

I like how you think - let's just keep it simple and oppose all the things that suck then shall we? I'll add that the best way to oppose something is to promote its opposite. Only because "opposing" has a tendency to backfire. We should therefore promote, for example, sexismlessness. Yes I made up a word.

> sexismlessness

If you promote reason and common sense, you (are working in order to) get rid off all these problems plus many more. I'm emotionally refreshed to read the post you reply to, and the OP's writing. More sexism doesn't help in trying to remove sexism, and revenge and positive discrimination bring lots of tension among the sides.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#443

Post by unidentified103 » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:47 PM UTC

tomc1985 wrote: post #438

unidentified103 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Honestly, why take things like that personally? Why liken it to a ghetto? Is your pride really so hurt that someone wanted to help you out around the office that you refuse to believe that you could have learned anything useful from it? You can't even come out of it with another friend, a future business contact, an interpersonal skill, deeper knowledge of a workplace tool? It's great if some people don't think they need help overcoming sexist barriers in the office, some people do. No need to over-complicate it.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#444

Post by richmarr » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:49 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #224

richmarr wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the myth that women get paid less than men This is not true. On the experimental side, studies show candidates with female names are rated lower and recieve lower starting salaries to male candidates with identical CVs (see Moss-Racusin et al. 2012) On the statistical side, check out the data from; - the UK's ONS ( http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/blog/the-gender-pa... ), - the OECD ( https://data.oecd.org…

A study with Resumes/CVs is a fun thought experiment, but it's not reality. You need to compare actual wages in actual jobs. > You may have your pet theories as to what explains the statistic Please avoid this race to the bottom. I could be wrong. You could be wrong. No need to say I have "pet theories." The EPA once told DDT was perfectly safe to spray around humans. We are all wrong about something. "..under this m…

> A study with Resumes/CVs is a fun thought experiment, but it's not reality.

Dismissing a single actual experiment with as "a fun thought experiment" is neither factual nor rational. In reality there are many experiments.

You can take as much offence at my use of the term "pet theories" as you like, but until you present a rational argument that's all they remain. Unsubstantiated opinions are reasonably described as "pet theories".

Your own links clearly state a gender pay gap. I'm not sure what argument to make at this point. Maybe you could give me some guidance as to what areas remain in dispute?

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#445

Post by moarrgan » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:50 PM UTC

I think that opinion pieces like this make tech seem inaccessible to a lot of women. I understand that she herself does not like being a "Woman in Tech," but I don't think that her proposed solution to the women in tech problem being throwing away the labels is the right way to go about it.

The author seems to imply that what set her on her course to programming was that she was a tomboy, and that she "loved lots of really technical, computery things that only men know about… Teehee…" For some women, that is how they get into tech. And she's right, those aren't the women who need the support groups. They love the software or love being one-of-the-guys so much that they will not notice or deliberately ignore or tolerate or fight back personally against the harassment. They don't need any special support.

The ones that need these support groups are the same ones that are deterred by articles like this. Some women go into tech DESPITE the fact that it is male dominated, not BECAUSE of it. They are the ones who read thinkpieces like this and say "if all women in tech are so against being woman-like, then maybe tech isn't for me."

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#446

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:52 PM UTC

jackmott wrote: post #383

eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different and opposing groups work together to find a common solution all the time. You can be different and work in a group and it not be antagonistic. This "us v. them" mentality is fostered by people who don't want to contribute with people who are different, they want everyone to assimilate into "their way." Take the "black lives matter" movement. If we followed the OPs advice, they should just protest that "all…

>Take the "black lives matter" movement. If we followed the OPs advice, they should just protest that "all lives matter" instead, That might have been more effective, even if it isn't as fair or correct. Hard to say, but in the lead up to the the latest US presidential election, there were many movements that I absolutely agreed with that I wish had shut up for just 1 year, because I could seem them fueling resentmen…

I think the main problem with this line of thinking is that "if only they could have waited 1 year" ends up translating to 5 years, then 10, or never. MLK went through this with Lyndon Johnson, who also wanted him to wait due to political expediency.

It's also a lot easier to tell someone else to wait when you're not the one that has had their rights violated. If these are truly rights and not privileges, then waiting any time at all really makes no sense.

I do understand what you're saying, thinking about the bigger picture, but I think it's dangerous path. We have to accept some short-term losses for the greater good. It could be argued that Obamacare was the reason Congress was handed over to the GOP. But now look at how the discussion has changed in America about healthcare -- it's less about whether people should be covered and mostly about what it's going to cost in premiums.

Just a hypothetical, but can you imagine any of the gun owners in America going along with a "just wait" strategy if Obama had banned guns?

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#447

Post by abduhl » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:53 PM UTC

unidentified103 wrote: post #443

tomc1985 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Honestly, why take things like that personally? Why liken it to a ghetto ? Is your pride really so hurt that someone wanted to help you out around the office that you refuse to believe that you could have learned anything useful from it? You can't even come out of it with another friend, a future business contact, an interpersonal skill, deeper knowledge of a workplace tool? It's great if some people don't think they…

Aren't your posts here telling the GP how important and useful a specific group for females is despite them explaining why they didn't want want to be a part of it a form of mansplaining?

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#448

Post by brighteyes » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:57 PM UTC

kristineberth wrote: post #395

sremani wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important not to dismiss her experience as being extremely lucky. The thing is, there are lot of women like her, who were not harassed at their work places or have "grown-up" work environments with decent managers and HR policies.

Frankly I'd be surprised if she had never been harassed in some way. I know a grand total of zero women a decade into their careers who have literally never experienced some kind of harassment. Without being able to speak for her, I can surmise that maybe she just doesn't feel it needs to define her.

One survey found 40% of women never experienced harassment,

http://fortune.com/2016/01/11/survey-sexual-harassment-tech/

Of course every survey may be flawed or mistaken, and we need to read carefully how they define harassment, etc. But based on that survey and others, and my own anecdotal experiences, I don't think we should be surprised when a woman says she never experienced sexual harassment.

This is a large industry, with lots of different cultures and experiences.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#449

Post by root_axis » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 10:59 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #362

root_axis wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the link. Please elaborate on how this demonstrates that "some speech is freer than others"?

Creating an environment in which some people are justifiably afraid to speak, for fear not of counterargument but of very substantial punishment merely for dissenting from, or even seeking more clearly to understand, the permissible range of opinion, seems like a pretty clear problem to me. No doubt some feel otherwise.

> Creating an environment in which some people are justifiably afraid to speak

Those who you are appearing to condemn would just as easily use the language of "justifiably afraid to speak" in the context of their own political issues, but I am guessing you would disagree with their particular justifications, yet the implication you seem to be making is that they are "more free" to speak, even though both sides are equally capable.

The particular topic is irrelevant, there is certainly a venue in which any opinion would antagonize a particular crowd of close-minded ideologues, but just because a certain group of people are closed-off to certain types of ideas, doesn't mean you are any less free to speak them.

Imagine Obama giving a speech to a crowd of Trump supporters.

Imagine Trump giving a speech to a crowd of Obama supporters.

Both sides would claim "they screamed our guy down and didn't even give him a chance to speak, the [right/left] are killing free speech"... well, they'd both be wrong because freedom to speak doesn't mean everyone will agree, and if you broadcast an unpopular opinion in the wrong crowd, you get an angry mob; this doesn't mean your freedom is being trampled on, because there are plenty of places you can go to speak your ideas where everyone will clap and cheer and exclaim how enlightened you for sharing the clearly-correct-opinion regarding topic x.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#450

Post by CydeWeys » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 11:00 PM UTC

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #414

kristineberth wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly I'd be surprised if she had never been harassed in some way. I know a grand total of zero women a decade into their careers who have literally never experienced some kind of harassment. Without being able to speak for her, I can surmise that maybe she just doesn't feel it needs to define her.

> Frankly I'd be surprised if she had never been harassed in some way. 1. She grew up in Denmark 2. She works in the UK From what I've heard, both are far more progressive and egalitarian than the US. If the people you know are based in the US, that could be the distinction. I think the problems here are far worse.

That was my take on it too. It's also why I think her post missed the mark for me; she simply doesn't have experience with what she's writing about, because she's living a different society that doesn't experience the problem on the same scale, so her proposed solutions don't carry much weight to workers in Silicon Valley.