Live data from Hacker News

I'm not a Woman in Tech

communequation.wordpress.com

601–610 of 621 posts

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#601
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the brunt of your statement is that we should be fighting human nature itself. No wonder the problems seem so unapproachable. If you don't want to discuss reality, that is fine, but you lose the moral and intellectual high ground that you seem to think you so unquestionably have.

My argument is clear: some ideas carry no weight and deserve no recognition. Debate is for reasonable people with reasonable positions. We've heard the same arguments from white supremacists in 1991 when Christopher Hitchens graciously hosted John Metzger Jr. (and Sr!) on his show. It was the same line then that these wet alt-right nationalists are using today: pride, freedom of speech, censorship. It didn't work on…

Who are you to determine which ideas carry weight, especially without debate? The moment you use political leverage to win intellectual battles, you are embracing corruption.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that all the arguments used to rebut this line of thinking when applied to more conventional complaints from underrepresented people apply just as well here. If "the same exact logic" holds, what exactly makes the same exact rebuttals magically invalid?

What are the rebuttals?

> "what's the big deal? just chill" type rhetoric

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#603
post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was the one who wrote that original post. I just don't understand how "some severe discrimination exists" but that doesn't ostracise people? You don't need everyone to hate you to be ostracised - just enough people to stop you living your life. If there are three local venues suitable for a wedding and those three people are anti-gay, good luck getting married locally. It's not exaggerations or half-truths - being…

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ostracise verb (used with object), ostracized, ostracizing. 1. to exclude, by general consent, from society, friendship, conversation, privileges, etc.: His friends ostracized him after his father's arrest. 2. to banish (a person) from his or her native country; expatriate. 3. (in ancient Greece) to banish (a citizen) temporarily by popular vote. > If there are three local venues suit…

> Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Are there a significant number of such places?

Yes, I'll make the same reference - the ex-mormon subreddit is an example where you will find a ton of stories of people being completely ostracised for their (lack of) belief. It's not just mormon's obviously, that's just a good example. It's really not hard to find that racism, sexism and other bigotry are alive and well today - people talk about it, precisely because it has such a large effect on their lives.

> Well, is it completely false that there is a relatively new movement...

I mean, I'm sure those people exist - I've seen no evidence of it being more than extremely isolated cases though, definitely not "a significant number" - as with any cause, there are people who go to extremes, but they don't reflect on "the left" any more than neo-nazis reflect on "the right" - they are a subsection.

You appear to be implying that this is somehow commonplace, but it's not.

Now, are you equating "girls only computing clubs" and examples like that I've given to "safe spaces" or "self-segregation"? Because they aren't. Again, as I've been making the point - we know it is hard to give opportunities to minorities when there is cultural expectation and barriers to entry. E.g: computing is a "boy" thing. Those kind of targeted groups are used as a force to push back on those barriers and societal expectations, allowing minorities opportunities they might otherwise not get.

I'll be absolute: I am a firm believer in free speech and debate, and universities are places to learn, and you need active debate for that. While people have a right to not be harassed (I've seen the claim that it's free speech to follow someone around a university campus or invade their living space, which is clearly just as dumb), that doesn't require infringing on debate to achieve.

The self-segregation thing I've literally never even heard of. The only examples I've seen were as protests, which is entirely valid.

I hear a lot of claims that there is some plague of "SJW"s destroying freedoms in a quest for safety - I've seen no evidence of this being anything other than a vanishingly small minority. People tend to claim this plague exists, cite one example of someone saying something obviously crazy, and then claim anyone arguing for social change is an crazy SJW who can be ignored. It's roughly equivalent to just claiming that everyone on the right is a nazi. Yes, there are some nutjobs out there, but clearly that isn't a representation of "the right" as it stands. The vast majority of "the left" is strongly in favour of protection of free speech.

Again, you were the one that was arguing my point - so your tone and direction seem off to me - are you really equating minorities working together to try and find routes around obstacles in place because of discrimination against them to segregation, and implying it is bad in the same way? That's the point I was originally making, and I honestly can't tell if you just cherry-picked a part of my point to try and nitpick and then go off on a tangent about how "the others" are worse, or if you believe that my point was invalid.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#604
post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ostracise verb (used with object), ostracized, ostracizing. 1. to exclude, by general consent, from society, friendship, conversation, privileges, etc.: His friends ostracized him after his father's arrest. 2. to banish (a person) from his or her native country; expatriate. 3. (in ancient Greece) to banish (a citizen) temporarily by popular vote. > If there are three local venues suit…

> Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Are there a significant number of such places? Yes, I'll make the same reference - the ex-mormon subreddit is an example where you will find a ton of stories of people being completely ostracised for their (lack of) belief. It's not just mormon's obviously, that's just a good example. It's really not hard to find that racism, sexism and other bigotry are alive and well today - peopl…

> ex-mormons

Actually, I think this is a valid case. But, let's be honest here, the only place you'd possibly be prevented from living your life is in some highly concentrated area like Salt Lake City. Sure, you'd definitely lose all your Mormon friends, but you are being rejected from what many people consider to be nothing short of a cult, comparing this to not being able to exist in society at all, or that it is geographically widespread, is a bit of a stretch.

So yes, this is most definitely wrong, and it is a "biggish" problem, but it is also very specialized and I would expect one of the very last "prejudices" (if you can even call it that) that will ever be solved.

> I mean, I'm sure those people exist - I've seen no evidence of it being more than extremely isolated cases though, definitely not "a significant number" - as with any cause, there are people who go to extremes, but they don't reflect on "the left" any more than neo-nazis reflect on "the right" - they are a subsection. You appear to be implying that this is somehow commonplace, but it's not.

Actually, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that there are universities in the US where you can not host right wing speakers, the students will literally riot and attack people. Will they do this always, I do not know, but I think you'd be very hard pressed to find genuine modern day video of neo-nazis being physically violent, whereas there is plentiful evidence of leftists attacking people and rioting.

> Now, are you equating "girls only computing clubs" and examples like that I've given to "safe spaces" or "self-segregation"? Because they aren't.

Actually, this is a far better point. Yes, here society definitely still has a problem. But exactly what the problem is I don't think anyone knows. Part of the problem is that many/some of society/individuals see females as simultaneously the same and different. I think it is going to take some quite a bit more time for society to reach the point of emotional maturity where we can even have a reasonable conversation about this.

In the meantime, "Those kind of targeted groups are used as a force to push back on those barriers and societal expectations, allowing minorities opportunities they might otherwise not get" is an excellent way to go about it, and if everyone could just chill out and get rid of the chips on their shoulders I think we'd be about 80% of the way there.

> I'll be absolute: I am a firm believer in free speech and debate, and universities are places to learn, and you need active debate for that. While people have a right to not be harassed (I've seen the claim that it's free speech to follow someone around a university campus or invade their living space, which is clearly just as dumb), that doesn't require infringing on debate to achieve.

Thank you, because boy it's not very hard to find people that absolutely outright reject this idea nowadays. Hardly surprising as some of them host extremely popular news/comedy shows.

> The self-segregation thing I've literally never even heard of.

Graduation ceremonies for blacks only would be one example. In Canada of all places, not exactly a hotbed of racism.

> I hear a lot of claims that there is some plague of "SJW"s destroying freedoms in a quest for safety - I've seen no evidence of this being anything other than a vanishingly small minority.

No one claims it's a plague, but it seems to be growing (it is well beyond a few isolated cases) and it is genuinely a quite serious problem. I make no claim that this is absolutely proof in any way, but it is thought provoking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K92rOsjyLBs

> The vast majority of "the left" is strongly in favour of protection of free speech.

The vast majority? I guess it depends on the specifics of the definitions, but that the left, especially younger people, are increasingly unwilling to participate in genuine dialogue (because "the debate is over"), is unfortunate. And I think in time we will see that it will hurt your cause more than your opponents (see: the last US election).

> Again, you were the.....

Generally, I think mine was a general protest against a (perceived) instance of exaggerated victimhood, for lack of a better term. I hope you can see from what I say that my root concern is the lack of genuine dialogue in resolving the differences that still remain in society. The number of injustices for this stage of the game are absolutely disgusting, but as long as our two sides continue to fight about stupid things, the people who are served from us being split down the middle will continue to pick our pockets. I am of the belief that much of the remaining disagreement in society is engineered, as opposed to grassroots ignorance.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vastly more people "live in society" then what you apparently see in your bubble. The right to vote is guaranteed to every citizen in this country. EVERY citizen. Even the old, the infirm, the disabled, the slave-descended, and the naturalized. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-black-man-brought-3-form... http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24490932/ns/politics-decision_08/t... When you can vote with a gun license and not wi…

And travel is also a right, but these same 0.03% of the population would have similar issues getting a driver's license. Also, the guy in the Wisconsin article had to deal with a law that changed over 5 years prior.. you're saying that 5 years isn't enough time to get a state issued ID? Regarding gun license vs. student id, student ids don't indicate nation of birth, or non-citizenship. Though, I don't think a gun li…

> Air travel is a right

It comes down to a question of fundamentally, who are we as a people? Air travel doesn't define who we are as Americans. We believe, fundamentally, that citizens have the unalienable, inviolable right to democratically elect their representatives in government. It's literally [EDIT: We've fought long and hard for it to be] in the contract :)

>It is not hard for me, therefore it is not hard. These people should have just had the foresight, resources and knowledge of their local regulations to prepare all the documentation they needed to vote beforehand.

I hope by stating it this way you see the strategy for what it is: a formula for denying citizens--with the right to vote--the ability to do so.

It's a classic onboarding funnel problem. Ask any Product Engineer worth their salt: if you're trying to get people to do a thing: buy a product, click a button, etc, you minimize the number of barriers to that action. This does the opposite, for no good reason.

>Beyond this, not every state has enacted voter laws the same, or made it nearly as difficult to get a state issued ID. [Therefore it is not a problem]

Remember Trump only won because certain key states swung by tiny margins. These states resurrected Jim Crow Voting Restriction laws, sold them as a solution to a problem that doesn't statistically occur, and affected the outcome in real, measurable ways. (See zimpenfish's response.)

It matters. And the GOP is gearing up to take the strategy national.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/no-drivers...

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that all the arguments used to rebut this line of thinking when applied to more conventional complaints from underrepresented people apply just as well here. If "the same exact logic" holds, what exactly makes the same exact rebuttals magically invalid?

What are the rebuttals?

Usually it's something like "you can't minimize someone else's experience if they're expressing that it's affecting their work life", "clearly there's a problem since they are underrepresented", etc.

They're usually pretty unfalsifiable, but they're not unreasonable, and the line of acceptable discourse has been firmly drawn to exclude questioning them.

I'm skeptical that you're actually unaware of these rebuttals: if I said to someone something like "what's the big deal, who cares that you're the only Latina in this company, the only one making a big deal out of it is you", I'm sure these rebuttals would readily come to mind. If not because you believe them, then at least because they're so ubiquitous.

Deciding that they're appropriate just because you disagree with the specific policy being criticized is kind of weaselly.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#607

Many will disagree with the post's take, because it doesn't comfortably fit the narrative of women being a special class of people that need to be protected and shielded from the evils of the tech world. In reality this is the only answer, you don't make something stronger by coddling it, you make it stronger by exposing it to adversity. Beware of the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. Old school feminism would ap…

If you're going to comment on Hacker News, you have to leave the unsubstantive flamebait on the cutting room floor.

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

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#608
post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I agree that men have a pressure to succeed that women don't. My wife faced plenty of this pressure in her software career: as a point of professional pride, as a prerequisite to career advancement, and because her family raised her to be financially independent. Stuff you cite was all stuff my wife went through as much as I.

He is talking about a generalization. Just like men can be victims of sexual harassment as well but it is most likely more common that women are.

And I question the generalization prima facie, as it does not reflect the experience of me or the women I'm close to. Unless there's data to support it?

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#609
post #567
post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They bother me on a fundamental fairness level. It you change the pronouns and suddenly its unacceptable to you, then clearly it is also unacceptable as is. For example, if mens only clubs and events are wrong, then so too are women only events.

How do other issues bother you on a "fundamental fairness level"? Such as the incidents of workplace harassment in STEM fields that have been coming out in the last year? Or income inequality / options available to people by class they were born in? I notice a lot of people saying what you're saying, that safe spaces or clubs for certain types of people are the "reverse" of whatever ___ism they're trying to address.…

Don't put words into my mouth.

Fundamental fairness is that we should treat each other equally. I think we should treat each other equally, regardless of skin colour, religion, or gender. I abhor sexual harassment and believe that people should get equal pay for equal work.

I also think like the author of this blog post that splitting people into smaller tribes creates an us vs them environment and makes everyone worse off.

I didn't focus on this 'one aspect' the person above asked how people thought about it and I responded why I didn't like those things.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#610
post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's fair to blame the audience for what happened there. (Not to pick on you; people diss the HN community left and right all the time and say all sorts of things that aren't true, and I sometimes feel like standing up for what's good in it.) By far the best thing about this thread is how many women have been posting their thoughts. That's excellent for the same reason that a systems programming thread…

I aspire to be as levelheaded and kind as you are, someday, in handling difficult situations.

That's very nice of you! but it's partly an illusion, so I can actually say the same thing.
Post reply on HN