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

Nevertheless, She Coded

dev.to

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 398 posts

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#81

Post by dang »

dijit wrote: post #25

I'm desperate to push the "women aren't victims" narrative. If we tell them they're victims enough then they'll believe it. There is evidence of this in other things for instance refugees who are told that they're victims are less likely to integrate. I'm more focused on pointing out that we're all equal. If you're a woman on my team, I'm incredibly sorry but I'm not going to celebrate your feminity any more than I'd…

Your comments in this thread have broken the site guidelines which ask you not to do classic flamewars "unless you have something genuinely new to say". This isn't new—it's a tedious trope we've all heard a zillion times and nothing is to be gained by repeating it. Please don't.

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

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13821991 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#82

Post by tzs »

> Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) had arrived on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2017 to debate the confirmation of attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions.

Feb 8, 2017 was a Wednesday, not a Tuesday.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#83

Post by zeveb »

dethswatch wrote: post #16

Warren violated the rules- it has _nothing_ to do with her gender. Whether her points are validate or not, the rules were followed as they would have been with any man. If she wants to get her opinion out, she can hold a press conference outside the Senate or simply call Maddow, like she did- a friendly audience that would allow her to speak as long as they had time for.

Seconded, and it's why I flagged the article.

The Senate has rules, and those rules are fairly enforced regardless of gender. Tying a movement to the perceived unfairness of a fair enforcement seems to me to be unwise.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#84

Post by dang »

and0 wrote: post #53
dijit wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are also not invited, nobody is invited. It was posted for comments and I gave mine. My advice for you is to think clearly and objectively about what your thoughts are and how they are misaligned with mine. I understand what you have been claiming but you have also been decrying other people for doing the same things you are doing. I am not here for a fight. I don't want you getting swelly eyed and emotional beca…

Again , the page linked was by women for women. You chiming in to say (repeatedly at this point) that they a.) have a victim complex but also b.) need guidance to understand their own situations and beliefs very obviously proves their point. How can you dismiss these women as confused and in need of your guidance but also say they don't need to be condescended to in the same sentence and not realize something is wron…

You've repeatedly crossed into taking personal swipes here, which breaks the HN guidelines regardless of how correct one's views are. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do it any more.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#85

Post by bobbington »

I'm going to drop a bombshell here...

Maybe women just don't like coding as much as men and that's why they are "underrepresented".

I'm going to drop another bombshell...

Maybe it's OK that women focus on other things they prefer because specialization of labor is a good thing.

Crazy thoughts, I know.

I'm going to drop the biggest bombshell right now...

Men have a Y chromosome, and women don't. The effects on a person are huge from physically different body parts to powerfully different hormones. Maybe our rabbid push for equality has failed to account for differences that truly exist between male and female... Maybe if we took that into account we would seek to find the best job for each individual, not try to make women act like men and disparage those who don't.

Maybe if we acknowledged the benefits of gender differences we would never have come to the mentally ill conclusion that two males make a great marriage couple.

studies show that women have more money and power today and yet are less happy.

Let's let women be women. Then instead of expecting them to protect themselves because they are no different than men, we would treat them with special honor.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#86

Post by nilved »

bobbington wrote: post #85

I'm going to drop a bombshell here... Maybe women just don't like coding as much as men and that's why they are "underrepresented". I'm going to drop another bombshell... Maybe it's OK that women focus on other things they prefer because specialization of labor is a good thing. Crazy thoughts, I know. I'm going to drop the biggest bombshell right now... Men have a Y chromosome, and women don't. The effects on a perso…

Read a book dude. Everything you just said is both wrong and sexist.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#87

Post by stagbeetle »

cmiles74 wrote: post #78
prepend wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty fatalistic, there are many quality studies that people disagree with. The soundness of a paper isn't based on whether you agree with it or disagree with it, it is based on the methods and the data. It's interesting that you require data to change your assumption that there's not a problem.

I think it is easy to nitpick studies, especially when they are trying to measure something that is this complicated. While the soundness of the paper should be grounded in the methods and the data, it is far too easy for an individual to discount it's value based on a perceived mistake in method. The more complex the methods, the more polarizing the results, the more this is the case. For this particular issue, I th…

I ask out of curiosity. If the wage gap studies were peer reviewed and found to be false, would you accept this?

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#88

Post by vibrato »

lostphilosopher wrote: post #66
dijit wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Susan Fowlers case is harrowing and disgusting and shows that sometimes there bad people in powerful positions who are sexist. I don't think the tone of "the world is sexist" is genuine or fair, Susan Fowlers case is notable because it's definitely the exception, not the norm. Of course I will be glad when things like that _never- happen_, but if you take the example of murders.. There is usually a huge murder proble…

For what it's worth, I'm not sure I've seen much I could objectively call sexism either. Some, but not a lot. Certainly not enough to use words like "systemic." One explanation for this is that it isn't happening. Another is that it isn't happening in my "spaces" (networks/companies/etc.). But another is that it is, but in ways that I don't see. I don't know how much all my coworkers are paid, and if someone is recei…

Perhaps there is a biological difference in the sexes when it comes to interest in technology versus interest in community. The societies which have a stronger social safety net and closer to equality of opportunity for both sexes see a WIDER gender difference in fields like IT and nursing. Compare that to the smaller gap seen India where there is a strong economic incentive pushing women into IT

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#89

Post by dang »

Pigo wrote: post #40

I think Ellen Pao is a prime example of why it's a liability to pretend you're working at Sterling Cooper. There are shrews out there with lawyers on their speed-dial, and they will pull the trigger even if they have no ammunition.

This is the sort of uncivil slur we ban people for, as well as a personal attack, which we also ban people for. Please don't comment like this here again.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13821899 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#90

Post by bobbington »

and0 wrote: post #11
oconnor663 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> paint men in a derogatory light I'm not sure I see what you're referring to. I don't think the article mentions men at all, apart from the senators?

Equality scares people when inequality is all they have to lean on. It makes them do strange things to re-frame discussions.

The problem is that this turns into women demanding equal pay for inferior work. If their boss thinks they don't do as good work, why should they get paid the same? And who are you to decide how good the person is at working? Experience and education are not the sole determiners of a persons efficiency
Post reply on HN