4 ms·

> [Flag everything] .... I don't wanna work with a bunch of men for the rest of my life. Do you? I don't really want to flag proactive, mature efforts at discu

by vacri 9y ago

> [Flag everything] .... I don't wanna work with a bunch of men for the rest of my life. Do you? I don't really want to flag proactive, mature efforts at discussion of people's problems, just so you can leer at more women at work. (something something 'misconstrued')

logicallee 9y ago
I've worked in offices with 15 men (including me) and 0 women. I've also worked in startups where the CEO (a male) told me (a male) he would never hire a woman. The fact that these are outrageously skewed (approx. 50% of the population is male, so the chances of 15 hires in a row being all male drawn at random would be 1 in 2^15th or 0.003%. The chances that every hire forever will be male - per the CEO's policy - is 0%.) I don't like these odds. Do you think they're appropriate? There is something wrong with our industry and we have to fix it. Banishing men's rights discussions from (just) this forum, even if there is nothing wrong with that discussion, for just a few years is a good start. There's nothing wrong with those discussions. They are nevertheless counter to my suggestion. By the way, I believe you did not follow my advice of taking 1 minute to look at your comment for a moment and making sure it's on your "best behavior". If you had, you would not have thrown in that quip that the only reason I wouldn't like to work with all men is so that I could leer at some women. You would have self-censored that quip if you had taken a moment to read your own comment carefully. So it's actually a good example of what I'm talking about. It's outrageous to suggest that the only problem with an office full of men with no women in it (or with, say, the mentioned CEO's policy of "never" hiring any woman) is that the men have no woman to "leer" at. You should have self-censored that suggestion. This is a clear example of what I am suggesting. I am suggesting you should have taken a minute, and then not made that comment. -- EDIT: HEY! On the other hand if instead of phrasing it as you had, you would have pointed out that it is important that the issue is that women do not have a chance to work in great offices, we would have moved ahead hugely. so even just this super-mini example is a great example :) I hope after some reflection you actually end up on board with my suggestions!
- vacri 9y ago
  I was using your requirement for analysing comments ('flag comments that can even be misconstrued as misogynistic') against your comment itself. You gave zero reasons as to why women should have equal access to the workplace, only "I don't want to work with a bunch of men". I knew what you were getting at, but I was purposefully misconstruing your comment (and even pointed that fact out). Men have social issues to face. Just because MRAs are shrill and annoying doesn't mean that mature discussion should also be stomped on. We can also multitask - we don't have to fix on social ill at a time. It's also fantasy that we can get to your 60/40 split in only a few years - the staffing pipeline just isn't there, and preventing people from discussing issues until we reach that split is preventing them from discussing them for a decade or more, even in the best of circumstances. As for 'best behaviour', I think it's incredibly poor behaviour to simply suggest long-term complete censorship of a topic you don't like, regardless of the quality of discussion. Sticking your fingers in your ears is not going to get more women hired, anyway.
  - logicallee 9y ago
    In my edit at the bottom of the comment you just replied to, I acknowledge that actually what you claim is a flaw in my argument is actually correct. By purposefully misconstruing my comment as misogynistic, you find a genuine flaw: you are absolutely right, I made a mistake by appealing to "do you, a man, want to work in an office full of only men forever?" rather than, "should offices discriminate against women and not allow them equal opportunity?" So even though you went out of your way to prove a point, actually we can improve how good of a place HN is for women through doing so. If you had phrased it as follows: "Logicallee, I want to make sure that you do not accidentally imply that the primary reason for allowing women to work at tech workplaces is for the benefit of men - you may want to edit your statement which could be construed (or misconstrued) this way", then do you see how, especially after I acknowledged it and maybe edited my comment, we would end up with a safer, more welcoming place that takes women into better consideration? So actually although you thought you were proving a flaw in my argument, what you were really doing is showing the strength of my argument by pointing out a flaw in a part of my comment that was not fundamental to the argument! This may be hard to follow. Imagine if I said "People could improve their orthographie by using more common words, rather than obscure Greek and Latin words" and you pointed out that I misspelled orthography, but if I had written "spelling" I would have written it correctly. So in this case the flaw (mistake) in my phrasing would have actually strengthened it. The flaw (mistake) in my verbiage that you point out actually strengthens my argument. I know we are making really nuanced arguments but I hope you see what I mean! I did take the time to see what you mean. We're really dancing on pinheads here, though.
dang 9y ago
> just so you can leer Whatever you were arguing for, this crosses into rudeness that is quite unacceptable. We've warned you about this a whole bunch of times already. This process isn't infinite. If you continue to flout HN's rules, we're going to end up banning you.
- vacri 9y ago
  I was specifically making a point about what 'misconstrued' means, particularly given the OP wanted to flag everything. I realise you don't read every comment, but I go into more detail in the first paragraph only two comments down. It wasn't meant to be insulting, but using the (now edited) comment's own requirements against itself.

by vacri 9y ago

logicallee 9y ago

I've worked in offices with 15 men (including me) and 0 women. I've also worked in startups where the CEO (a male) told me (a male) he would never hire a woman. The fact that these are outrageously skewed (approx. 50% of the population is male, so the chances of 15 hires in a row being all male drawn at random would be 1 in 2^15th or 0.003%. The chances that every hire forever will be male - per the CEO's policy - is 0%.) I don't like these odds. Do you think they're appropriate? There is something wrong with our industry and we have to fix it. Banishing men's rights discussions from (just) this forum, even if there is nothing wrong with that discussion, for just a few years is a good start. There's nothing wrong with those discussions. They are nevertheless counter to my suggestion. By the way, I believe you did not follow my advice of taking 1 minute to look at your comment for a moment and making sure it's on your "best behavior". If you had, you would not have thrown in that quip that the only reason I wouldn't like to work with all men is so that I could leer at some women. You would have self-censored that quip if you had taken a moment to read your own comment carefully. So it's actually a good example of what I'm talking about. It's outrageous to suggest that the only problem with an office full of men with no women in it (or with, say, the mentioned CEO's policy of "never" hiring any woman) is that the men have no woman to "leer" at. You should have self-censored that suggestion. This is a clear example of what I am suggesting. I am suggesting you should have taken a minute, and then not made that comment. -- EDIT: HEY! On the other hand if instead of phrasing it as you had, you would have pointed out that it is important that the issue is that women do not have a chance to work in great offices, we would have moved ahead hugely. so even just this super-mini example is a great example :) I hope after some reflection you actually end up on board with my suggestions!

vacri 9y ago
I was using your requirement for analysing comments ('flag comments that can even be misconstrued as misogynistic') against your comment itself. You gave zero reasons as to why women should have equal access to the workplace, only "I don't want to work with a bunch of men". I knew what you were getting at, but I was purposefully misconstruing your comment (and even pointed that fact out). Men have social issues to face. Just because MRAs are shrill and annoying doesn't mean that mature discussion should also be stomped on. We can also multitask - we don't have to fix on social ill at a time. It's also fantasy that we can get to your 60/40 split in only a few years - the staffing pipeline just isn't there, and preventing people from discussing issues until we reach that split is preventing them from discussing them for a decade or more, even in the best of circumstances. As for 'best behaviour', I think it's incredibly poor behaviour to simply suggest long-term complete censorship of a topic you don't like, regardless of the quality of discussion. Sticking your fingers in your ears is not going to get more women hired, anyway.
- logicallee 9y ago
  In my edit at the bottom of the comment you just replied to, I acknowledge that actually what you claim is a flaw in my argument is actually correct. By purposefully misconstruing my comment as misogynistic, you find a genuine flaw: you are absolutely right, I made a mistake by appealing to "do you, a man, want to work in an office full of only men forever?" rather than, "should offices discriminate against women and not allow them equal opportunity?" So even though you went out of your way to prove a point, actually we can improve how good of a place HN is for women through doing so. If you had phrased it as follows: "Logicallee, I want to make sure that you do not accidentally imply that the primary reason for allowing women to work at tech workplaces is for the benefit of men - you may want to edit your statement which could be construed (or misconstrued) this way", then do you see how, especially after I acknowledged it and maybe edited my comment, we would end up with a safer, more welcoming place that takes women into better consideration? So actually although you thought you were proving a flaw in my argument, what you were really doing is showing the strength of my argument by pointing out a flaw in a part of my comment that was not fundamental to the argument! This may be hard to follow. Imagine if I said "People could improve their orthographie by using more common words, rather than obscure Greek and Latin words" and you pointed out that I misspelled orthography, but if I had written "spelling" I would have written it correctly. So in this case the flaw (mistake) in my phrasing would have actually strengthened it. The flaw (mistake) in my verbiage that you point out actually strengthens my argument. I know we are making really nuanced arguments but I hope you see what I mean! I did take the time to see what you mean. We're really dancing on pinheads here, though.

dang 9y ago

> just so you can leer Whatever you were arguing for, this crosses into rudeness that is quite unacceptable. We've warned you about this a whole bunch of times already. This process isn't infinite. If you continue to flout HN's rules, we're going to end up banning you.

vacri 9y ago
I was specifically making a point about what 'misconstrued' means, particularly given the OP wanted to flag everything. I realise you don't read every comment, but I go into more detail in the first paragraph only two comments down. It wasn't meant to be insulting, but using the (now edited) comment's own requirements against itself.