5 ms·

Why women write about being women in tech

18 points by CodeLikeAGirl 9y ago

dandare 9y ago
Ubiquitous sexism is certainly one of the biggest problems of modern society but as a man I don't think that collectively blaming all men with some universal gender sin will ever achieve anything.
- vyhd 9y ago
  Please cite the section of the article that "collectively blames all men with some universal gender sin".
  - KingMob 9y ago
    Every time I see this, I suspect it's a misreading of systemic privilege. "Universal sin" evokes the idea of "original sin", the idea that because of Adam and (especially) Eve's actions, humanity fell from grace. If you reject the idea that you are to blame for the sins of your ancestors, you don't immediately see the need to fix the imbalances that resulted from their actions. This is not wrong, per se (e.g., children shouldn't go to jail if their father commits murder), but it confuses responsibility with culpability. Men bear responsibility for eliminating sexism even if not personally culpable for creating it.
    - beaconstudios 9y ago
      I think one of the biggest arguments that plays itself out today is whether the appropriate action is to stop sexism or to actively reverse/invert it. For example, in the case of affirmative action and diversity hiring. I don't think many people would argue for the continuation of sexism (even if they act it out) but the real contention is whether we should call full stop or put the ship in reverse.
      - KingMob 9y ago
        Are they truly separate alternatives? Stopping sexism without redressing the inequalities that have arisen so far still seems pretty unfair. It would benefit future generations of women while telling current women they just have to put up with the results of past sexism...which is sort of sexist, itself.
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    I think this is an interesting question, and I was curious if there was any substance to your OP's takeaway, so I went and looked again: > shaming girls for having visible bodies and prioritizing the education of boys over girls, rather than teaching boys to pay attention and not objectify girls. ... implies that boys specifically do not pay attention to girls, and instead objectify them. > in an industry that continues to raise up and pat the most historically powerful and privileged amongst us — white men — on the back ... constructs white men as a group who is generously risen up and patted on the back > Instead of being recognized for the complex, multi-dimensional individuals we are — a privilege white men are afforded at birth ... constructs white men as collectively understood as complex and multidimensional. These all strike me as somewhat accurate, to a degree. However I somewhat agree with your OP that this kind of essentialism, when used to fight sexism is counterproductive. I would prefer we try to stop essentializing altogether. We don't need to say "men are X" in order say "I would like to make sure women are afforded opportunity Y". I think there's a path here where we can talk about the specific behaviors we want to discourage, without constructing those behaviors as typical of men. Not because they are atypical of men, but because we are trying to construct men who are not doing those behaviors, and we need a definition of manhood that works for those men too. Unless the plan is for men to disavow manhood entirely, but I don't see a lot of feminists advocating for that yet.
    - vyhd 9y ago
      And my position is that the effort needed to move past those implications is so miniscule, especially in comparison to the problems they address, that we can afford to suck it up. Tone arguments are so often used for concern trolling around women's issues (and doubly so on HN) that I don't have much patience for them. Frankly, there is no way these problems can be phrased that will both make everyone happy and not omit crucial facts of the scenario (i.e., that women cannot achieve equality without men who are both aware of these problems and willing to act on them).
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
- KingMob 9y ago
  Are you simultaneously acknowledging sexism and dismissing the author in the same sentence? Wow. The linked article doesn't blame "all men" for anything. It does talk about systemic problems that need addressing. E.g., there are unfair advantages that men have just from growing up in society, that need to be rectified, even though it's not their fault they have those advantages.
Mz 9y ago
We don’t want to always have to be talking about this. So, then, just stop. You have posted six articles to HN so far and they all appear to be about this same subject. I would be thrilled if you wrote about something else and posted that. I get it: The door has been opened and this stuff is getting a certain amount of sympathy here on HN and not merely being completely pissed all over for a change. So, you and a few other women are all excited as hell that you can feel heard for a change. But being heard as just a victim is not real progress. It actually helps keep this problem alive. While you have a little bit of attention, why not talk about cool tech or something so that the world can see you as something other than a whiny bitch? I like talking about this subject at times myself. When I do comment on it, it gets vastly more attention than most other things I do. So, I fully understand how the behavior of other people contributes to this cycle of only talking about being a woman in tech because it is the most positive experience you have had all day. Everything else you have said on any other subject has probably been largely ignored or completely shot down. But, ultimately, it is on us women to decide to put the focus on other things. It's fine if you find it cathartic to blog about this. I do plenty of blogging to process stuff. But, if this is the ONLY thing you blog about and/or the ONLY thing you post to HN, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

18 points by CodeLikeAGirl 9y ago

Ubiquitous sexism is certainly one of the biggest problems of modern society but as a man I don't think that collectively blaming all men with some universal gender sin will ever achieve anything.

vyhd 9y ago
Please cite the section of the article that "collectively blames all men with some universal gender sin".
- KingMob 9y ago
  Every time I see this, I suspect it's a misreading of systemic privilege. "Universal sin" evokes the idea of "original sin", the idea that because of Adam and (especially) Eve's actions, humanity fell from grace. If you reject the idea that you are to blame for the sins of your ancestors, you don't immediately see the need to fix the imbalances that resulted from their actions. This is not wrong, per se (e.g., children shouldn't go to jail if their father commits murder), but it confuses responsibility with culpability. Men bear responsibility for eliminating sexism even if not personally culpable for creating it.
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    I think one of the biggest arguments that plays itself out today is whether the appropriate action is to stop sexism or to actively reverse/invert it. For example, in the case of affirmative action and diversity hiring. I don't think many people would argue for the continuation of sexism (even if they act it out) but the real contention is whether we should call full stop or put the ship in reverse.
    - KingMob 9y ago
      Are they truly separate alternatives? Stopping sexism without redressing the inequalities that have arisen so far still seems pretty unfair. It would benefit future generations of women while telling current women they just have to put up with the results of past sexism...which is sort of sexist, itself.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  I think this is an interesting question, and I was curious if there was any substance to your OP's takeaway, so I went and looked again: > shaming girls for having visible bodies and prioritizing the education of boys over girls, rather than teaching boys to pay attention and not objectify girls. ... implies that boys specifically do not pay attention to girls, and instead objectify them. > in an industry that continues to raise up and pat the most historically powerful and privileged amongst us — white men — on the back ... constructs white men as a group who is generously risen up and patted on the back > Instead of being recognized for the complex, multi-dimensional individuals we are — a privilege white men are afforded at birth ... constructs white men as collectively understood as complex and multidimensional. These all strike me as somewhat accurate, to a degree. However I somewhat agree with your OP that this kind of essentialism, when used to fight sexism is counterproductive. I would prefer we try to stop essentializing altogether. We don't need to say "men are X" in order say "I would like to make sure women are afforded opportunity Y". I think there's a path here where we can talk about the specific behaviors we want to discourage, without constructing those behaviors as typical of men. Not because they are atypical of men, but because we are trying to construct men who are not doing those behaviors, and we need a definition of manhood that works for those men too. Unless the plan is for men to disavow manhood entirely, but I don't see a lot of feminists advocating for that yet.
  - vyhd 9y ago
    And my position is that the effort needed to move past those implications is so miniscule, especially in comparison to the problems they address, that we can afford to suck it up. Tone arguments are so often used for concern trolling around women's issues (and doubly so on HN) that I don't have much patience for them. Frankly, there is no way these problems can be phrased that will both make everyone happy and not omit crucial facts of the scenario (i.e., that women cannot achieve equality without men who are both aware of these problems and willing to act on them).
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
KingMob 9y ago
Are you simultaneously acknowledging sexism and dismissing the author in the same sentence? Wow. The linked article doesn't blame "all men" for anything. It does talk about systemic problems that need addressing. E.g., there are unfair advantages that men have just from growing up in society, that need to be rectified, even though it's not their fault they have those advantages.

Mz 9y ago

We don’t want to always have to be talking about this. So, then, just stop. You have posted six articles to HN so far and they all appear to be about this same subject. I would be thrilled if you wrote about something else and posted that. I get it: The door has been opened and this stuff is getting a certain amount of sympathy here on HN and not merely being completely pissed all over for a change. So, you and a few other women are all excited as hell that you can feel heard for a change. But being heard as just a victim is not real progress. It actually helps keep this problem alive. While you have a little bit of attention, why not talk about cool tech or something so that the world can see you as something other than a whiny bitch? I like talking about this subject at times myself. When I do comment on it, it gets vastly more attention than most other things I do. So, I fully understand how the behavior of other people contributes to this cycle of only talking about being a woman in tech because it is the most positive experience you have had all day. Everything else you have said on any other subject has probably been largely ignored or completely shot down. But, ultimately, it is on us women to decide to put the focus on other things. It's fine if you find it cathartic to blog about this. I do plenty of blogging to process stuff. But, if this is the ONLY thing you blog about and/or the ONLY thing you post to HN, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.