5 ms·

Based on its content, I'm surprised this made the #6 spot on the front page of HN, but now it seems to have disappeared altogether. I had to search to find it.

musha68k 9y ago
I would actually say this is on-topic, as per HN FAQ: “If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.” I’ve learned quite a bit through this article. I now even see a possibility that ingrained dynamics like these could have lead to our industry’s well known lack of gender diversity. It’s food for thought for sure, wouldn’t you agree?
- alexandercrohde 9y ago
  Well I know at least 8 Google-Sexism posts got flagged to hell (every single one that didn't have flags disabled IIRC), so I'm curious why this one isn't.
dang 9y ago
Users flagged it, presumably because HN threads have a track record of not being able to stay civil and substantive when this sort of topic is invoked. There's also the baity title, which looks neutral on the article page because of the whopper it's paired with, but amounts to a Molotov cocktail here. Internet forums—or at least this internet forum—does not do well with gender generalizations in titles. So in accordance with the HN guidelines ("please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait"), we'll s/men/some people/. However, the current thread is fine so far, so we'll try turning off the flags. Edit: in response to a reasonable complaint about my 'some people' edit, I changed the title to the least baity substring of the HTML doc title. That's what I'd have used if I had seen it sooner anyhow; we always prefer to use language from the article itself, down to the word where possible.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Speaking for myself: the article, the original title, the subtitle, and the hero image are all blatant flamebait. There are a few, small, nuggets of truth here. What I mostly see is a dysfunctional relationship, grossly mis-matched expectations, and more than a slight possiblility of some deep-seated psychological issues. Even is you see all of these points without subscribing to any anti-feminist viewpoints (and I don't), it's pretty flagrantly obvious that those will appear in spades in a discussion (and have, and have, mostly, been rightfully flagged). The third-party version of this might make for an interesting case study, and might even have carry-over to various workplace and inter-personal dynamics. As written and presented -- blame applying to the author and Harper's Bazaar -- this is poisoned.

musha68k 9y ago

I would actually say this is on-topic, as per HN FAQ: “If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.” I’ve learned quite a bit through this article. I now even see a possibility that ingrained dynamics like these could have lead to our industry’s well known lack of gender diversity. It’s food for thought for sure, wouldn’t you agree?

alexandercrohde 9y ago
Well I know at least 8 Google-Sexism posts got flagged to hell (every single one that didn't have flags disabled IIRC), so I'm curious why this one isn't.

dang 9y ago

Users flagged it, presumably because HN threads have a track record of not being able to stay civil and substantive when this sort of topic is invoked. There's also the baity title, which looks neutral on the article page because of the whopper it's paired with, but amounts to a Molotov cocktail here. Internet forums—or at least this internet forum—does not do well with gender generalizations in titles. So in accordance with the HN guidelines ("please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait"), we'll s/men/some people/. However, the current thread is fine so far, so we'll try turning off the flags. Edit: in response to a reasonable complaint about my 'some people' edit, I changed the title to the least baity substring of the HTML doc title. That's what I'd have used if I had seen it sooner anyhow; we always prefer to use language from the article itself, down to the word where possible.

dredmorbius 9y ago
Speaking for myself: the article, the original title, the subtitle, and the hero image are all blatant flamebait. There are a few, small, nuggets of truth here. What I mostly see is a dysfunctional relationship, grossly mis-matched expectations, and more than a slight possiblility of some deep-seated psychological issues. Even is you see all of these points without subscribing to any anti-feminist viewpoints (and I don't), it's pretty flagrantly obvious that those will appear in spades in a discussion (and have, and have, mostly, been rightfully flagged). The third-party version of this might make for an interesting case study, and might even have carry-over to various workplace and inter-personal dynamics. As written and presented -- blame applying to the author and Harper's Bazaar -- this is poisoned.