3 ms·

Other than the obvious and horrifying casual sexism that others have highlighted, the most interesting part to me is the diagram at the bottom. The system was m

Other than the obvious and horrifying casual sexism that others have highlighted, the most interesting part to me is the diagram at the bottom. The system was mechanically simple enough to be largely explained in one small diagram that a near-layperson (and clearly not women!) could largely understand. Such things are amiss from popular media today because our systems are so (often perhaps unnecessarily) complex.

gist 8y ago
> horrifying casual sexism that others have highlighted Horryfying? You think that this is 'horryfying': "This is not easy to explain to women and the mechanically innocent." It's 1958. And yes most women (and especially at that time) tended to be less interested in mechanics. Not to say that there weren't women who were but nothing wrong in stating a point like that. Nobody cared back then either. And it wasn't horrifying that is a big exaggeration. I watch a TV Show on Jet Airplanes. My wife has zero interest in watching that show or anything related. Ditto for my daughters and for that matter any past girlfriend. Of course there are women who watch and enjoy the same show. But I would love to bet anyone that the number of men far outweighs female interest. Separately women make jokes about men and sports. That isn't to say that all women don't like sports or all men do. It's just a generalization that is rooted in truth and there is nothing derogatory about saying that either.
- actuallyalys 8y ago
  This is disingenuous. "This is not easy to explain to women..." is saying that women categorically would struggle to understand it, to the extent that they need to be mentioned as a separate category in addition to the "mechanically innocent." It's not simply observing that fewer women would be interested. The other flaw in your argument is that casual sexism like this is why women are less interested in mechanics (or at least appear that way). If I lived in the 50s, why would I want to read a publication that casually implies I'm not smart enough to understand it? Candidly, the number of commenters willing to defend casual sexism is a big reason why I've lost interest in Hacker News.
- hackpert 8y ago
  Alright sure, let's assume for a second that you are correct about the relative lack of interest that you claim is rooted in truth. Even then, the statement in the article does not refer to interest at all, but rather it puts a constraint on ability to comprehend something that is totally unrelated to gender, and that is incredibly damaging. Imagine telling your daughters "it will be hard for you to get math because you're a girl." Or imagine someone telling you "Typing will be really hard for you because you identify as male or have a certain skin color," and consider how much damage such blanket statements can do. Honestly, most things people do in their daily lives are much more complicated that this simple system. I mean, does your wife not use a smartphone or is she unable to figure out how to use a washing machine? The statement in the article, even if it was intended as a joke, is one of plain condescension, and thus quite horrifying indeed.

gist 8y ago

> horrifying casual sexism that others have highlighted Horryfying? You think that this is 'horryfying': "This is not easy to explain to women and the mechanically innocent." It's 1958. And yes most women (and especially at that time) tended to be less interested in mechanics. Not to say that there weren't women who were but nothing wrong in stating a point like that. Nobody cared back then either. And it wasn't horrifying that is a big exaggeration. I watch a TV Show on Jet Airplanes. My wife has zero interest in watching that show or anything related. Ditto for my daughters and for that matter any past girlfriend. Of course there are women who watch and enjoy the same show. But I would love to bet anyone that the number of men far outweighs female interest. Separately women make jokes about men and sports. That isn't to say that all women don't like sports or all men do. It's just a generalization that is rooted in truth and there is nothing derogatory about saying that either.

actuallyalys 8y ago
This is disingenuous. "This is not easy to explain to women..." is saying that women categorically would struggle to understand it, to the extent that they need to be mentioned as a separate category in addition to the "mechanically innocent." It's not simply observing that fewer women would be interested. The other flaw in your argument is that casual sexism like this is why women are less interested in mechanics (or at least appear that way). If I lived in the 50s, why would I want to read a publication that casually implies I'm not smart enough to understand it? Candidly, the number of commenters willing to defend casual sexism is a big reason why I've lost interest in Hacker News.
hackpert 8y ago
Alright sure, let's assume for a second that you are correct about the relative lack of interest that you claim is rooted in truth. Even then, the statement in the article does not refer to interest at all, but rather it puts a constraint on ability to comprehend something that is totally unrelated to gender, and that is incredibly damaging. Imagine telling your daughters "it will be hard for you to get math because you're a girl." Or imagine someone telling you "Typing will be really hard for you because you identify as male or have a certain skin color," and consider how much damage such blanket statements can do. Honestly, most things people do in their daily lives are much more complicated that this simple system. I mean, does your wife not use a smartphone or is she unable to figure out how to use a washing machine? The statement in the article, even if it was intended as a joke, is one of plain condescension, and thus quite horrifying indeed.