14 ms·
What I find the most fascinating is that she did everything exactly right and people still feel like she did something wrong.
She didn't go to her supervisor a
What I find the most fascinating is that she did everything exactly right and people still feel like she did something wrong.
She didn't go to her supervisor and she didn't turn it into a drama. Instead she fought the problem in its own arena by making a IRC-bot to combat the problem, and not only that: the IRC-bot is only selectively used in the exact situation that is seen as problematic and it does so by writing enlightening quotes! In mathematical terms: the function has the exact same range and its value is consistently higher in the absolute majority of all cases.
I honestly can't think of a better way to tackle this particular problem, and yet there's all this criticism to her approach. Really? What more do you want her to do? Her quote at the end of the article rings even more true after reading some comments here:
To me, all of this seems like typical geek behaviour: something is making them uncomfortable, and so they attack it on “rational” grounds. Most likely, they aren’t even aware of the gut reaction fueling their logic. Interestingly, the intensity of emotion seemed to carry over into subsequent discussions, including one about women in the Python community.
Yeah, unfortunately, if there is a gender stereotype to these kinds of conversations, it's that invariably there will be a response from a man saying "you did it wrong", regardless of the particular action the woman took. c.f. "She should have talked to her supervisor" here to "she should have made a witty come-back to the guy directly" to the guy with a low-cut sense of appropriateness.
Is the difference between those solutions really just because she's a woman? I'd like to believe that they are just differences of opinion on the best way to deal with issues. Some people prefer to appeal to authority, while others feel it's better handled by routing around authority and 'handling it yourself.' Depending on what she did, she would be criticized by one group or the other.
On the other hand, since this is an issue of sexism, I think that people put on their 'this is a serious discussion' hats which tend to make them more hypercritical than at other times.
We'd all like to think that. Unfortunately, there's a pretty widespread tendency to tell people who bring -ism issues to attention that they're Doing It Wrong, You Should Do It This Way That Wouldn't Upset Me Instead.
So while they might be reacting with their opinion of a better solution, there's a lot of form of using that exact form of argument to attempt to silence.
Also, she was the one in the situation; perhaps she's got good reasons to do it this way, rather than whatever way is being suggested? And isn't it kinda arrogant to think you (the group you, not pyre) know better?
You really think the "you did it wrong" response has something to do with gender? It's a standard response to pretty much anybody doing anything notable. There's always somebody on the internet that thinks he (or she, in most cases one has no idea) could do better and must express this fact publicly. Most of the comments threads have a grain of that, and some are made of it 100%. I know there are gender stereotypes and other issues, but this is not an instance of that, it's a common thing.
Really? What do you want?
We want women to shut up and stop telling us that there's a problem with how we behave, because it's rude to tell people there's something innately wrong with their behavior. Also it takes so much time and effort on our parts to try and behave like better people that it hardly seems like we should bother.
The problem, for many people, is not that the issue is being handled indelicately. It's that the issue is being brought up at all. Aren't there already systems that are supposed to handle discrimination, in private, so that we don't have to witness it being discussed firsthand? Why are people so self-centered that they have to make every innocent joke about politics or gender or society? I just thought it was funny that Dave said something that sounds like sex talk, and wanted all of you to know! And don't you know that men are discriminated against just as much as women?
As you can see I've got perfectly rational explanations for why I'm so irritated by women calling out sexist behaviors. I want them to stop calling things sexist so that I can stop worrying about their feelings.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
> We want women to shut up and stop telling us that there's a problem with how we behave...
> As you can see I've got perfectly rational explanations for why I'm so irritated by women calling out sexist behaviors.
> I want them to stop calling things sexist so that I can stop worrying about their feelings.
> I just thought it was funny that Dave said something that sounds like sex talk, and wanted all of you to know! And don't you know that men are discriminated against just as much as women?
I honestly can't tell if you are being serious or just being very convincing at acting like an immature brat. Considering you're on HN, I'll make the assumption that you are in fact more mature than this, and suggest you update your comment to make it a tad more clear that you are in fact just mocking people that actually think this way.
That being said, it's sad that I could actually see someone really believing this.
I realize this is just a startup, and many things that wouldn't fly at a large company are considered fun, however, the founders should really think twice about even having a TWSS bot.
They are basically providing documented proof in writing of a hostile work environment. Sure, this employee handled it well and had a little fun with it, but there are many more litigious employees that will take your company to the cleaners with just a couple printed chat logs.
The fact that she's complained about it and her concerns were shrugged by male employees and supervisors makes it even more egregious. This kind of story makes ambulance chasers salivate...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
That being said, it's sad that I could actually see someone really believing this.
That being said, and this being the internet, do you realize how silly you look to other cultures that don't give a flying duck about those so-called issues, and can take a joke?
(And it's not like people from those other cultures don't worry about the larger issues re: equality, sexism etc, it's that "that's what she said" it's NOT where they are at all).
You wanna do something positive? How about doing something for the millions of homeless people in your own country? --now, THAT's a discrimination if I ever saw one. How come I see people tirelessly blogging about those non issues and never about those kind of things?
According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, there were 643,067 sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons nationwide as of January 2009. Additionally, about 1.56 million people used an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program during the 12-month period between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009.
A random joke (say, a picture of a girl in bikini is some presentation) is "sexism" and "prevents more women from going to programming conferences"?
Well, not having a bloody house is social exclusion, and prevents homeless people for getting shelter, proper rest, care, running water, electricity, reduces chances of getting a job, and also prevents them from going to programming conferences. Men AND women.
(Not that I take any offense with the woman writing the bot. She seems like she can take a joke fine, and she did a joke in response -- it's all those other people blowing non-issues out of proportion that get me).
Prudes...
Yet another common trope in gender discussions is this idea that people shouldn't complain about sexism because there are more important things to worry about.
We are complex machines that are capable of worrying about multiple cultural issues at a time. This is an issue. If there are things you'd rather us focus on, write a blog post, start a thread, make something. Don't try and derail this one, because it's relevant to many, many people, and it's a serious issue in this industry.
>Yet another common trope in gender discussions is this idea that people shouldn't complain about sexism because there are more important things to worry about.
Haven't thought of it that way, but sounds like a reasonable general guideline: don't worry about minor things when there are important things that mess with your life and your society.
Oh, and I see what you did there --by adding "sexism"--, whereas my comment was about issues like the "That's what she said" in the story and such, which I'd hardly call sexist at all.
It's not like I said we don't have to worry about men and women not receiving equal pay, or about rape, or freedom of choice, etc, which would be REAL sexist issues to worry about.
>We are complex machines that are capable of worrying about multiple cultural issues at a time.
Really? That must be way every fifth post is about how to focus, how the "get things done", etc. Well, if we are "capable", we sure don't seem like it. Check those kinds of blogs: people that post on such things rarely post on more important issues.
Besides, even if you are "capable of worrying about multiple cultural issues", by worrying about both trivial and important things at the same time, you confuse your priorities or get paralyzed.
>Don't try and derail this one, because it's relevant to many, many people, and it's a serious issue in this industry.
It's only a "serious issue" in that it's being discussed a lot. It's not a serious issue in its manifestation or it's consequences at all.
As for women in IT, well, ever considered they just don't like it that much? It's not like being a man or a woman only affects your tastes towards some industry due to the sexism (or "sexism") in it.
Besides possible differences in inherent tastes (due to evolutionary traits), society also shapes men and women differently. For example, women being given barbie dolls and men Lego by their parents might be a much more important reason for them not liking IT, than any sexism in the IT industry.
When students pick up a university course, for example, they hardly have any idea about how the industry is. In my country at least, they don't have any idea at all --almost no one works as an internet or similar anywhere before graduating from university. Still, that doesn't prevent women/men applying to study IT in university being around 20:80. Other fields are Math, Medicine and Physics, which are like 50:50, and Biology, with is like 60:40. You think any of these has anything to do with the sexism in each industry? Like, male doctors are less sexist or something?
> don't worry about minor things when there are important things that mess with your life and your society
Important things like women making less money than men, being more subjected to media objectification, being the target of laws that want to deny them rights because we still have a problem accepting that women are exactly equal to us? Important things like us dismissing their complaints about this shit without it occurring to us that perhaps our dismissal is exactly the problem?
> Really? That must be way every fifth post is about how to focus, how the "get things done", etc. Well, if we are "capable", we sure don't seem like it. Check those kinds of blogs: people that post on such things rarely post on more important issues.
Learning how to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish, that's important. Learning what's wrong with our culture and how we can help fix the problem, that's important too. There are people who write about both subjects at the same time, but I see nothing wrong with people finding their niche. In any event, the focus of Hacker News is discussing relevant issues, and this is a doozy of a relevant issue.
> It's not a serious issue in its manifestation or it's consequences at all.
Countless women who have been affected by this would disagree with you. Countless men too.
> As for women in IT, well, ever considered they just don't like it that much?
Ever considered they don't like it because people like you see no problem with treating them this way?
> society also shapes men and women differently.
Exactly!
> For example, women being given barbie dolls and men Lego by their parents might be a much more important reason for them not liking IT, than any sexism in the IT industry.
Err... not exactly! Or rather, gross oversimplification!
There's a problem with women being conditioned not to think of themselves the same way that men do. But there's also a problem with men being conditioned to think of women the wrong way. Ads that tell women they need to look pretty to attract men also tell men that it's okay to think of women this way.
Even if the problem was as simple as "women don't like IT because they're given Barbies," the solution is not to shrug your shoulders and say "it's society, nothing we can do about it," because we are society. The solution is to listen to women when they complain about things and realize that the reasons they give for not liking this bullshit are very, very, very, very, very good reasons. That yes, we were conditioned to behave in shitty ways, and that we should stop behaving so shittily.
> Yet another common trope in gender discussions is this idea that people shouldn't complain about sexism because there are more important things to worry about.
But Batista is complaining about (what he at least suggests to be) sexism, just in another area with more serious consequences.
(Yes, quick quick, down-vote the heretic -- we haven't progressed much from Salem, have we?)
>Important things like women making less money than men, being more subjected to media objectification, being the target of laws that want to deny them rights because we still have a problem accepting that women are exactly equal to us?
Funny how you seem to have the missed the part where I SPECIFICALLY write: "It's not like I said we don't have to worry about men and women not receiving equal pay, or about rape, or freedom of choice, etc, which would be REAL sexist issues to worry about".
I.e, what I wrote is that THOSE are important issues, and "sexism AS IN "that's what she said" jokes and in "conference slides with some bikini-clad woman" IS NOT.
>Ever considered they don't like it because people like you see no problem with treating them this way?
No, because I have counter-examples, of women picking professions where they are treated the same or even worse, in much larger percentages.
Consider this: is every profession that women generally avoid a sexist one? Or do women also avoid some professions for other reasons?
Also consider this: could there also be some feminine and masculine side? (At least psychologists seem to agree). We know that hormones, for example, have a large influence on our behavior, re violence, introspection, sexual interest, etc, acting as regulators.
So could women also be more inclined towards some types of professions as women?
Can you get 5 year old girls interest in Star Wars as easily as 5 year old boys? (In general, not outliers). I don't think so --judging from the children I know, including mine, they already have their preferences re: cartoons. So, why wouldn't they also have re: professions?
Are those things never considered? If so, why? Because they are a "forbidden thought" since we must consider everyone the same? Well, being equal (a social ideal) is not the same as necessarily being the same. Well, I like empirical thinking, I don't care about "thought crimes".
>Even if the problem was as simple as "women don't like IT because they're given Barbies," the solution is not to shrug your shoulders and say "it's society, nothing we can do about it," because we are society.
I didn't said that, though. What I said was that "if the problem was as simple as 'women don't like IT because they're given Barbies'" then we shouldn't address non-problems, like "that's what she said jokes".
>Nobody wants to be sexist, and nobody responds well to suggestions that their behaviors were unintentionally sexist
Maybe some of Jay Smooth's TED Talk on racism (http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxHampshireCollege-Jay-Smooth)could http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxHampshireCollege-Jay-Smoo... apply to sexism.
Another difference, of course, is that when you casually walk into a frat house, there is no contract between you and the frat. There is an appropriate time to discover a cultural mismatch: the job interview. Once there is an employment contract, the law is involved and the law in this country is rather precise about what may not constitute part of your workplace culture.
I have never worked at a company in which the workplace culture really achieved anything like the kind of professionalism my peers in other fields seem to have, but that's irrelevant to the law. If your workplace is perceived hostile, the onus is on the employer to fix it, or face legal repercussions. If you and your two friends form a startup and make life hard on your first employee, that means you--there is no "oh, but if you're a software startup, then your culture is more important" clause.
I think we should endeavor to appreciate the broadness of this protection rather than complain about having to grow up just because in our particular industry, we haven't had to yet. If you still need an outlet for your "culture," form a private club (analogous to a frat) and invite your buddies from work, but keep it out of the workplace.
A) That you can't see the sexism in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's this logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
B) As she explained, she was not the only co-worker who didn't like it.
C) If I walk into a frat party and see something abusive, unsafe, non-consensual, or illegal, you bet I'll speak up. Because hi, I'm a citizen, and that's not the kind of country I want.
D) If I merely don't like the frat party, I will indeed walk right back out. Total time invested: 60 seconds. Harm to my professional reputation: zero. Can you see that's different than forcing somebody out of a job?
E) She made no demands and did not force anybody to do anything. They put up a bot; she put up a bot.
The interface design problem here is that people are trying to express two things with one button: A) I disagree strongly, and B) that is a poor contribution to the discussion.
Personally, I'm going with both A and B for Batista. Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view. It's to argue until the other people go find something better to do, so that the arguer can feel victorious and avoid having their bubble punctured.
When Batista jumped in with a standard technique for derailing the discussion, I suspected he was not interested in actual discussion. From his further replies, I'm sure of it. Life's too short to waste time talking with people like that. And if he's not at a discussion site to have an actual discussion, downvoting seems entirely reasonable to me.
>Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view.
Noticed how you equate the issue of sexism with evolution theory?
To imply, of course, that those that happen to disagree about the importance of sexism are NUTS, and that the importance of sexism in keeping women away from IT is as indisputable as a scientific theory.
So much for YOU coming here "to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view".
So, when you say that the ideal is for one to come to a discussion "to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view", you only mean it for those with opposing views.
Because YOUR view is a priori as irrefutable as evolution --your simile--.
>When Batista jumped in with a standard technique for derailing the discussion, I suspected he was not interested in actual discussion.
Let me see.
1) I come in the discussion with an opposing view.
2) You held that I'm akin to someone coming to an evolution discussion with an opposing view --i.e a nutjob arguing against science.
3) I provide several arguments, mention some logical explanations about how things could not be so, etc.
4) Instead of replying in specifics, you resort to ad-hominens. Batista this, and Batista that.
5) Notice how all your message above is devoice of specifics, even on the meta-level of discussing my comments:
= = = = =
"Personally, I'm going with both A and B for Batista."
No mentioning why.
"Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view. It's to argue until the other people go find something better to do, so that the arguer can feel victorious and avoid having their bubble punctured."
No mention of how that applies to Batista, plus the vulgar comparison of anyone disagreeing with the current topic to someone disagreeing with evolution/science.
"When Batista jumped in with a standard technique for derailing the discussion, I suspected he was not interested in actual discussion."
No mention of what that technique was. Saying something besides what everybody else says?
"From his further replies, I'm sure of it."
Again, no mention of specifics.
"Life's too short to waste time talking with people like that."
Again, no specifics as to what is "that".
= = = = =
And you have the nerve to say that it's me that "I'm not interested in conversation"?
Talk about blame the victim.
You're true on one thing, though: "life's too short to waste time talking with people like that".
> He expresses an opinion that is contrary to what other people are saying and he gets down-voted into oblivion.
He's being downvoted not because of his opinion, but because of the way he chose to present it. And, he's whining about downvotes. Read what he's writing. It's downright rude.
> I'll be down-voted myself anyway for even daring to defend someone’s right to express their opinion however.
No, and suggesting such is fairly dramatic. However, the fact that you spend 2 paragraphs on the "plight" of your posts' voting trend is pointless.
> So god damn it learn to argue with people properly instead of just trying to silence them.
Learn to discuss matters like an adult, and you won't have this issue.
> Also, down-voting people as you disagree with them verbally is like gagging them whilst you debate them.
IIRC, your vote doesn't count if the person is responding to you, or you are replying to them. So, enhance your calm.
>Read what he's writing. It's downright rude.
Can you point to the rude parts? Or is that too much to ask?
>Learn to discuss matters like an adult, and you won't have this issue.
Actually most of the discussion on the issue is like that of touchy 20 year olds.
Adults dont "down-vote" on disagreement.
> Can you point to the rude parts? Or is that too much to ask?
Any of his comments in this thread are rude. Practically each on seethed with immaturity and rudeness for the other people in the thread. Any particular part? Yeah, the parts where he was commenting.
Rude is obviously subjective, but tied to social norms. It's like me calling a woman a "fucking bitch" is rude based on social norms, not because "fucking bitch" itself is rude. So, just consider that before you try to suggest that "what he said was clearly not rude or immature." We can obviously go back and forth all day long and get no where.
> Actually most of the discussion on the issue is like that of touchy 20 year olds. Adults dont "down-vote" on disagreement.
Well, I'm fairly confused now. First, I'm under the impression that a 20-year old is an adult. Secondly, I agree that adults don't down-vote on disagreement. I'm confused because if most of the discussion is like that of adults, and adults don't down-vote on mere disagreement, what's the issue? I sincerely think you were making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Yes, there will be people who down-vote because they disagree. There are also people, like me, who will see that and correct it should we feel the down-votes are not necessary, even if we disagree. It's self correcting that way. Hell, people up-vote even when they do disagree, if only because the comment is thoughtful.
I think the issue isn't people disagreeing on a subject. I think it's people disagreeing on what constitutes having a mature conversation. You obviously disagree with others' assessments.
>>Can you point to the rude parts? Or is that too much to ask?
> Any of his comments in this thread are rude. Practically each on seethed with immaturity and rudeness for the other people in the thread. Any particular part? Yeah, the parts where he was commenting.
So, you accuse the other guy of being rude, but when asked to give a specific example, you resort to platitudes and generalities. Thanks for the mature contribution.
> So, you accuse the other guy of being rude
You
> but when asked to give a specific example, you resort to platitudes and generalities.
You first reply was littered with immaturity and insults. Everyone after that is combative, abrasive, and immature.
Considering your contribution up to this point, I've put in far too much effort already.
> Thanks for the mature contribution.
You're welcome. At the very least, you can recognize maturity in others, and that's a starting point. =)
Edit: I just realized your complaining about people complaining about sexism when there are "more important" things like homelessness. The irony is quite funny.
> You first reply was littered with immaturity and insults.
Sorry, I tried to verify that, but it looks like it is your comment, the one mentioning an immature brat, that sounds at least very arrogant and condescending, if not rude. I honestly fail to notice such qualities or insults in batista's comments down the thread after yours (although complaints about being downvoted he certainly could omit). Though it might be my insufficient understanding of language or culture, so I'd be grateful if you point out the offending parts.