17 ms·

Kathy Sierra On The Primer On Sexism Discussion

91 points by roguecoder 14y ago

Tichy 14y ago
"You are wrong because of things you cannot know" - impossible to argue with, not very useful. (Disclaimer: I don't know Kathy Sierra, or rather, the first time I heard about her was when she quit blogging, I think, because of that vile stream of hate spam. I have nothing against her, in fact I believe what people said at the time, that she made great contributions before leaving).
- erikpukinskis 14y ago
  |"You are wrong because of things you cannot know" - impossible to argue with, not very useful. This is not debate team. The point is not to frame the discussion so you can "win". Whether you want to admit it, there are things you can never know. That's incontrovertible. You have two choices: you can throw your hands in the air and say "oh well I'll never know" or you can start to learn how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you, and use their knowledge to help you act in the world. Many very bright people are constitutionally incapable of working this way. Unless they can reduce a concept down to first principles that are grounded in their personal experience, the concept is wrong to them. To me, that's a huge epistemological limitation, and I think it will hamper your ability to grow intellectually. I have found that with certain things I had to first accept them and live with them, after someone I trust and respect, with different experience than I have, suggested they were true. Only later, after living with and applying the ideas, was I able to rationalize them. This realization is the greatest gift Feminist theory has given me, as a thinker.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    I think you don't have to believe theory x to experience it first, though. You can also just try it out - "assume that x is true, what are the consequences". I think a person's own experience should always form the bottom line of their world view, though. Otherwise you simply get completely lost. How do you know whom to believe? There will always be people claiming contradicting things. Ultimately you have to at least trust yourself. At least I have drawn that line for myself at some point. I still take into account that I could be wrong, but to sway me, more is required than a mere "believe me, I have more experience than you". Of course there are also things where it doesn't really matter. Not every decision questions my whole world view. If I work together with somebody more experiences and they say "let's stick to Postgres instead of using MongoDB" or whatever, I have no problems following their advice (I would then perhaps try MongoDB on another, less risky occasion).
  - aurynn 14y ago
    Wow. This just crystallised a bunch of thoughts bumping around in my head, on why this argument goes around and around all the time. Thank you! This was a great comment.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    > Whether you want to admit it, there are things you can never know. That's incontrovertible. You have two choices: you can throw your hands in the air and say "oh well I'll never know" or you can start to learn how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you, and use their knowledge to help you act in the world. That's the exact same argument my dad gave me once about why I should just trust Bush when he wanted to start a war with Iraq so badly. It was even credible, since Bush got classified intelligence reports every morning and I didn't. Needless to say, I no longer trust it. > I have found that with certain things I had to first accept them and live with them, after someone I trust and respect, with different experience than I have, suggested they were true. Only later, after living with and applying the ideas, was I able to rationalize them. I believe this tactic is traditionally known as "theology". In both cases, it's reassuring to finally see a confession that feminism is an exercise in blind faith, and is hence of no use to rational people.
    - KuraFire 14y ago
      You’re coming to the exact opposite, wrong conclusions here. 1) in the trust-Bush example, anyone who actually, properly learned “how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you” would have sensed that Bush was full of shit, didn’t know what he was doing, and was a terrible person to have in charge. Honing that skill is incredibly valuable in life, precisely because it protects you from having to blindly trust anyone based on a claim (accurate or not) that they know what they're doing. 2) This is not theology at all. Theology is about accepting a claim despite your inability to rationalize it, or accepting it precisely because your ability to rationalize it is broken or flawed—and both being in the realm of deities. What erikpukinskis was describing is the process of cultivating empathy and trust, in face of the acknowledgement that your perceived reality is not necessarily accurate (which it isn’t for anyone on the planet). He's saying that there are a lot of smart people who simply cannot believe that “something” is truly happening if they have no personal experience with that “something”, and may, as a result, deny the reality that is that “something”. And he’s saying that, for him at least, it was necessary to learn to accept these things as true, first, before being able to figure out and rationalize them on his own, later, without having to be personally exposed to the problem for it. And that’s called empathy, not theology.
- nmcfarl 14y ago
  The problem with life, or at least my life, is that I go through it wrong because of things I can not know. I can't argue with it, I can't know when I'm wrong and when I'm not, and I can't know when I know enough to make any particular decision. (Particularly the last - the number of times I've thought, this is a trivial problem, with a trivial solution, and been proven completely wrong is just huge). I just assume: "I know as much as I do at this moment", and I make decisions as best as I can. And then I keep learning, and deciding. This argument ("You are wrong because of things you cannot know") is not one which should make you feel bad about your decisions (or change them), it's one that should encourage you to go elsewhere to learn more about the subject - if you care, and you believe the speaker.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I don't think "You are wrong because of things you cannot know" encourages people to seek knowledge, but rather the opposite. If I cannot know something, why should I waste my time on it?
    - roguecoder 14y ago
      Try listening? If you are wrong because of things you cannot know from personal experience, as long as your opinions are formed from personal experience they will be incorrect. So, seek out other people's experiences even if, especially if, they conflict with your own. Though now I'm starting to sound like a stoner. "Broaden your mind, dude..."
  - krichman 14y ago
    But actually, that argument is applied whenever someone disagrees with popular opinion, instantly silencing them even if they presented their ideas rationally. It's nothing more than an ad hominem argument.
- strathmeyer 14y ago
  I think it's even more fun to think about the premise that I should forget about all the times I've been passed over for a job or education because of my gender just because some people I would never work with are jerks.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    I have missed that bit, where did she write that?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - Tichy 14y ago
    I think it is unfair and invalid argumentation (which doesn't prove that her claims are untrue, but also imo doesn't help support them). The analogue is parents saying "you'll understand it when you are older". Either you trust your parents or you don't, but you can not verify that claim logically while you are young. Hence I find that kind of thing not useful for a debate. Traditionally I think those statements have only helped to make kids angry :-) You may say that parents were usually right, but I don't think so. KS or anybody else are welcome to state their own experience, but arguing "I was like you before my eyes were opened" is creating a fake additional anecdote. Just because person A went from opinion/situation X to opinion Z, it doesn't imply that all people with opinion/situation X will eventually come around to opinion Z. That line of reasoning just dismisses a persons argument without giving arguments. Sorry I can't describe it better - I guess it just goes against my sensibilities for "fair debate". Just my opinion, obviously.
    - andrewcooke 14y ago
      sorry - deleted my comment before i saw your reply. decided i didn't want to get into this mess. for anyone wondering what the context was, the basic point was that it is extra information and so is useful.
    - KSierra 14y ago
      I told my personal story in a comment to Laura, which I then sent to Faruk. That's not a "fake additional anecdote", it is what actually happened. It means no more -- or less -- than that. Just one person's story. That I changed MY views in no way means anyone else will. Had I thought this through, I would not have written it because you're absolutely right -- it was not useful.
      - codeka 14y ago
        I definitely think it was useful and thank you for writing it. I understand the point that its like saying "you'll understand when you're older", but I also hope we here are wiser than the children who resent their parents for making that argument. That we in fact can see that its possible to be blind to what is happening around you just because you personally haven't experienced it.
- KSierra 14y ago
  What I actually said was that I was wrong, and that "just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it isn't there." That's not quite the same as saying "you were wrong." And I also didn't say "because of things you cannot know." Yes, there WERE things that I -- and perhaps others -- cannot know, but I also had plenty of evidence I was ignoring because it didn't fit my personal experience. There were studies, stats, research, and yes -- an overwhelming number of personal anecdotes from too many credible women for me to have ignored the possibility for that long. I still do not know how pervasive or deep the problems of sexism are -- this is not a domain I have studied. But I was wrong to have used my sole personal experience as evidence that there wasn't really a problem.
  - tabrischen 14y ago
    As a fellow female in technology, I just want to say you are a beautiful woman (not that it's relevant or if that matters or anything, I just feel like I have to say it) and your amazing contribution to the field as well as your humility despite all that is incredibly inspiring. I'm sorry that you(or anyone for that matter) had to go through what you went through. I want to thank you for keep speaking up for women who may not have the voice to speak up themselves and I hope you continue to do so and because you never know who you may reach with your writing.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    It seems to me you drew analogies between her and you, from the initial state of "seeing no problem at all", and then you realizing that you simply didn't see it. That to me sounds as if you were implying that just like you, she simply doesn't see it and there she is wrong, analogous to the way you were wrong. Also her article doesn't sound to me as if she claims that there is no problem, just that it is obviously not a problem for every woman.
    - KuraFire 14y ago
      Laura eventually made it clear that she wasn’t claiming there is no problem, but she did it so poorly that a huge number of people who read her post didn’t get that from it. Similarly, I (original Primer author) did a poor job making it clear that I never meant to suggest that every woman has this problem. The goal was to inform people that this is happening and this is a problem, even though you _probably were not seeing it_. Kathy’s experience and post are a very personal revelation of the painful journey of discovery (of this fact) that she went through.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Why do you need to "argue" with it? I read it as more of a precautionary tale: don't immediately dismiss something because you haven't seen it happen first hand, or it's not an issue within your immediate circle.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    I don't think Laura dismissed anything, she just pointed out that the problem is not as universal as some make it out to be. The response by KS to me boiled down to "just wait, it'll happen to you, too", essentially claiming that it does effect everyone after all. I intend in no way to diminish KS' personal experience, it just seemed odd as a response (to me anyway). To put it into an extreme example: I think it must be possible to say "I have never been raped" without being accused of claiming that nobody has ever been raped.
    - anthonyb 14y ago
      Considering Kathy's history, I think she probably has a bit more experience with harassment than either you or Laura. Given that, isn't it a bit strange that you're dismissing her opinion out of hand? > To put it into an extreme example Please don't.
      - Tichy 14y ago
        I am not dismissing her experience, just the notion that because she has more experience, other, "lesser" opinions are invalid. Also, I suppose Laura has more experience with not being harassed, so why dismiss her opinion out of hand? Anyway, this one is not going to be resolved by logic... Do you really believe that every woman will experience harassment eventually?
        anthonyb 14y ago
        It's statistically very likely.
        14y ago
- rayiner 14y ago
  The fact that it's difficult to argue with doesn't make it not true.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    Impossible to argue with, and no it doesn't make it not true, but also not true.
sltkr 14y ago
It's not entirely clear to me what prompted the “Mack truck’s worth of vile, misogynistic, sexist comments and pictures” that caused Sierra to change her point of view (after twenty years of positive experience!) and how exactly it relates to the Tech industry? I can appreciate the argument that just because you haven't personally experienced sexism that doesn't mean it doesn't occur, but the logical equivalent of that is that you can't point to a few people's (subjective interpretation of their) experiences to conclude that sexism is prevalent in the tech industry.
- autarch 14y ago
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6499095.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6499095.stm is one article on what happened to her. It was pretty awful.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    That sounds as if it was several people attacking her? I would have thought it was just a disturbed individual? Also how come "prominent bloggers" were hosting the attacks - presumably she means comments on blogs that were not removed in a timely manner?
    - drumdance 14y ago
      As I recall a couple of the bloggers themselves were attacking her, not just commenters.
      - Tichy 14y ago
        Wow, that's pretty extreme. I'll look into that. But I don't think the bloggers were doing stuff like the picture with the noose? I can imagine some gave stupid comments to the situation, though. Anyway, this actually makes me curious.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- 14y ago
shadowmint 14y ago
It's not directly related to this article, but on the click through (primer link) there's an idea that really resonated with me: If you're western/male/white/straight you're playing life on 'very easy' mode. This probably betrays my 'gamified' lifestyle, and maybe it trivializes the issue somewhat, but its a much more compelling argument to me than using the term 'privilege' which is loaded with baggage (hey! I worked hard to get where I am. I'm not some privileged kid who's parent spent big to send me to a good college...) It's really an idea that connects to my demographic, rather than disconnecting them, which is what a lot of this discourse does. So you're a great hacker? sweet. You did that on EASY mode. That guy over there, he's transgender, he's playing on hard and he's where you are despite that. Those hackers girls in the corner? They're playing on nightmare difficulty. Just a little bit of gentle respect for that goes a long way. It's a really great metaphor to explain these ideas to people I know. Just my $0.02
- KuraFire 14y ago
  Yes, it is a good metaphor. Credit goes to John Scalzi (linked in the original Primer): http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...
- nostrademons 14y ago
  It would be a great metaphor if it were extended out to all the handicaps people face. That straight white male programmer who has struggled with mental illness since adolescence? He's on nightmare difficulty too. The guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth but lost his father as a child? Hasn't been too easy for him either. The girl who grew up with loving parents from a poor neighborhood and didn't see her first computer until college? Well, she's got some huge handicaps, but some pretty solid roots too. I've been privileged in many ways, and I've also struggled in many ways. I'd like to think that I played the hand I got as well as I could, and extended a hand out to those who didn't quite have the same privileges whenever possible. I wouldn't really expect otherwise from anyone else.
  - Alex3917 14y ago
kevinconroy 14y ago
I get angry everytime that I think about how a few vile people attacked Kathy and shut down one of the best blogs to grace the internet, Creating Passionate Users (http://headrush.typepad.com/ http://headrush.typepad.com/). After she stopped blogging, I wrote a program to scrap her TypePad site and then hand edited down all of her posts into a single, massive book. I printed a single copy on Lulu for myself which I've marked up with highligher and pen calling out all of her incredible points. I don't want to earn any money from her work, so here's a link to download a free PDF copy of the best of her blog: http://www.kevinmconroy.com/pdf/creating_passionate_users.pdf http://www.kevinmconroy.com/pdf/creating_passionate_users.pd... It's print-ready for you to upload to your favorite self publishing book website (e.g. lulu.com) and print your own copy. Thank you for continuing to inspiring me Kathy.
- mhartl 14y ago
  I assume you mean s/scrap/scrape/.
  - kevinconroy 14y ago
    Yes, sorry about that unfortunate typo.
- tnorthcutt 14y ago
  Thanks for posting this.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    Second this. Thank you sir.
- amix 14y ago
  I also found Kathy's blog very insightful and it's a great tragedy that she stopped writing. An eye-opener for me was her "Is Twitter TOO good?" post: http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/03/is_twitter_too_.html http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/0... For me, this opened up how I thought about products, especially in terms of psychology. I can't really remember when I have read that insightful posts from anybody else (and Kathy had a ton of them).
gavanwoolery 14y ago
I am going to say this knowing that I am venturing into "downvote" territory...but...for every woman that really experiences sexism, there are two that exaggerate their circumstances (and to be fair, this is not at all exclusive to women, it applies to other "isms" as well). I remember one woman at a place I worked at filed a complaint about sexism because a coworker (kindly) asked her out. Maybe its not appropriate to ask a coworker out, but it certainly is not sexist (read the definition of sexism if you disagree with me). A good deal of it actually winds down to the fact that people do not understand the definition of sexism. Being hit on is not sexism. Even being sexually harassed does not qualify as sexism -- although it is clearly another type of bad thing. Sexism is the act of favoring one sex over another. There are women who do experience sexism, but I would say tech has more "reverse discrimination" than anything else. Objectively, I have seen some very average women programmers get hired into high positions just to fill diversity quotas (and yes, I do know of a few very smart female programmers as well).
- natrius 14y ago
  In common usage, "sexism" doesn't mean what you say it means. You're technically correct, sure. But "sexism" is commonly used as a label for any socially unacceptable behavior related to gender. Also, a word of advice: claiming something like "a third (EDIT: actually two thirds) of sexism complaints are exaggerations" should always be backed up by some sort of data if you don't want to look unreasonable.
  - gavanwoolery 14y ago
    True - when I say for every x there are two y's, I mean it more in colloquial terms (understandably that is not necessarily clear here), not hard statistics: that is, it is only my perception that there is more complaining about sexism than actual sexism occurring. It seems that the most vocal sexism victims actually experience the least amount of "real" sexism (like the girl who complained about being hit on at DEF CON). Again, these are just my perceptions/opinions, and I could easily be wrong. However, one thing I am certain of is that we focus too much of our effort on trivial cases of sexism, when we should be battling more important cases like countries that do not allow women equal rights.
tmsh 14y ago
All I know is Kathy Sierra's book on Java was pretty much my first intro into programming (SCJP Sun Certified Programmer for Java 5 Study Guide). I've gone on to become a software engineer for 7-8 years now. But I still swear by that seemingly simple book because it was so well-written. And as Jeff Atwood and many others have written, I know whatever she writes about on this or any other subject is a lot more correct than people realize. Just thought I'd register that.

91 points by roguecoder 14y ago

Tichy 14y ago

"You are wrong because of things you cannot know" - impossible to argue with, not very useful. (Disclaimer: I don't know Kathy Sierra, or rather, the first time I heard about her was when she quit blogging, I think, because of that vile stream of hate spam. I have nothing against her, in fact I believe what people said at the time, that she made great contributions before leaving).

erikpukinskis 14y ago
|"You are wrong because of things you cannot know" - impossible to argue with, not very useful. This is not debate team. The point is not to frame the discussion so you can "win". Whether you want to admit it, there are things you can never know. That's incontrovertible. You have two choices: you can throw your hands in the air and say "oh well I'll never know" or you can start to learn how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you, and use their knowledge to help you act in the world. Many very bright people are constitutionally incapable of working this way. Unless they can reduce a concept down to first principles that are grounded in their personal experience, the concept is wrong to them. To me, that's a huge epistemological limitation, and I think it will hamper your ability to grow intellectually. I have found that with certain things I had to first accept them and live with them, after someone I trust and respect, with different experience than I have, suggested they were true. Only later, after living with and applying the ideas, was I able to rationalize them. This realization is the greatest gift Feminist theory has given me, as a thinker.
- Tichy 14y ago
  I think you don't have to believe theory x to experience it first, though. You can also just try it out - "assume that x is true, what are the consequences". I think a person's own experience should always form the bottom line of their world view, though. Otherwise you simply get completely lost. How do you know whom to believe? There will always be people claiming contradicting things. Ultimately you have to at least trust yourself. At least I have drawn that line for myself at some point. I still take into account that I could be wrong, but to sway me, more is required than a mere "believe me, I have more experience than you". Of course there are also things where it doesn't really matter. Not every decision questions my whole world view. If I work together with somebody more experiences and they say "let's stick to Postgres instead of using MongoDB" or whatever, I have no problems following their advice (I would then perhaps try MongoDB on another, less risky occasion).
- aurynn 14y ago
  Wow. This just crystallised a bunch of thoughts bumping around in my head, on why this argument goes around and around all the time. Thank you! This was a great comment.
- philwelch 14y ago
  > Whether you want to admit it, there are things you can never know. That's incontrovertible. You have two choices: you can throw your hands in the air and say "oh well I'll never know" or you can start to learn how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you, and use their knowledge to help you act in the world. That's the exact same argument my dad gave me once about why I should just trust Bush when he wanted to start a war with Iraq so badly. It was even credible, since Bush got classified intelligence reports every morning and I didn't. Needless to say, I no longer trust it. > I have found that with certain things I had to first accept them and live with them, after someone I trust and respect, with different experience than I have, suggested they were true. Only later, after living with and applying the ideas, was I able to rationalize them. I believe this tactic is traditionally known as "theology". In both cases, it's reassuring to finally see a confession that feminism is an exercise in blind faith, and is hence of no use to rational people.
  - KuraFire 14y ago
    You’re coming to the exact opposite, wrong conclusions here. 1) in the trust-Bush example, anyone who actually, properly learned “how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you” would have sensed that Bush was full of shit, didn’t know what he was doing, and was a terrible person to have in charge. Honing that skill is incredibly valuable in life, precisely because it protects you from having to blindly trust anyone based on a claim (accurate or not) that they know what they're doing. 2) This is not theology at all. Theology is about accepting a claim despite your inability to rationalize it, or accepting it precisely because your ability to rationalize it is broken or flawed—and both being in the realm of deities. What erikpukinskis was describing is the process of cultivating empathy and trust, in face of the acknowledgement that your perceived reality is not necessarily accurate (which it isn’t for anyone on the planet). He's saying that there are a lot of smart people who simply cannot believe that “something” is truly happening if they have no personal experience with that “something”, and may, as a result, deny the reality that is that “something”. And he’s saying that, for him at least, it was necessary to learn to accept these things as true, first, before being able to figure out and rationalize them on his own, later, without having to be personally exposed to the problem for it. And that’s called empathy, not theology.
nmcfarl 14y ago
The problem with life, or at least my life, is that I go through it wrong because of things I can not know. I can't argue with it, I can't know when I'm wrong and when I'm not, and I can't know when I know enough to make any particular decision. (Particularly the last - the number of times I've thought, this is a trivial problem, with a trivial solution, and been proven completely wrong is just huge). I just assume: "I know as much as I do at this moment", and I make decisions as best as I can. And then I keep learning, and deciding. This argument ("You are wrong because of things you cannot know") is not one which should make you feel bad about your decisions (or change them), it's one that should encourage you to go elsewhere to learn more about the subject - if you care, and you believe the speaker.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I don't think "You are wrong because of things you cannot know" encourages people to seek knowledge, but rather the opposite. If I cannot know something, why should I waste my time on it?
  - roguecoder 14y ago
    Try listening? If you are wrong because of things you cannot know from personal experience, as long as your opinions are formed from personal experience they will be incorrect. So, seek out other people's experiences even if, especially if, they conflict with your own. Though now I'm starting to sound like a stoner. "Broaden your mind, dude..."
- krichman 14y ago
  But actually, that argument is applied whenever someone disagrees with popular opinion, instantly silencing them even if they presented their ideas rationally. It's nothing more than an ad hominem argument.
strathmeyer 14y ago
I think it's even more fun to think about the premise that I should forget about all the times I've been passed over for a job or education because of my gender just because some people I would never work with are jerks.
- Tichy 14y ago
  I have missed that bit, where did she write that?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- Tichy 14y ago
  I think it is unfair and invalid argumentation (which doesn't prove that her claims are untrue, but also imo doesn't help support them). The analogue is parents saying "you'll understand it when you are older". Either you trust your parents or you don't, but you can not verify that claim logically while you are young. Hence I find that kind of thing not useful for a debate. Traditionally I think those statements have only helped to make kids angry :-) You may say that parents were usually right, but I don't think so. KS or anybody else are welcome to state their own experience, but arguing "I was like you before my eyes were opened" is creating a fake additional anecdote. Just because person A went from opinion/situation X to opinion Z, it doesn't imply that all people with opinion/situation X will eventually come around to opinion Z. That line of reasoning just dismisses a persons argument without giving arguments. Sorry I can't describe it better - I guess it just goes against my sensibilities for "fair debate". Just my opinion, obviously.
  - andrewcooke 14y ago
    sorry - deleted my comment before i saw your reply. decided i didn't want to get into this mess. for anyone wondering what the context was, the basic point was that it is extra information and so is useful.
  - KSierra 14y ago
    I told my personal story in a comment to Laura, which I then sent to Faruk. That's not a "fake additional anecdote", it is what actually happened. It means no more -- or less -- than that. Just one person's story. That I changed MY views in no way means anyone else will. Had I thought this through, I would not have written it because you're absolutely right -- it was not useful.
    - codeka 14y ago
      I definitely think it was useful and thank you for writing it. I understand the point that its like saying "you'll understand when you're older", but I also hope we here are wiser than the children who resent their parents for making that argument. That we in fact can see that its possible to be blind to what is happening around you just because you personally haven't experienced it.
KSierra 14y ago
What I actually said was that I was wrong, and that "just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it isn't there." That's not quite the same as saying "you were wrong." And I also didn't say "because of things you cannot know." Yes, there WERE things that I -- and perhaps others -- cannot know, but I also had plenty of evidence I was ignoring because it didn't fit my personal experience. There were studies, stats, research, and yes -- an overwhelming number of personal anecdotes from too many credible women for me to have ignored the possibility for that long. I still do not know how pervasive or deep the problems of sexism are -- this is not a domain I have studied. But I was wrong to have used my sole personal experience as evidence that there wasn't really a problem.
- tabrischen 14y ago
  As a fellow female in technology, I just want to say you are a beautiful woman (not that it's relevant or if that matters or anything, I just feel like I have to say it) and your amazing contribution to the field as well as your humility despite all that is incredibly inspiring. I'm sorry that you(or anyone for that matter) had to go through what you went through. I want to thank you for keep speaking up for women who may not have the voice to speak up themselves and I hope you continue to do so and because you never know who you may reach with your writing.
- Tichy 14y ago
  It seems to me you drew analogies between her and you, from the initial state of "seeing no problem at all", and then you realizing that you simply didn't see it. That to me sounds as if you were implying that just like you, she simply doesn't see it and there she is wrong, analogous to the way you were wrong. Also her article doesn't sound to me as if she claims that there is no problem, just that it is obviously not a problem for every woman.
  - KuraFire 14y ago
    Laura eventually made it clear that she wasn’t claiming there is no problem, but she did it so poorly that a huge number of people who read her post didn’t get that from it. Similarly, I (original Primer author) did a poor job making it clear that I never meant to suggest that every woman has this problem. The goal was to inform people that this is happening and this is a problem, even though you _probably were not seeing it_. Kathy’s experience and post are a very personal revelation of the painful journey of discovery (of this fact) that she went through.
anthonyb 14y ago
Why do you need to "argue" with it? I read it as more of a precautionary tale: don't immediately dismiss something because you haven't seen it happen first hand, or it's not an issue within your immediate circle.
- Tichy 14y ago
  I don't think Laura dismissed anything, she just pointed out that the problem is not as universal as some make it out to be. The response by KS to me boiled down to "just wait, it'll happen to you, too", essentially claiming that it does effect everyone after all. I intend in no way to diminish KS' personal experience, it just seemed odd as a response (to me anyway). To put it into an extreme example: I think it must be possible to say "I have never been raped" without being accused of claiming that nobody has ever been raped.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    Considering Kathy's history, I think she probably has a bit more experience with harassment than either you or Laura. Given that, isn't it a bit strange that you're dismissing her opinion out of hand? > To put it into an extreme example Please don't.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      I am not dismissing her experience, just the notion that because she has more experience, other, "lesser" opinions are invalid. Also, I suppose Laura has more experience with not being harassed, so why dismiss her opinion out of hand? Anyway, this one is not going to be resolved by logic... Do you really believe that every woman will experience harassment eventually?
      - anthonyb 14y ago
        It's statistically very likely.
        14y ago
rayiner 14y ago
The fact that it's difficult to argue with doesn't make it not true.
- Tichy 14y ago
  Impossible to argue with, and no it doesn't make it not true, but also not true.

sltkr 14y ago

It's not entirely clear to me what prompted the “Mack truck’s worth of vile, misogynistic, sexist comments and pictures” that caused Sierra to change her point of view (after twenty years of positive experience!) and how exactly it relates to the Tech industry? I can appreciate the argument that just because you haven't personally experienced sexism that doesn't mean it doesn't occur, but the logical equivalent of that is that you can't point to a few people's (subjective interpretation of their) experiences to conclude that sexism is prevalent in the tech industry.

autarch 14y ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6499095.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6499095.stm is one article on what happened to her. It was pretty awful.
- Tichy 14y ago
  That sounds as if it was several people attacking her? I would have thought it was just a disturbed individual? Also how come "prominent bloggers" were hosting the attacks - presumably she means comments on blogs that were not removed in a timely manner?
  - drumdance 14y ago
    As I recall a couple of the bloggers themselves were attacking her, not just commenters.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      Wow, that's pretty extreme. I'll look into that. But I don't think the bloggers were doing stuff like the picture with the noose? I can imagine some gave stupid comments to the situation, though. Anyway, this actually makes me curious.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
14y ago

shadowmint 14y ago

It's not directly related to this article, but on the click through (primer link) there's an idea that really resonated with me: If you're western/male/white/straight you're playing life on 'very easy' mode. This probably betrays my 'gamified' lifestyle, and maybe it trivializes the issue somewhat, but its a much more compelling argument to me than using the term 'privilege' which is loaded with baggage (hey! I worked hard to get where I am. I'm not some privileged kid who's parent spent big to send me to a good college...) It's really an idea that connects to my demographic, rather than disconnecting them, which is what a lot of this discourse does. So you're a great hacker? sweet. You did that on EASY mode. That guy over there, he's transgender, he's playing on hard and he's where you are despite that. Those hackers girls in the corner? They're playing on nightmare difficulty. Just a little bit of gentle respect for that goes a long way. It's a really great metaphor to explain these ideas to people I know. Just my $0.02

KuraFire 14y ago
Yes, it is a good metaphor. Credit goes to John Scalzi (linked in the original Primer): http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...
nostrademons 14y ago
It would be a great metaphor if it were extended out to all the handicaps people face. That straight white male programmer who has struggled with mental illness since adolescence? He's on nightmare difficulty too. The guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth but lost his father as a child? Hasn't been too easy for him either. The girl who grew up with loving parents from a poor neighborhood and didn't see her first computer until college? Well, she's got some huge handicaps, but some pretty solid roots too. I've been privileged in many ways, and I've also struggled in many ways. I'd like to think that I played the hand I got as well as I could, and extended a hand out to those who didn't quite have the same privileges whenever possible. I wouldn't really expect otherwise from anyone else.
- Alex3917 14y ago

kevinconroy 14y ago

I get angry everytime that I think about how a few vile people attacked Kathy and shut down one of the best blogs to grace the internet, Creating Passionate Users (http://headrush.typepad.com/ http://headrush.typepad.com/). After she stopped blogging, I wrote a program to scrap her TypePad site and then hand edited down all of her posts into a single, massive book. I printed a single copy on Lulu for myself which I've marked up with highligher and pen calling out all of her incredible points. I don't want to earn any money from her work, so here's a link to download a free PDF copy of the best of her blog: http://www.kevinmconroy.com/pdf/creating_passionate_users.pdf http://www.kevinmconroy.com/pdf/creating_passionate_users.pd... It's print-ready for you to upload to your favorite self publishing book website (e.g. lulu.com) and print your own copy. Thank you for continuing to inspiring me Kathy.

mhartl 14y ago
I assume you mean s/scrap/scrape/.
- kevinconroy 14y ago
  Yes, sorry about that unfortunate typo.
tnorthcutt 14y ago
Thanks for posting this.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  Second this. Thank you sir.
amix 14y ago
I also found Kathy's blog very insightful and it's a great tragedy that she stopped writing. An eye-opener for me was her "Is Twitter TOO good?" post: http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/03/is_twitter_too_.html http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/0... For me, this opened up how I thought about products, especially in terms of psychology. I can't really remember when I have read that insightful posts from anybody else (and Kathy had a ton of them).

gavanwoolery 14y ago

I am going to say this knowing that I am venturing into "downvote" territory...but...for every woman that really experiences sexism, there are two that exaggerate their circumstances (and to be fair, this is not at all exclusive to women, it applies to other "isms" as well). I remember one woman at a place I worked at filed a complaint about sexism because a coworker (kindly) asked her out. Maybe its not appropriate to ask a coworker out, but it certainly is not sexist (read the definition of sexism if you disagree with me). A good deal of it actually winds down to the fact that people do not understand the definition of sexism. Being hit on is not sexism. Even being sexually harassed does not qualify as sexism -- although it is clearly another type of bad thing. Sexism is the act of favoring one sex over another. There are women who do experience sexism, but I would say tech has more "reverse discrimination" than anything else. Objectively, I have seen some very average women programmers get hired into high positions just to fill diversity quotas (and yes, I do know of a few very smart female programmers as well).

natrius 14y ago
In common usage, "sexism" doesn't mean what you say it means. You're technically correct, sure. But "sexism" is commonly used as a label for any socially unacceptable behavior related to gender. Also, a word of advice: claiming something like "a third (EDIT: actually two thirds) of sexism complaints are exaggerations" should always be backed up by some sort of data if you don't want to look unreasonable.
- gavanwoolery 14y ago
  True - when I say for every x there are two y's, I mean it more in colloquial terms (understandably that is not necessarily clear here), not hard statistics: that is, it is only my perception that there is more complaining about sexism than actual sexism occurring. It seems that the most vocal sexism victims actually experience the least amount of "real" sexism (like the girl who complained about being hit on at DEF CON). Again, these are just my perceptions/opinions, and I could easily be wrong. However, one thing I am certain of is that we focus too much of our effort on trivial cases of sexism, when we should be battling more important cases like countries that do not allow women equal rights.

tmsh 14y ago

All I know is Kathy Sierra's book on Java was pretty much my first intro into programming (SCJP Sun Certified Programmer for Java 5 Study Guide). I've gone on to become a software engineer for 7-8 years now. But I still swear by that seemingly simple book because it was so well-written. And as Jeff Atwood and many others have written, I know whatever she writes about on this or any other subject is a lot more correct than people realize. Just thought I'd register that.