4 ms·

I disagree with everyone saying, "Why create something separate for women? Isn't that further separation?" For the most part, women don't take up much space in

by mlent 14y ago

I disagree with everyone saying, "Why create something separate for women? Isn't that further separation?" For the most part, women don't take up much space in the tech industry. Women look at the big names in tech, and they don't really see people who are "like me." This can be intimidating and disheartening. Creating more spaces for women to connect with other women, and share their experiences and encouragement is much needed. Of course, let's also not forget women of color and trans women, who obviously face additional challenges in finding people like themselves to look up to in tech. I hope that GitHub makes an effort to include a wide range of women with different backgrounds to include in this series. Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning. I probably shouldn't be surprised that some of the first comments on something oriented towards women is, "But...WHAT ABOUT MEN?!" Get over yourselves! Let this be a reminder that the world does not revolve around you and people like you.

Zikes 14y ago
> Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning. Is sexism not reason enough in itself? Is this not the very thing we're trying to fight against? I fully acknowledge and lament that there is a severe lack of women in tech, and were it up to me men and women both would have equal opportunities in all regards, but you only debase your message and dilute your efforts when you try to level the playing field by making an environment that is more hostile towards men rather than one less hostile towards women. The overarching goal is to be inclusive, of people of all genders, races, and the spectrum of people that fall in between. Yes, celebrate successes, find role models of all types and praise their accomplishments. Bring them forward to share their wisdom and experiences so that everyone can learn and benefit. Edit: To clarify, I have no issues with an initiative that seeks out role models specifically within a category of minorities, such as by gender or race. My only qualm would be in limiting the audience.
- mlent 14y ago
  To put it simply, sexism against men does not exist. You can discriminate against men, but let's be clear: sexism is systematic oppression by those in power on the basis of gender. So...having a series of talks that is for women by women cannot possibly be sexist. You can say it discriminates by not allowing men to be speakers, if you so wish. I can't say I'd find it to interesting to listen to a man tell me what it's like to be a woman in tech, though, so you could also just say that they're just featuring people who are interesting to their audience: women. Also -- who said anything about hostility? What I meant was, "This is about women...why are you bringing men up at all? Don't they have their own spheres which they already dominate?" I just get tired of all this "reverse sexism" nonsense. Edit: To be clear, I agree with your last paragraph. I don't think it's limiting the audience to feature women speakers, unless you don't think that men can find women interesting. ;)
  - cbeach 14y ago
    Sexism towards men does now exist, thanks to attitudes like yours. Fighting fire with fire? What a pity.
    - hnacc10 14y ago
      Exactly. It is rather ridiculous that people like mlent spew their own definitions for sexism and feel that women cannot be sexist. It destroys any sort of reasonable discourse by being so ignorant.
  - Zikes 14y ago
    I must vehemently disagree with your argument that discrimination against men on the basis of gender is not sexism, and I take offense at the notion that it is "nonsense", however that is only a pedantic tangent in the context of this discussion. To avoid further pedantry, going forward I will simply refer to it as discrimination. Whatever your definition of that word, discrimination of any sort is morally and ethically wrong, and I must persist my argument that introducing more discrimination into an already discriminatory environment will only further escalate hostile feelings. Regarding your point that this series is about women and therefore "[...] why are you bringing men up at all? Don't they have their own spheres which they already dominate?" I did not think that was the goal of Passion Projects. Are you trying to say that you would prefer a separate industry of women's technology and men's technology? The ultimate success of this project and others like it, I had assumed, was integration of all peoples into a cohesive community free from discrimination. To that end, I celebrate GitHub's initiative and hope that it is as successful as it can be.
- jackowayed 14y ago
  No one is trying to make the overall industry more hostile to men. Some people are trying to make certain spaces that feel safe and encouraging to women, which often means minimizing the maleness of the space. Most don't fully exclude men, but they have legitimate reasons to want to make it feel like a female space, and if that means taking measures that prevent some men who would like to attend from attending, that's not necessarily a problem. I say this as a male who has attended campus women in CS dinners and talks. These events are open to all, but aimed at giving women interested in computer science a community, role models, etc. When I go, I am always prepared to leave if I feel that my presence is hurting the overall atmosphere, because I realize that the events are a powerful force against inequalities in society, and the least I can do is stay out of the way. And when you ask the organizers if men can come, they say yes, but they do mention that it's important for it to feel like a female space, and that if it got to the point that so many men attended that this compromised that feeling, they would start discouraging men from attending. Not every event needs to serve everyone in the industry. There are probably some language-focused meetups where you wouldn't feel especially comfortable or welcome because you don't know the language, or maybe even actively hate it. I understand that you feel it is different because you'd at least be allowed to attend a meetup for a language you don't know, but it still illustrates that not all events in the industry have to cater to you. When they're catering toward a disadvantaged group, they deserve even more leeway to make sure they achieve their goals. As long as the network of women-focused events doesn't become so large and meaningful that it is systematically disadvantaging men, I don't see any problem with some events excluding men in various ways. You're concerned about sexism in the small--in this one event. Others are more concerned with sexism in the large--the pervasive social environment that systematically discourages women from entering an extremely rewarding and lucrative industry. Both are suboptimal. In the ideal world, there wouldn't be any women-only tech events. But in the ideal world, there wouldn't be any cultural problems in the industry that make women feel less welcome and free to speak at an event with significant male attendance than at an event that is all or nearly all women. Understand that if organizers choose to, say, split the tickets so that at most 25% of tickets may go to men, they're not doing it because they want to discriminate against men, but because they worry that allowing too many men to attend will make their event less effective at correcting an injustice that we all believe is worth fixing.
jfim 14y ago
> Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning. I doubt it would go very well if someone hosted a men-only event and said "I promise we're not sexist against women." I don't think anyone is against having women-focused groups any more than having other interest-based groups. Women exclusive groups, though, do send a very conflicting message that it's okay to exclude a gender.
- jt2190 14y ago
  > Women exclusive groups, though, do send a very > conflicting message that it's okay to exclude a gender. Please clarify... You're saying that the currently enfranchised group (males) will get further encouragement for their exclusionary behaviors because the disenfranchised group (women) exclude males from some of their activities? Does't this completely ignore the current power imbalance between the two groups?
- mlent 14y ago
  The thing is, when women's groups are formed, they aren't to "keep men out". The point is that women aren't even thinking about men, they are thinking about other women. So no, I don't think it sends that message. All this line of thinking does is shift attention towards men, thus reinforcing a male-centered culture.
hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
> Why create something separate for women? Isn't that further separation? Segregation is not considered segregation if it has good intentions. The political term is "affirmative action" [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
- mpyne 14y ago
  Well segregation is segregation, with positive or negative overtones depending on the context like how we still to this day segregate restrooms by gender norms. Affirmative action does not necessarily mean segregation either. The NFL's "Rooney Rule" requires a minority candidate to be interviewed for head coaching vacancies but doesn't require one be selected. We'd still call that affirmative action. Rather it means merely that instead of just stopping the negative action applied against a minority and letting history take its course, that some positive action is taken to repair the damage done to the minority group, in order to actually have a chance at real equality in the future. This could include means such as segregated advocacy groups but encompasses much more.

by mlent 14y ago

Zikes 14y ago

> Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning. Is sexism not reason enough in itself? Is this not the very thing we're trying to fight against? I fully acknowledge and lament that there is a severe lack of women in tech, and were it up to me men and women both would have equal opportunities in all regards, but you only debase your message and dilute your efforts when you try to level the playing field by making an environment that is more hostile towards men rather than one less hostile towards women. The overarching goal is to be inclusive, of people of all genders, races, and the spectrum of people that fall in between. Yes, celebrate successes, find role models of all types and praise their accomplishments. Bring them forward to share their wisdom and experiences so that everyone can learn and benefit. Edit: To clarify, I have no issues with an initiative that seeks out role models specifically within a category of minorities, such as by gender or race. My only qualm would be in limiting the audience.

mlent 14y ago
To put it simply, sexism against men does not exist. You can discriminate against men, but let's be clear: sexism is systematic oppression by those in power on the basis of gender. So...having a series of talks that is for women by women cannot possibly be sexist. You can say it discriminates by not allowing men to be speakers, if you so wish. I can't say I'd find it to interesting to listen to a man tell me what it's like to be a woman in tech, though, so you could also just say that they're just featuring people who are interesting to their audience: women. Also -- who said anything about hostility? What I meant was, "This is about women...why are you bringing men up at all? Don't they have their own spheres which they already dominate?" I just get tired of all this "reverse sexism" nonsense. Edit: To be clear, I agree with your last paragraph. I don't think it's limiting the audience to feature women speakers, unless you don't think that men can find women interesting. ;)
- cbeach 14y ago
  Sexism towards men does now exist, thanks to attitudes like yours. Fighting fire with fire? What a pity.
  - hnacc10 14y ago
    Exactly. It is rather ridiculous that people like mlent spew their own definitions for sexism and feel that women cannot be sexist. It destroys any sort of reasonable discourse by being so ignorant.
- Zikes 14y ago
  I must vehemently disagree with your argument that discrimination against men on the basis of gender is not sexism, and I take offense at the notion that it is "nonsense", however that is only a pedantic tangent in the context of this discussion. To avoid further pedantry, going forward I will simply refer to it as discrimination. Whatever your definition of that word, discrimination of any sort is morally and ethically wrong, and I must persist my argument that introducing more discrimination into an already discriminatory environment will only further escalate hostile feelings. Regarding your point that this series is about women and therefore "[...] why are you bringing men up at all? Don't they have their own spheres which they already dominate?" I did not think that was the goal of Passion Projects. Are you trying to say that you would prefer a separate industry of women's technology and men's technology? The ultimate success of this project and others like it, I had assumed, was integration of all peoples into a cohesive community free from discrimination. To that end, I celebrate GitHub's initiative and hope that it is as successful as it can be.
jackowayed 14y ago
No one is trying to make the overall industry more hostile to men. Some people are trying to make certain spaces that feel safe and encouraging to women, which often means minimizing the maleness of the space. Most don't fully exclude men, but they have legitimate reasons to want to make it feel like a female space, and if that means taking measures that prevent some men who would like to attend from attending, that's not necessarily a problem. I say this as a male who has attended campus women in CS dinners and talks. These events are open to all, but aimed at giving women interested in computer science a community, role models, etc. When I go, I am always prepared to leave if I feel that my presence is hurting the overall atmosphere, because I realize that the events are a powerful force against inequalities in society, and the least I can do is stay out of the way. And when you ask the organizers if men can come, they say yes, but they do mention that it's important for it to feel like a female space, and that if it got to the point that so many men attended that this compromised that feeling, they would start discouraging men from attending. Not every event needs to serve everyone in the industry. There are probably some language-focused meetups where you wouldn't feel especially comfortable or welcome because you don't know the language, or maybe even actively hate it. I understand that you feel it is different because you'd at least be allowed to attend a meetup for a language you don't know, but it still illustrates that not all events in the industry have to cater to you. When they're catering toward a disadvantaged group, they deserve even more leeway to make sure they achieve their goals. As long as the network of women-focused events doesn't become so large and meaningful that it is systematically disadvantaging men, I don't see any problem with some events excluding men in various ways. You're concerned about sexism in the small--in this one event. Others are more concerned with sexism in the large--the pervasive social environment that systematically discourages women from entering an extremely rewarding and lucrative industry. Both are suboptimal. In the ideal world, there wouldn't be any women-only tech events. But in the ideal world, there wouldn't be any cultural problems in the industry that make women feel less welcome and free to speak at an event with significant male attendance than at an event that is all or nearly all women. Understand that if organizers choose to, say, split the tickets so that at most 25% of tickets may go to men, they're not doing it because they want to discriminate against men, but because they worry that allowing too many men to attend will make their event less effective at correcting an injustice that we all believe is worth fixing.

jfim 14y ago

> Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning. I doubt it would go very well if someone hosted a men-only event and said "I promise we're not sexist against women." I don't think anyone is against having women-focused groups any more than having other interest-based groups. Women exclusive groups, though, do send a very conflicting message that it's okay to exclude a gender.

jt2190 14y ago
> Women exclusive groups, though, do send a very > conflicting message that it's okay to exclude a gender. Please clarify... You're saying that the currently enfranchised group (males) will get further encouragement for their exclusionary behaviors because the disenfranchised group (women) exclude males from some of their activities? Does't this completely ignore the current power imbalance between the two groups?
mlent 14y ago
The thing is, when women's groups are formed, they aren't to "keep men out". The point is that women aren't even thinking about men, they are thinking about other women. So no, I don't think it sends that message. All this line of thinking does is shift attention towards men, thus reinforcing a male-centered culture.

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago

> Why create something separate for women? Isn't that further separation? Segregation is not considered segregation if it has good intentions. The political term is "affirmative action" [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

mpyne 14y ago
Well segregation is segregation, with positive or negative overtones depending on the context like how we still to this day segregate restrooms by gender norms. Affirmative action does not necessarily mean segregation either. The NFL's "Rooney Rule" requires a minority candidate to be interviewed for head coaching vacancies but doesn't require one be selected. We'd still call that affirmative action. Rather it means merely that instead of just stopping the negative action applied against a minority and letting history take its course, that some positive action is taken to repair the damage done to the minority group, in order to actually have a chance at real equality in the future. This could include means such as segregated advocacy groups but encompasses much more.