4 ms·

I'd like to step through this line of thinking. First let's agree on three things: - Recently the gender/sex/sexism issue in software has grown. There are pro

by rozap 14y ago

I'd like to step through this line of thinking. First let's agree on three things: - Recently the gender/sex/sexism issue in software has grown. There are programs to try and get more women involved, which is cool. There's generally a post or two about it on the front page of HN every day. It's a major theme. - Due to the fact that it's a major recurring theme, I'd wager that it's a big problem in tech and therefore it upsets lots of people. - Because it's a major recurring theme for many people, any change in either direction (greater or lesser equality) is a pretty big deal. If you're still with me, then here's where the disagreement arises. If you're of the opinion that this debacle has moved the "get more women in tech" issue backwards, then it's plenty of a reason to be upset. Likewise this works in the other direction. So if this is an issue that you care about, and the developer evangelist (and I assume that's sort of like PR? Represents the company on a more social than technical level? Correct me if I'm wrong) has moved this movement in the wrong direction I think it's perfectly fair to not give them your money. Maybe that's reading into it too much, but I would guess that that is the logic behind that sort of decision.

djcapelis 14y ago
I think that if someone cares about these issues in the way you've outline and wants to operate from that frame, they need to talk about those issues directly. I agree that could be a reasonable discussion to have, but I don't think it's the discussion we're having. But thanks for elucidating an alternative motive. I agree that you could step through the thinking outlined (though I'm not sure I would agree with some of those pieces) and end up at that position. But, I do not believe the motive you presented is the simplest explanation for the actual motive that leads most people to that conclusion and the more likely explanation is that this is a repeat of the same dynamic that occurs whenever a woman in tech speaks out about women in tech in a way that seriously perturbs things. This happens a lot. I think we'd be a lot farther on the issue than we are if we could assume that everyone was viewing these types of things through the lense of "what makes this issue better or worse?"

by rozap 14y ago

djcapelis 14y ago

I think that if someone cares about these issues in the way you've outline and wants to operate from that frame, they need to talk about those issues directly. I agree that could be a reasonable discussion to have, but I don't think it's the discussion we're having. But thanks for elucidating an alternative motive. I agree that you could step through the thinking outlined (though I'm not sure I would agree with some of those pieces) and end up at that position. But, I do not believe the motive you presented is the simplest explanation for the actual motive that leads most people to that conclusion and the more likely explanation is that this is a repeat of the same dynamic that occurs whenever a woman in tech speaks out about women in tech in a way that seriously perturbs things. This happens a lot. I think we'd be a lot farther on the issue than we are if we could assume that everyone was viewing these types of things through the lense of "what makes this issue better or worse?"