6 ms·

That's an interesting point. I don't have any real basis to generalize, but I have been in a number of situations where business people think that tech people a

That's an interesting point. I don't have any real basis to generalize, but I have been in a number of situations where business people think that tech people are too politically correct. Coming from a general view that tech isn't really a role model in that category to begin with, that was surprising to encounter. My limited time in Europe suggests that European culture on the whole is less attentive on this subject as well. Rather notable lapses in that category also occasionally make HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3975588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3975588) but usually it somehow avoids the radar, perhaps due to Europe otherwise having a reputation as progressive/liberal.

michaelochurch 14y ago
The truth, which is ugly, is that the white-collar Work culture that has existed for over 200 years is based on some extremely sexist assumptions. It's designed in a way that makes it very difficult for women to fit in, in any stable and reliable way. Additionally, most of the things about Work that make it hard for women are also deeply defective attributes (e.g. male dominance hierarchies) of it that are maladaptive in the 21st century. Technology is still defective, but it's less-so than most other industries. The difference, and the reason there are fewer women in technology than the more defective culture of banking, is that technology's appeal is to risk-seekers and idealists... who tend in this particular context, for a variety of (probably cultural) reasons, to be men. To the extent that technology has problems, most of that comes from tech executives who swoop in to take advantage of idealistic (and socially awkward) tech people, then encourage an imbalanced and nasty culture.
- obstacle1 14y ago
  Is this a troll? I don't know your history, but I've heard that you have one, so... If this is a troll, someone let me know, please. Otherwise... >It's designed in a way that makes it very difficult for women to fit in, in any stable and reliable way. Additionally You can't just make a statement, not provide evidence, and then say "additionally...". You haven't proven your first point. What sexist assumptions is white-collar Work [sic] culture based on? And how is it designed such that it is difficult for women to fit in? >the reason there are fewer women in technology than the more defective culture of banking, is that technology's appeal is to risk-seekers and idealists This is such a ridiculous claim I don't even know where to begin. First off, I can tell you've never been anywhere near a trading floor, or a commercial bank for that matter. The entire industry is based on risk. What do you think trading is? The calculated harnessing of risk. You make bets. That is all. Pure risk. FAR more risky than technology. And further the proportion of people who are taking risks in finance is MUCH higher than the proportion who are taking risks in technology. There's only one founder per company in tech; there are 100 traders for every founder in a bank. >To the extent that technology has problems, most of that comes from tech executives who swoop in to take advantage of idealistic (and socially awkward) tech people, then encourage an imbalanced and nasty culture. Take advantage HOW? And HOW does that create the problems we're currently seeing in tech? I don't like the way you speak in platitudes. Completely devoid of content. I don't know who you are, I know you have a reputation, though, and I am ready to weather a storm in the name of truth.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    I don't know your history, but I've heard that you have one Only one? I have, like, at least five or six, my friend. What sexist assumptions is white-collar Work [sic] culture based on? And how is it designed such that it is difficult for women to fit in? Dedication and ability are assessed, in most corporations, based on antiquated, counterproductive, and fascistic reliability measures that disfavor, for one example, taking maternity (or paternity) leave or dedicating substantial energy to childcare. For a variety of reasons, some cultural, reproduction and child-raising ends up taking more of a woman's time than a man's. It's almost impossible to take 5 years out of the career game and come back in with the standing you had when you left. While that's not sexist per se, it's incredibly fucking inhumane, and happens to inflict more harm on women. First off, I can tell you've never been anywhere near a trading floor, or a commercial bank for that matter. The entire industry is based on risk. What do you think trading is? The calculated harnessing of risk. You make bets. That is all. Pure risk. FAR more risky than technology. Oh, come on. You really think making $250,000 plus commission is "risky"? Yes, if you have a bad year and the firm isn't doing well, you might get fired. Here, "fired" means you get a shit bonus, and 4 months to find another job, usually a promotion. Yeah, that's risk all right. I know enough about finance to know what I'm talking about here. I'm not denigrating financial professionals. I've worked in a few Wall Street jobs, and liked most of the people. But it's not risky to work there. Risk (with others' funds) is part of the operational calculus but it's not personally risky to be an employee. Sure, there's financial risk (again, with others' money) involved, but you have much bigger risks as a technology founder. Like losing your savings (bootstrapping failure) or risking 3 years of your career on something that turns into a no-name dud. Or you could do a great job, get screwed over by partners or investors or management, get fired with no severance and your stock diluted in some perverse way. Shit like that happens. Playing games with other peoples' money (and getting a resume/credibility boost no matter what happens) isn't nearly as risky as putting 3 years of your life into something that might wreck your career for reasons that aren't your fault. Take advantage HOW? There's a set of very talented people who have no sense of their real worth, crappy negotiation skills, and an idealistic willingness to work long hours. Most of VC-istan is about turning them into pure gold for well-connected investors and useless executive implants (read: VCs' well-connected, underachieving friends). Who do you think is paying $2 million for small houses in Silicon Valley? Not programmers with their 0.03% slices of things that got beaten to shit by multiple liquidation preferences. I know you have a reputation, though, and I am ready to weather a storm in the name of truth. Good for you.
- leoedin 14y ago
  'Technology' is such a broad field. I can tell you categorically that most people at the large technology company I work for are not in the slightest bit interested in risk. They want a regular salary to pay the mortgage and support their family and they want regular hours. There's very few idealists in my office either. Most people in technology (programming and engineering) are there because they had some sort of aptitude for it at school. There's a few idealists, and a few risk takers, but they are not the majority. The bulk of technology firms are large, established and secure.
ma2rten 14y ago
Without overgeneralizing too much, Europe does not have the same culture of political correctness as the US does. If someone makes a joke people get offended less quickly. In this case people would just think of the jokers as immature and move on. The only exception I can think of is concerning the holocaust. EDIT: Anyway, I can recommend anyone to live in another culture for some time in their life. First you will feel alienated or even offended by many of the things you hear and see. However if you look deep enough (and many people don't) you will understand that neither your culture nor theirs is right.
- _delirium 14y ago
  I'm an American who lives in Denmark, and I agree, but I'm not sure it is people getting offended less quickly in general, versus on specific subjects. There are plenty of ideas that Danes consider to be completely crazy, not really debatable in polite company. For example, suggesting that abortion should be illegal, which is a mainstream position in the USA, is such a crazy-far-right position in Denmark that you couldn't bring it up in a regular social setting. Also, suggesting that healthcare should be a purely private responsibility, not guaranteed by the state, would position you as quite far-right, with even many far-right people distancing themselves from the full extent of that position. On the other hand, Danes can come across as rather crass about some subjects, especially race.
  - gbog 14y ago
    I don't know if you are US citizen or from other American continent citizenship, but I, as a Frenchman, had the same impression, reverted, with fellow Quebequois boys. When we were casually talking between us about girls, they had a kind of transgression excitement that I did not understand. When asking, they told me they kinda weren't allowed to even think this way in their countries, let alone talking about it. For me, it was just normal boytalk sharing personal preferences for small or big female body parts, for them it was as exciting as leaking out of school to smoke a cigarette. I think it goes deeper than that. A remarkable well-documented(#) fact in the history of sexual life is that sexual perversions were much worse in places where sex was considered a sin (eg. the West), than in places were it was considered natural (eg. China). I am really concerned that, after a while, the sexual PC pressure could backfire in North America. We all know how "Hell is paved", right? (#) http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Life-Ancient-China-Gulik/dp/B001U1WGNM http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Life-Ancient-China-Gulik/dp/B00...
qw 14y ago
From my view as a Scandinavian your culture seems much more obsessed about sex and punishment than you should. 3-strike system and schools with "zero tolerance" policies are unthinkable here. I also think it's strange to see how you try to protect TV viewers from nipples and the "F-word". It's not surprising that it produces people like AR who thinks any offence is worth fighting.
- badfortrains 14y ago
  It seems that the F-word/nipples moratorium is pretty much over. While it's true that broadcast tv still can't show it, cable/satellite tv is pretty ubiquitous and free to bath us in as many nipples and F-words as they please. As for 3-strikes and "zero tolerance" that's a whole other can of worms. Looking at the disparity in US crime statistics vs Scandinavian countries, it's pretty understandable that cultural attitudes toward legal punishment are so different. 3-strikes and "zero tolerance" are wrong headed and ineffective, in my view, but you can at least empathize with the motivation (as opposed to the whole nipple thing)
  - chc 14y ago
    I have heard they're technically allowed to, but in practice, cable networks do not seem to feel free to air nudity or strong swearing. Only the "premium" channels like HBO and Showtime do that. No matter how "edgy" MTV wants to be, everyone will keep their clothes on.
    - crag 14y ago
      It's the pay channels that are "free" to do whatever they want. HBO, Showtime, Stars (etc) are all pay. Oddly though, Showtime for example sometimes air soft-core porn late a night. And while tits and ass are bouncing everywhere I have yet to see the "money shots". Male or female.

michaelochurch 14y ago

The truth, which is ugly, is that the white-collar Work culture that has existed for over 200 years is based on some extremely sexist assumptions. It's designed in a way that makes it very difficult for women to fit in, in any stable and reliable way. Additionally, most of the things about Work that make it hard for women are also deeply defective attributes (e.g. male dominance hierarchies) of it that are maladaptive in the 21st century. Technology is still defective, but it's less-so than most other industries. The difference, and the reason there are fewer women in technology than the more defective culture of banking, is that technology's appeal is to risk-seekers and idealists... who tend in this particular context, for a variety of (probably cultural) reasons, to be men. To the extent that technology has problems, most of that comes from tech executives who swoop in to take advantage of idealistic (and socially awkward) tech people, then encourage an imbalanced and nasty culture.

obstacle1 14y ago
Is this a troll? I don't know your history, but I've heard that you have one, so... If this is a troll, someone let me know, please. Otherwise... >It's designed in a way that makes it very difficult for women to fit in, in any stable and reliable way. Additionally You can't just make a statement, not provide evidence, and then say "additionally...". You haven't proven your first point. What sexist assumptions is white-collar Work [sic] culture based on? And how is it designed such that it is difficult for women to fit in? >the reason there are fewer women in technology than the more defective culture of banking, is that technology's appeal is to risk-seekers and idealists This is such a ridiculous claim I don't even know where to begin. First off, I can tell you've never been anywhere near a trading floor, or a commercial bank for that matter. The entire industry is based on risk. What do you think trading is? The calculated harnessing of risk. You make bets. That is all. Pure risk. FAR more risky than technology. And further the proportion of people who are taking risks in finance is MUCH higher than the proportion who are taking risks in technology. There's only one founder per company in tech; there are 100 traders for every founder in a bank. >To the extent that technology has problems, most of that comes from tech executives who swoop in to take advantage of idealistic (and socially awkward) tech people, then encourage an imbalanced and nasty culture. Take advantage HOW? And HOW does that create the problems we're currently seeing in tech? I don't like the way you speak in platitudes. Completely devoid of content. I don't know who you are, I know you have a reputation, though, and I am ready to weather a storm in the name of truth.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I don't know your history, but I've heard that you have one Only one? I have, like, at least five or six, my friend. What sexist assumptions is white-collar Work [sic] culture based on? And how is it designed such that it is difficult for women to fit in? Dedication and ability are assessed, in most corporations, based on antiquated, counterproductive, and fascistic reliability measures that disfavor, for one example, taking maternity (or paternity) leave or dedicating substantial energy to childcare. For a variety of reasons, some cultural, reproduction and child-raising ends up taking more of a woman's time than a man's. It's almost impossible to take 5 years out of the career game and come back in with the standing you had when you left. While that's not sexist per se, it's incredibly fucking inhumane, and happens to inflict more harm on women. First off, I can tell you've never been anywhere near a trading floor, or a commercial bank for that matter. The entire industry is based on risk. What do you think trading is? The calculated harnessing of risk. You make bets. That is all. Pure risk. FAR more risky than technology. Oh, come on. You really think making $250,000 plus commission is "risky"? Yes, if you have a bad year and the firm isn't doing well, you might get fired. Here, "fired" means you get a shit bonus, and 4 months to find another job, usually a promotion. Yeah, that's risk all right. I know enough about finance to know what I'm talking about here. I'm not denigrating financial professionals. I've worked in a few Wall Street jobs, and liked most of the people. But it's not risky to work there. Risk (with others' funds) is part of the operational calculus but it's not personally risky to be an employee. Sure, there's financial risk (again, with others' money) involved, but you have much bigger risks as a technology founder. Like losing your savings (bootstrapping failure) or risking 3 years of your career on something that turns into a no-name dud. Or you could do a great job, get screwed over by partners or investors or management, get fired with no severance and your stock diluted in some perverse way. Shit like that happens. Playing games with other peoples' money (and getting a resume/credibility boost no matter what happens) isn't nearly as risky as putting 3 years of your life into something that might wreck your career for reasons that aren't your fault. Take advantage HOW? There's a set of very talented people who have no sense of their real worth, crappy negotiation skills, and an idealistic willingness to work long hours. Most of VC-istan is about turning them into pure gold for well-connected investors and useless executive implants (read: VCs' well-connected, underachieving friends). Who do you think is paying $2 million for small houses in Silicon Valley? Not programmers with their 0.03% slices of things that got beaten to shit by multiple liquidation preferences. I know you have a reputation, though, and I am ready to weather a storm in the name of truth. Good for you.
leoedin 14y ago
'Technology' is such a broad field. I can tell you categorically that most people at the large technology company I work for are not in the slightest bit interested in risk. They want a regular salary to pay the mortgage and support their family and they want regular hours. There's very few idealists in my office either. Most people in technology (programming and engineering) are there because they had some sort of aptitude for it at school. There's a few idealists, and a few risk takers, but they are not the majority. The bulk of technology firms are large, established and secure.

ma2rten 14y ago

Without overgeneralizing too much, Europe does not have the same culture of political correctness as the US does. If someone makes a joke people get offended less quickly. In this case people would just think of the jokers as immature and move on. The only exception I can think of is concerning the holocaust. EDIT: Anyway, I can recommend anyone to live in another culture for some time in their life. First you will feel alienated or even offended by many of the things you hear and see. However if you look deep enough (and many people don't) you will understand that neither your culture nor theirs is right.

_delirium 14y ago
I'm an American who lives in Denmark, and I agree, but I'm not sure it is people getting offended less quickly in general, versus on specific subjects. There are plenty of ideas that Danes consider to be completely crazy, not really debatable in polite company. For example, suggesting that abortion should be illegal, which is a mainstream position in the USA, is such a crazy-far-right position in Denmark that you couldn't bring it up in a regular social setting. Also, suggesting that healthcare should be a purely private responsibility, not guaranteed by the state, would position you as quite far-right, with even many far-right people distancing themselves from the full extent of that position. On the other hand, Danes can come across as rather crass about some subjects, especially race.
- gbog 14y ago
  I don't know if you are US citizen or from other American continent citizenship, but I, as a Frenchman, had the same impression, reverted, with fellow Quebequois boys. When we were casually talking between us about girls, they had a kind of transgression excitement that I did not understand. When asking, they told me they kinda weren't allowed to even think this way in their countries, let alone talking about it. For me, it was just normal boytalk sharing personal preferences for small or big female body parts, for them it was as exciting as leaking out of school to smoke a cigarette. I think it goes deeper than that. A remarkable well-documented(#) fact in the history of sexual life is that sexual perversions were much worse in places where sex was considered a sin (eg. the West), than in places were it was considered natural (eg. China). I am really concerned that, after a while, the sexual PC pressure could backfire in North America. We all know how "Hell is paved", right? (#) http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Life-Ancient-China-Gulik/dp/B001U1WGNM http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Life-Ancient-China-Gulik/dp/B00...

qw 14y ago

From my view as a Scandinavian your culture seems much more obsessed about sex and punishment than you should. 3-strike system and schools with "zero tolerance" policies are unthinkable here. I also think it's strange to see how you try to protect TV viewers from nipples and the "F-word". It's not surprising that it produces people like AR who thinks any offence is worth fighting.

badfortrains 14y ago
It seems that the F-word/nipples moratorium is pretty much over. While it's true that broadcast tv still can't show it, cable/satellite tv is pretty ubiquitous and free to bath us in as many nipples and F-words as they please. As for 3-strikes and "zero tolerance" that's a whole other can of worms. Looking at the disparity in US crime statistics vs Scandinavian countries, it's pretty understandable that cultural attitudes toward legal punishment are so different. 3-strikes and "zero tolerance" are wrong headed and ineffective, in my view, but you can at least empathize with the motivation (as opposed to the whole nipple thing)
- chc 14y ago
  I have heard they're technically allowed to, but in practice, cable networks do not seem to feel free to air nudity or strong swearing. Only the "premium" channels like HBO and Showtime do that. No matter how "edgy" MTV wants to be, everyone will keep their clothes on.
  - crag 14y ago
    It's the pay channels that are "free" to do whatever they want. HBO, Showtime, Stars (etc) are all pay. Oddly though, Showtime for example sometimes air soft-core porn late a night. And while tits and ass are bouncing everywhere I have yet to see the "money shots". Male or female.