10 ms·

No, I Don't Want a Ticket for the Women's Luncheon

claudius 13y ago
What I never quite get…if feminism is exactly the same as humanism, why the hell invent a new word for this wonderful, 200 years-old concept?
- JonnieCache 13y ago
  Because there's a crossover between feminism the philosophical worldview, which is arguably very close to humanism, and feminism the activist movement which has the rather more immediate goal of liberating women from the threat(s) of physical violence which apply to them specifically. Obviously that kind of thing requires a banner for people to rally under. But you're right it's a pretty nebulous thing. I guess that's why people keep trying to redefine it with successive "waves." EDIT: also feminism isn't exactly a recent thing either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette
  - claudius 13y ago
    > Because there's a crossover between feminism the philosophical worldview, which is arguably very close to humanism But not using humanism here opens the field for this radical crowd, who call themselves feminists, you usually find on Tumblr (and a few other places) and who find sexual harassment against men perfectly fine, because, hey, it’s feminism and all men are unworthy of one’s respect anyways. The civil rights movement in the US managed to pick a word that was not so easily abused by radicals.
    - illuminate 13y ago
      "not using humanism here opens the field for this radical crowd, who call themselves feminists" Feminism is a specific application of humanism. Humanism is feminism. Self-ascription means that anyone can call themselves a "feminist", so you'd be harping about all the women in "humanism" when they're supposed to be promoting HUMANS NOT WOMEN. You'd have something to complain about no matter what they called themselves.
  - madaxe 13y ago
    I find the whole "threat of physical violence" thing objectionable, personally. Sure, men are generally bigger than women, but culturally, men are trained to not raise a finger against women, whereas women are trained to have no such compunction. Apocryphal, I know, but I have never, ever, ever, and never will, raise a hand or my voice to a woman, yet have been on the receiving end of domestic violence more than a few times. I'm not a small chap, at 200lbs and 6'3", but: I've been stabbed in the leg by a stilleto (a heel, not a dagger), for accusing a girlfriend of cheating with my housemate (she was). I was given a fractured eyesocket by another ex who pushed me down the stairs while she (and I, admittedly) was drunk, "because". I can cite plenty of other examples of woman-on-man violence immediate to me, but shan't, as my point isn't one of "oh but women are the perpetrators", but one of "humans are the perpetrators". In a world where practically anyone can lay their hands on an object that in any hands can become a weapon with ease, I don't think it's valid to say that "domestic violence is a result of men, and women, specifically, are its victims".
    - samastur 13y ago
      I am sure you can, but statistics are not on your side. Domestic violence is mostly done by men. I hope your choice of companions have improved since.
      - madaxe 13y ago
        Statistics are derived from crime reports. Men do not report domestic violence against them by women. I went to hospital for "sitting on a shoe" and "tripping and smacking my face on a bannister". Ergo, whatever statistics you're looking at, sample bias, sample bias, sample bias.
    - hurfdurferson 13y ago
      You should've treated those incidents of assault as exactly that: assault. When adults physically assault other adults that is a crime and not reporting it doesn't make it any less of a crime. Just "taking it" means that an attacker can move on uncorrected to assault another person possibly making you complicit in another criminal act.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    >feminism the activist movement which has the rather more immediate goal of liberating women from the threat(s) of physical violence which apply to them specifically // So are you saying that suffragettes, say, weren't feminists; or that they weren't activists. Your claim that feminism is primarily about protecting women from men trying to commit violence against them is bunkum. Feminism is about promoting the rights of women. Equality of opportunity is a finer cause IMO. This comment, http://stronglikebool.com/post/2013/04/10/No-I-Dont-Want-a-Ticket-for-the-Womens-Luncheon#id_7e58a44d-16d7-4bdc-bf82-b7e9fb30eda9 http://stronglikebool.com/post/2013/04/10/No-I-Dont-Want-a-T..., on the article is fascinating. She wants what people are railing against - the opportunity to discriminate sexually against those who are around her just because she likes it that way. Can you imagine a tech firm that had a "men only" event? To answer her question - I don't find it wrong at all just as long as she realises it's sexist. Sexual discrimination is a natural part of the human condition.
- AndrewDucker 13y ago
  Because you have one overarching goal (Treat all people having equal rights), and numerous different areas that need dealing with (racism, sexism, homophobia). Feminism is simply the part that's dealing with sexism.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - jules 13y ago
    It's a bit unfortunate that the term for gender equality is so gender biased.
    - Goronmon 13y ago
      One could argue that sexism tends to be gender biased.
      - jules 13y ago
        Certainly, but it's not completely one sided, which is why a word that is completely one sided is unfortunate. It's unfortunate because it simultaneously alienates some reasonable people who would be comfortable participating under a gender neutral term and attracts some radical people who would not be comfortable participating under a gender neutral term.
        wonderzombie 13y ago
        It's not completely one-sided, but I'll note that there's no reason why we need to characterize it in terms of sides. Many issues feminists rail against have implications for men's quality of life, as well. Traditional gender roles have plenty of pernicious effects on men.
        jules 13y ago
        That is exactly my point why a gender neutral term would be beneficial.
- blocking_io 13y ago
  This article is wrong. Humanism is not feminism. Humanism is not related at all to tackling sexist discrimination (although many humanists may be feminists). Using the same word for two different movements would just be confusing.
  - claudius 13y ago
    How is humanism, the very idea that all humans should be treated equal and are of equal worth regardless of their sex, race, sexual orientation etc. not tackling sexist discrimination? I, as a self-proclaimed humanist, find any[0] differentiation based on such a criterion not worthy of a modern society. I do however have a problem with a word/movement that I have trouble defining without resorting to sexism. [0] Okay, there are obviously areas where sexism/racism is perfectly fine: A MD’s office, for example, or your bedroom. But those are really the only two I can think of at the moment.
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      child care employee? Or you'd be fine with regulation that 50% of all child care employees have to be men?
      - claudius 13y ago
        Why exactly do you think that men are worse than women at child care? And no, ideally, I would want the law to be gender-blind and personally I couldn’t care less about the gender of the person one day taking care of my child. However, if we want to introduce gender quota, I expect them to apply to every profession and every position from childcare to firefighter (and ideally to membership in private associations/clubs as well…hell, why not also to school/university classes?).
        LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
        >Why exactly do you think that men are worse than women at >child care? Me? I don't think so. Women do. My uncle owns a few child care centers in the North-East. He never hires male employees. Why? Because the one he did a few years back was very soon accused of pheadophilia by one of the mothers. She didn't like the way he changed diapers on her daughter. Then my uncle learned it happens all the time with the child care centers. The mothers will sue as soon as they realize a male is hired. They accuse of peadophilia hoping to get good ROI on their action. That's why you'll never see a male in a child care center in the US, my friend. Because the mothers apparently are sexist. Or the courts. Or you tell me. >And no, ideally, I would want the law to be gender-blind and >personally I couldn’t care less about the gender of the >person one day taking care of my child. The problem is that the most people are not you. Most people will sue. Rightfully or not. >However, if we want to introduce gender quota, I expect them >to apply to every profession and every position from >childcare to firefighter (and ideally to membership in >private associations/clubs as well…hell, why not also to >school/university classes?). Why to stop with gender quota there? Why not to have a gender quota in divorce rulings? 50% cases kids go to the mother, 50% cases kids go to the father? Or maybe you praise gender equality only in the workforce and not in the social life in general?
- illuminate 13y ago
  Because several concepts can exist at the same time. Why address problems with women when issues of race and class exist? Why better your country when people are dying elsewhere? Why focus on people dying elsewhere when people are dying right next door to your neighborhood? Your nitpicks are unnecessary.
shared4you 13y ago
The site seems to be down for me. So, Webcache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:stronglikebool.com/post/2013/04/10/No-I-Dont-Want-a-Ticket-for-the-Womens-Luncheon http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:strongl...
- darxius 13y ago
  Looks like even this link is having problems
  - erre 13y ago
    Click "text only", at the top-right corner. The Google Cache version loads the original images, and this sometimes makes it stall as well.
    - darxius 13y ago
      Ah yes, thanks that worked.
swombat 13y ago
At the (alarmingly high) risk of being completely misunderstood, I for one think the whole "sexism in technology" is an issue that isn't worth sparing time to think about. Some people are jerks. That's true of all contexts of life. Jerks should be shunned not because they are sexist, but because they are jerks. If a guy who's a jerk starts a company, he'll probably hire other guy-jerks, miss out on having some balance on his team, and have a crappy company no one wants to work with. If a non-jerk guy starts a company, he'll probably make efforts to create an environment that's as respectful and balanced as he is, and not hire jerks. Respect is important - I wouldn't hire someone who's consistently disrespectful, no matter their gender. I'd argue that the reason why there's a whole "women in technology" drama going on at all is because a lot of people (quite independent of them being male or female) in the tech scene are jerks. (this is also why this is an even bigger problem online, because as we all know, a large proportion of people follow the GIFT theory online and act like complete assholes, making statements that would get them ejected out of any social situation) Why are there so many jerks in technology? We could spend forever discussing that, but probably for the same reason that any successful industry attracts jerks, male or female. The problem isn't worth worrying about in a generic sense. I look at this as a "intelligent, civilised person vs jerk" problem, not a "male vs female" problem. That problem is as old as the world, and as someone who (I hope) is not a jerk, I don't deal with it using generalities, but targeting specific jerks if they can't be coached into being civilised. In other words, if you identify someone who's regularly being a jerk, deal with them. If you're in charge and you're creating an environment where people are being jerks, look in the mirror. Otherwise, don't waste time thinking about this "issue". Edit: Worth adding that this doesn't mean it isn't worth thinking about the issue of sexism in general - that is something where we still have to make a lot of progress, especially in some parts of the world - but that's not specific to technology at all.
- shantanubala 13y ago
  I think there are two problems: sexism and an imbalance of males and females in technology. They're not the same, though they're linked in some ways. Sexism is hard to address effectively, and attempting to confront it can sometimes make things worse. Proceed with caution. What is easier to address (but still difficult) is recruiting more women -- this can also make it easy to identify sexism, because if more women are present, sexism can be harder to hide. Although I disagree that ignoring an imbalance will make it go away, there is another reason why trying to have more women on your team is important: if 50% of the people consuming software are women, it's quite possible that a team of 90% men is missing out on opportunities. Though Pinterest is a good recent example that most men simply don't appreciate to the same degree as women, there may be some hidden market opportunities that are shrouded by the current gender ratios in technology.
subsystem 13y ago
"I don't know, I couldn't bring myself to go." This made the argument far less interesting. Preconceived notions are easy. Exposing yourself to something with an open mind, less so.
_delirium 13y ago
I don't think there's a bright-line answer for when having groups dedicated to specific issues or points of identity is useful and when it isn't useful. Some women find meetups specifically aimed at discussing issues related to women in technology useful, and others don't. The woman who wrote this article doesn't, and appears to be generalizing, based on a rather limited understanding of feminism and not having even attended the event in question, to argue that no other woman should either. You find some similar splits of opinion relating to LGBT organizations: some people join them, attend events, etc., while others studiously avoid them and sometimes even resent their existence or any implication that they should attend.
realrocker 13y ago
The women who are beating their "bosoms" to get more attention, probably come off as irritating to some people. But the matter of the fact is, IT "is" a male dominated field. It's not just about women equality in the sense that they should be treated "equally" and not "fairly". As long as the balance of representation is tipped towards men, these women, however loud and tangential they might be, are needed. They are like lightning bolts attracting debate. If everyone just shuts up, there is danger of passively moving back to an even more male dominated sector.
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
Over 90% of children whose parents went through divorce end up with mother. Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men and we enforce it by law. At the same time we're still in middle-ages thinking that a male can't be as a good parent as a female. It's all very one-sided. As long as women get what they want. It definitely is not about equal places in the society. Women got more in the past 50 years, men lost their natural advantage in the workforce but still are destined to fullfil typical, stereotypical roles in their families (a.k.a 'providers'). I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up.
- jokull 13y ago
  Are you kidding me? Ending up with the kid after a divorce takes opportunities away too. It’s what is expected of most women and in my mind contributes to inequality tipping job opportunities and hirability in the favor of men.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    Then - as a long as you are a woman in court - you can always say "I don't want these kids". Bam, they go to the father. That's exactly how it happens in the courts in the US. As easy as that. Contrary to what you claim, somehow never happens. Over 90% want the kids. And I'm not surprised. Somehow they want it all.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- oinksoft 13y ago
  Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men men lost their natural advantage in the workforce To be able to make these claims so boldly .. you must have no shame whatsoever.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    so you need to take it out of the context to call me shameless? You changed the meaning and you know it. Better downvote without commenting if you have to employ dirty tactics like this. EDIT: typo meaning instead of meanings
PakG1 13y ago
I don't get the not wanting to attend a luncheon like this. Men have had their boys clubs for a long time. Why can't women have their girls clubs? If she had a bad experience clothing teddy bears, sipping cocoa, and talking about boys, that's not the fault of these types of events. That's the fault of the event organizer. You don't swear to never receive cash from someone again because you once got burned by receiving counterfeit money. When I was in high school, I was part of the science club. Ironically (I guess because I'm a guy?), one of the events I helped to organize every year was the Ms. Infinity Conference, a conference where young girls were invited to learn about opportunities in science, hear from women in science, learn about what was interesting about science, etc. I can assure you there was an agenda that kept the attendees focused on the subject at hand. It was respectful and hopefully helpful and inspirational.
- 108 13y ago
  Yeah, she has a formed a notion about the event even before attending it. Based on what - one negative high school experience?
- stmchn 13y ago
  While I agree it would be silly or her to refuse to go just based on some club she was in in high school, I'd be willing to bet she's been exposed to more women in tech groups throughout her career as well. This is just speaking from personal experience but a lot of these groups are the "clothing teddy bears and sipping cocoa" variety. It's a little bizarre actually how patronizing some of these events are and it's all self-imposed. It's just too easy to fall into a circlejerk of meaningless talks and discussions about sexism and empty compliments, awards and recognition. I know that's kind of a generalization and not all organizations are like this but I doubt I'd ever go to a women in tech luncheon again either.
  - PakG1 13y ago
    Self-imposed is an interesting phrase. Interesting anecdote: http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandberg-sitting-at-the-table-2013-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandberg-sitting-at-th...
stmchn 13y ago
I'm really glad to see an article like this and it's exactly how I feel about a lot of women in tech events. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only woman who feels this way and it's a betrayal to denounce these groups in the midst of all these gender debates we're having in the hacker community. I joined a women in tech group in college when I started Computer Science. I was super excited and sincerely believed in the cause and I threw myself into it 100%. By the end of the semester, what had I accomplished, really? I had made countless posters and pink ribbons and cutesy giveaways for our school fair booth and what felt like zero progress on making things better for women in tech. Instead, it was just a monthly meeting where we patted each other on the back without really doing anything. I'm sure there are groups out there that accomplish real and admirable things but I think it's far too easy to fall into just self-congratulating each other and approaching all the wrong issues.
- astrieanna 13y ago
  I agree with you. It may be that I'm just partially missing the point of the groups, but I think that what I was actually looking for from women-in-CS groups is "doing very technical things with other women". Most women-in-cs/tech groups I've encountered are more "doing/talking about female-focused things with women who are technical". Do you think there are groups that do what I was really looking for?
  - stmchn 13y ago
    There was a blog post a couple days ago that said it really well: http://trishkhoo.com/2013/04/i-knew-exactly-how-she-felt/ http://trishkhoo.com/2013/04/i-knew-exactly-how-she-felt/ "that’s what happens when we hold events for women in IT when there aren’t that many women in this industry – we tend to broaden the definition of women in IT." There's so few women in tech that groups like this tends to draw some women who are not even remotely technical (I remember for our women in tech group in college, we held an annual networking event where we invited "real women industry professionals" but the vast majority of them were marketing or HR). I'd like to optimistically think that "women that do technical things with other women" groups will become more prevalent the more women enter the field. I'd love to join a group like that but it's difficult in my area where there are two female CS students in my senior level classes (one of them is me).
mtowle 13y ago
I hesitate to write the following, because I don't see anyone say it - maybe I'm not looking in the right places? But Stephanie's description here... it's of course non-coincidental that the teddy bear party is para 1, the luncheon invite is para 2, and both were held under the guise of Celebrating Women in Tech. (I know, I'm Captain Obvious SS3.) Which makes this maybe 10 blog posts I, personally, have come across (just me, maybe not you) written by women in tech who all have low opinions of Women in Tech conferences/Tech Conferences, Guest Starring: Women. Reasons for the low opinions vary from post to post and/or writer to writer (I can't tell which). If you're reading this, you're familiar with all of them and their various refactored forms, so we don't need to reiterate. It can't be a coincidence. It just can't be random that so many of these meetups and luncheons and what-have-you's, according to Stephanie, et al., are all teddy-bear-terrible. I've never been to one, so I have zero clue - all I have to go on is blogger opinion and my own flawed guesstimations of the writer's basis for opinion (intellect, lived experience, etc). So if, after reading the next two paras, you think I'm indeed taking crazy pills, you need to tell me. It would seem to me, to speak freely, that the common thread in that links Encourage/Celebrate/Defend Women in Tech and teddy-bear-terribleness is: organizers with an agenda other than encouraging/celebrating/defending women in tech. Like, okay, yes, Mrs. Weber had her heart in the right place and just Didn't Get It, but I don't mean her. I mean to submit to you that there's a kind of response bias/selection bias/something-or-other bias at play that makes it so that the organizers putting on these conferences are extremely likely to volunteer themselves for lowercase-p political reasons. If I had to guess, I'd guess that they're i) Vitamin-C junkies ("C" for connections, i.e. networking), and ii) they've (rightly?) identified WiTC as their perfect target, their mile-wide bullseye. In an industry of subdivided technical interest after subdivided technical interest, of high/impossible standards, harsh feedback, and of fickle audiences whose attention spans are exactly equal to the number of milliseconds it takes them to hit CTRL-T.... WiT confs are guaranteed high turnout (by tech meetup standards - and if you haven't attended a meetup without a buzzword in the title, don't talk), they're guaranteed to be lauded (by some vocal fraction), the content standards are Marianas-low, and the "return customers," whatever fraction they represent, are amazingly passionate toward the subject and therefore you, the organizer. From the look of it, WitC organizers may as well have invented a perpetual orange juicing machine. Or if any of you read Phantom Tollbooth as a kid, "Subtraction Soup" (the more you eat, the hungrier you get) but like with lots of Vitamin-C in it or something and also the secret ingredient is heroin. Oh and as for why there aren't (m)any good organizers, i.e. the kind that hated the teddy bear factory: if there were an equation that described Eternal Septembering, it would include p^3 where p is how mainstream party-political (as opposed to body-political, the way Assange uses the terms) the topic of discussion is. So like r/politics has seen several geological epochs worth of Septembers at this point. The bigger and louder and more influential your pet WiT conference grows, the faster Jezebel & Co. will show up and start beating their bosoms, as Stephanie so eloquently put it. No TL;DR. First time submitting a crazy pills idea for public criticism, you have to say things the way you've been thinking them.

What I never quite get…if feminism is exactly the same as humanism, why the hell invent a new word for this wonderful, 200 years-old concept?

JonnieCache 13y ago
Because there's a crossover between feminism the philosophical worldview, which is arguably very close to humanism, and feminism the activist movement which has the rather more immediate goal of liberating women from the threat(s) of physical violence which apply to them specifically. Obviously that kind of thing requires a banner for people to rally under. But you're right it's a pretty nebulous thing. I guess that's why people keep trying to redefine it with successive "waves." EDIT: also feminism isn't exactly a recent thing either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette
- claudius 13y ago
  > Because there's a crossover between feminism the philosophical worldview, which is arguably very close to humanism But not using humanism here opens the field for this radical crowd, who call themselves feminists, you usually find on Tumblr (and a few other places) and who find sexual harassment against men perfectly fine, because, hey, it’s feminism and all men are unworthy of one’s respect anyways. The civil rights movement in the US managed to pick a word that was not so easily abused by radicals.
  - illuminate 13y ago
    "not using humanism here opens the field for this radical crowd, who call themselves feminists" Feminism is a specific application of humanism. Humanism is feminism. Self-ascription means that anyone can call themselves a "feminist", so you'd be harping about all the women in "humanism" when they're supposed to be promoting HUMANS NOT WOMEN. You'd have something to complain about no matter what they called themselves.
- madaxe 13y ago
  I find the whole "threat of physical violence" thing objectionable, personally. Sure, men are generally bigger than women, but culturally, men are trained to not raise a finger against women, whereas women are trained to have no such compunction. Apocryphal, I know, but I have never, ever, ever, and never will, raise a hand or my voice to a woman, yet have been on the receiving end of domestic violence more than a few times. I'm not a small chap, at 200lbs and 6'3", but: I've been stabbed in the leg by a stilleto (a heel, not a dagger), for accusing a girlfriend of cheating with my housemate (she was). I was given a fractured eyesocket by another ex who pushed me down the stairs while she (and I, admittedly) was drunk, "because". I can cite plenty of other examples of woman-on-man violence immediate to me, but shan't, as my point isn't one of "oh but women are the perpetrators", but one of "humans are the perpetrators". In a world where practically anyone can lay their hands on an object that in any hands can become a weapon with ease, I don't think it's valid to say that "domestic violence is a result of men, and women, specifically, are its victims".
  - samastur 13y ago
    I am sure you can, but statistics are not on your side. Domestic violence is mostly done by men. I hope your choice of companions have improved since.
    - madaxe 13y ago
      Statistics are derived from crime reports. Men do not report domestic violence against them by women. I went to hospital for "sitting on a shoe" and "tripping and smacking my face on a bannister". Ergo, whatever statistics you're looking at, sample bias, sample bias, sample bias.
  - hurfdurferson 13y ago
    You should've treated those incidents of assault as exactly that: assault. When adults physically assault other adults that is a crime and not reporting it doesn't make it any less of a crime. Just "taking it" means that an attacker can move on uncorrected to assault another person possibly making you complicit in another criminal act.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >feminism the activist movement which has the rather more immediate goal of liberating women from the threat(s) of physical violence which apply to them specifically // So are you saying that suffragettes, say, weren't feminists; or that they weren't activists. Your claim that feminism is primarily about protecting women from men trying to commit violence against them is bunkum. Feminism is about promoting the rights of women. Equality of opportunity is a finer cause IMO. This comment, http://stronglikebool.com/post/2013/04/10/No-I-Dont-Want-a-Ticket-for-the-Womens-Luncheon#id_7e58a44d-16d7-4bdc-bf82-b7e9fb30eda9 http://stronglikebool.com/post/2013/04/10/No-I-Dont-Want-a-T..., on the article is fascinating. She wants what people are railing against - the opportunity to discriminate sexually against those who are around her just because she likes it that way. Can you imagine a tech firm that had a "men only" event? To answer her question - I don't find it wrong at all just as long as she realises it's sexist. Sexual discrimination is a natural part of the human condition.
AndrewDucker 13y ago
Because you have one overarching goal (Treat all people having equal rights), and numerous different areas that need dealing with (racism, sexism, homophobia). Feminism is simply the part that's dealing with sexism.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jules 13y ago
  It's a bit unfortunate that the term for gender equality is so gender biased.
  - Goronmon 13y ago
    One could argue that sexism tends to be gender biased.
    - jules 13y ago
      Certainly, but it's not completely one sided, which is why a word that is completely one sided is unfortunate. It's unfortunate because it simultaneously alienates some reasonable people who would be comfortable participating under a gender neutral term and attracts some radical people who would not be comfortable participating under a gender neutral term.
      - wonderzombie 13y ago
        It's not completely one-sided, but I'll note that there's no reason why we need to characterize it in terms of sides. Many issues feminists rail against have implications for men's quality of life, as well. Traditional gender roles have plenty of pernicious effects on men.
        jules 13y ago
        That is exactly my point why a gender neutral term would be beneficial.
blocking_io 13y ago
This article is wrong. Humanism is not feminism. Humanism is not related at all to tackling sexist discrimination (although many humanists may be feminists). Using the same word for two different movements would just be confusing.
- claudius 13y ago
  How is humanism, the very idea that all humans should be treated equal and are of equal worth regardless of their sex, race, sexual orientation etc. not tackling sexist discrimination? I, as a self-proclaimed humanist, find any[0] differentiation based on such a criterion not worthy of a modern society. I do however have a problem with a word/movement that I have trouble defining without resorting to sexism. [0] Okay, there are obviously areas where sexism/racism is perfectly fine: A MD’s office, for example, or your bedroom. But those are really the only two I can think of at the moment.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    child care employee? Or you'd be fine with regulation that 50% of all child care employees have to be men?
    - claudius 13y ago
      Why exactly do you think that men are worse than women at child care? And no, ideally, I would want the law to be gender-blind and personally I couldn’t care less about the gender of the person one day taking care of my child. However, if we want to introduce gender quota, I expect them to apply to every profession and every position from childcare to firefighter (and ideally to membership in private associations/clubs as well…hell, why not also to school/university classes?).
      - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
        >Why exactly do you think that men are worse than women at >child care? Me? I don't think so. Women do. My uncle owns a few child care centers in the North-East. He never hires male employees. Why? Because the one he did a few years back was very soon accused of pheadophilia by one of the mothers. She didn't like the way he changed diapers on her daughter. Then my uncle learned it happens all the time with the child care centers. The mothers will sue as soon as they realize a male is hired. They accuse of peadophilia hoping to get good ROI on their action. That's why you'll never see a male in a child care center in the US, my friend. Because the mothers apparently are sexist. Or the courts. Or you tell me. >And no, ideally, I would want the law to be gender-blind and >personally I couldn’t care less about the gender of the >person one day taking care of my child. The problem is that the most people are not you. Most people will sue. Rightfully or not. >However, if we want to introduce gender quota, I expect them >to apply to every profession and every position from >childcare to firefighter (and ideally to membership in >private associations/clubs as well…hell, why not also to >school/university classes?). Why to stop with gender quota there? Why not to have a gender quota in divorce rulings? 50% cases kids go to the mother, 50% cases kids go to the father? Or maybe you praise gender equality only in the workforce and not in the social life in general?
illuminate 13y ago
Because several concepts can exist at the same time. Why address problems with women when issues of race and class exist? Why better your country when people are dying elsewhere? Why focus on people dying elsewhere when people are dying right next door to your neighborhood? Your nitpicks are unnecessary.

shared4you 13y ago

The site seems to be down for me. So, Webcache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:stronglikebool.com/post/2013/04/10/No-I-Dont-Want-a-Ticket-for-the-Womens-Luncheon http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:strongl...

darxius 13y ago
Looks like even this link is having problems
- erre 13y ago
  Click "text only", at the top-right corner. The Google Cache version loads the original images, and this sometimes makes it stall as well.
  - darxius 13y ago
    Ah yes, thanks that worked.

swombat 13y ago

At the (alarmingly high) risk of being completely misunderstood, I for one think the whole "sexism in technology" is an issue that isn't worth sparing time to think about. Some people are jerks. That's true of all contexts of life. Jerks should be shunned not because they are sexist, but because they are jerks. If a guy who's a jerk starts a company, he'll probably hire other guy-jerks, miss out on having some balance on his team, and have a crappy company no one wants to work with. If a non-jerk guy starts a company, he'll probably make efforts to create an environment that's as respectful and balanced as he is, and not hire jerks. Respect is important - I wouldn't hire someone who's consistently disrespectful, no matter their gender. I'd argue that the reason why there's a whole "women in technology" drama going on at all is because a lot of people (quite independent of them being male or female) in the tech scene are jerks. (this is also why this is an even bigger problem online, because as we all know, a large proportion of people follow the GIFT theory online and act like complete assholes, making statements that would get them ejected out of any social situation) Why are there so many jerks in technology? We could spend forever discussing that, but probably for the same reason that any successful industry attracts jerks, male or female. The problem isn't worth worrying about in a generic sense. I look at this as a "intelligent, civilised person vs jerk" problem, not a "male vs female" problem. That problem is as old as the world, and as someone who (I hope) is not a jerk, I don't deal with it using generalities, but targeting specific jerks if they can't be coached into being civilised. In other words, if you identify someone who's regularly being a jerk, deal with them. If you're in charge and you're creating an environment where people are being jerks, look in the mirror. Otherwise, don't waste time thinking about this "issue". Edit: Worth adding that this doesn't mean it isn't worth thinking about the issue of sexism in general - that is something where we still have to make a lot of progress, especially in some parts of the world - but that's not specific to technology at all.

shantanubala 13y ago
I think there are two problems: sexism and an imbalance of males and females in technology. They're not the same, though they're linked in some ways. Sexism is hard to address effectively, and attempting to confront it can sometimes make things worse. Proceed with caution. What is easier to address (but still difficult) is recruiting more women -- this can also make it easy to identify sexism, because if more women are present, sexism can be harder to hide. Although I disagree that ignoring an imbalance will make it go away, there is another reason why trying to have more women on your team is important: if 50% of the people consuming software are women, it's quite possible that a team of 90% men is missing out on opportunities. Though Pinterest is a good recent example that most men simply don't appreciate to the same degree as women, there may be some hidden market opportunities that are shrouded by the current gender ratios in technology.

subsystem 13y ago

"I don't know, I couldn't bring myself to go." This made the argument far less interesting. Preconceived notions are easy. Exposing yourself to something with an open mind, less so.

_delirium 13y ago

I don't think there's a bright-line answer for when having groups dedicated to specific issues or points of identity is useful and when it isn't useful. Some women find meetups specifically aimed at discussing issues related to women in technology useful, and others don't. The woman who wrote this article doesn't, and appears to be generalizing, based on a rather limited understanding of feminism and not having even attended the event in question, to argue that no other woman should either. You find some similar splits of opinion relating to LGBT organizations: some people join them, attend events, etc., while others studiously avoid them and sometimes even resent their existence or any implication that they should attend.

realrocker 13y ago

The women who are beating their "bosoms" to get more attention, probably come off as irritating to some people. But the matter of the fact is, IT "is" a male dominated field. It's not just about women equality in the sense that they should be treated "equally" and not "fairly". As long as the balance of representation is tipped towards men, these women, however loud and tangential they might be, are needed. They are like lightning bolts attracting debate. If everyone just shuts up, there is danger of passively moving back to an even more male dominated sector.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

Over 90% of children whose parents went through divorce end up with mother. Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men and we enforce it by law. At the same time we're still in middle-ages thinking that a male can't be as a good parent as a female. It's all very one-sided. As long as women get what they want. It definitely is not about equal places in the society. Women got more in the past 50 years, men lost their natural advantage in the workforce but still are destined to fullfil typical, stereotypical roles in their families (a.k.a 'providers'). I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up.

jokull 13y ago
Are you kidding me? Ending up with the kid after a divorce takes opportunities away too. It’s what is expected of most women and in my mind contributes to inequality tipping job opportunities and hirability in the favor of men.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  Then - as a long as you are a woman in court - you can always say "I don't want these kids". Bam, they go to the father. That's exactly how it happens in the courts in the US. As easy as that. Contrary to what you claim, somehow never happens. Over 90% want the kids. And I'm not surprised. Somehow they want it all.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
oinksoft 13y ago
Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men men lost their natural advantage in the workforce To be able to make these claims so boldly .. you must have no shame whatsoever.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  so you need to take it out of the context to call me shameless? You changed the meaning and you know it. Better downvote without commenting if you have to employ dirty tactics like this. EDIT: typo meaning instead of meanings

PakG1 13y ago

I don't get the not wanting to attend a luncheon like this. Men have had their boys clubs for a long time. Why can't women have their girls clubs? If she had a bad experience clothing teddy bears, sipping cocoa, and talking about boys, that's not the fault of these types of events. That's the fault of the event organizer. You don't swear to never receive cash from someone again because you once got burned by receiving counterfeit money. When I was in high school, I was part of the science club. Ironically (I guess because I'm a guy?), one of the events I helped to organize every year was the Ms. Infinity Conference, a conference where young girls were invited to learn about opportunities in science, hear from women in science, learn about what was interesting about science, etc. I can assure you there was an agenda that kept the attendees focused on the subject at hand. It was respectful and hopefully helpful and inspirational.

108 13y ago
Yeah, she has a formed a notion about the event even before attending it. Based on what - one negative high school experience?
stmchn 13y ago
While I agree it would be silly or her to refuse to go just based on some club she was in in high school, I'd be willing to bet she's been exposed to more women in tech groups throughout her career as well. This is just speaking from personal experience but a lot of these groups are the "clothing teddy bears and sipping cocoa" variety. It's a little bizarre actually how patronizing some of these events are and it's all self-imposed. It's just too easy to fall into a circlejerk of meaningless talks and discussions about sexism and empty compliments, awards and recognition. I know that's kind of a generalization and not all organizations are like this but I doubt I'd ever go to a women in tech luncheon again either.
- PakG1 13y ago
  Self-imposed is an interesting phrase. Interesting anecdote: http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandberg-sitting-at-the-table-2013-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandberg-sitting-at-th...

stmchn 13y ago

I'm really glad to see an article like this and it's exactly how I feel about a lot of women in tech events. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only woman who feels this way and it's a betrayal to denounce these groups in the midst of all these gender debates we're having in the hacker community. I joined a women in tech group in college when I started Computer Science. I was super excited and sincerely believed in the cause and I threw myself into it 100%. By the end of the semester, what had I accomplished, really? I had made countless posters and pink ribbons and cutesy giveaways for our school fair booth and what felt like zero progress on making things better for women in tech. Instead, it was just a monthly meeting where we patted each other on the back without really doing anything. I'm sure there are groups out there that accomplish real and admirable things but I think it's far too easy to fall into just self-congratulating each other and approaching all the wrong issues.

astrieanna 13y ago
I agree with you. It may be that I'm just partially missing the point of the groups, but I think that what I was actually looking for from women-in-CS groups is "doing very technical things with other women". Most women-in-cs/tech groups I've encountered are more "doing/talking about female-focused things with women who are technical". Do you think there are groups that do what I was really looking for?
- stmchn 13y ago
  There was a blog post a couple days ago that said it really well: http://trishkhoo.com/2013/04/i-knew-exactly-how-she-felt/ http://trishkhoo.com/2013/04/i-knew-exactly-how-she-felt/ "that’s what happens when we hold events for women in IT when there aren’t that many women in this industry – we tend to broaden the definition of women in IT." There's so few women in tech that groups like this tends to draw some women who are not even remotely technical (I remember for our women in tech group in college, we held an annual networking event where we invited "real women industry professionals" but the vast majority of them were marketing or HR). I'd like to optimistically think that "women that do technical things with other women" groups will become more prevalent the more women enter the field. I'd love to join a group like that but it's difficult in my area where there are two female CS students in my senior level classes (one of them is me).

mtowle 13y ago

I hesitate to write the following, because I don't see anyone say it - maybe I'm not looking in the right places? But Stephanie's description here... it's of course non-coincidental that the teddy bear party is para 1, the luncheon invite is para 2, and both were held under the guise of Celebrating Women in Tech. (I know, I'm Captain Obvious SS3.) Which makes this maybe 10 blog posts I, personally, have come across (just me, maybe not you) written by women in tech who all have low opinions of Women in Tech conferences/Tech Conferences, Guest Starring: Women. Reasons for the low opinions vary from post to post and/or writer to writer (I can't tell which). If you're reading this, you're familiar with all of them and their various refactored forms, so we don't need to reiterate. It can't be a coincidence. It just can't be random that so many of these meetups and luncheons and what-have-you's, according to Stephanie, et al., are all teddy-bear-terrible. I've never been to one, so I have zero clue - all I have to go on is blogger opinion and my own flawed guesstimations of the writer's basis for opinion (intellect, lived experience, etc). So if, after reading the next two paras, you think I'm indeed taking crazy pills, you need to tell me. It would seem to me, to speak freely, that the common thread in that links Encourage/Celebrate/Defend Women in Tech and teddy-bear-terribleness is: organizers with an agenda other than encouraging/celebrating/defending women in tech. Like, okay, yes, Mrs. Weber had her heart in the right place and just Didn't Get It, but I don't mean her. I mean to submit to you that there's a kind of response bias/selection bias/something-or-other bias at play that makes it so that the organizers putting on these conferences are extremely likely to volunteer themselves for lowercase-p political reasons. If I had to guess, I'd guess that they're i) Vitamin-C junkies ("C" for connections, i.e. networking), and ii) they've (rightly?) identified WiTC as their perfect target, their mile-wide bullseye. In an industry of subdivided technical interest after subdivided technical interest, of high/impossible standards, harsh feedback, and of fickle audiences whose attention spans are exactly equal to the number of milliseconds it takes them to hit CTRL-T.... WiT confs are guaranteed high turnout (by tech meetup standards - and if you haven't attended a meetup without a buzzword in the title, don't talk), they're guaranteed to be lauded (by some vocal fraction), the content standards are Marianas-low, and the "return customers," whatever fraction they represent, are amazingly passionate toward the subject and therefore you, the organizer. From the look of it, WitC organizers may as well have invented a perpetual orange juicing machine. Or if any of you read Phantom Tollbooth as a kid, "Subtraction Soup" (the more you eat, the hungrier you get) but like with lots of Vitamin-C in it or something and also the secret ingredient is heroin. Oh and as for why there aren't (m)any good organizers, i.e. the kind that hated the teddy bear factory: if there were an equation that described Eternal Septembering, it would include p^3 where p is how mainstream party-political (as opposed to body-political, the way Assange uses the terms) the topic of discussion is. So like r/politics has seen several geological epochs worth of Septembers at this point. The bigger and louder and more influential your pet WiT conference grows, the faster Jezebel & Co. will show up and start beating their bosoms, as Stephanie so eloquently put it. No TL;DR. First time submitting a crazy pills idea for public criticism, you have to say things the way you've been thinking them.