5 ms·
I don't understand the "hard to read these articles and then see maybe 95% (99.5%?) of the commenters are men" bit. These articles are typically published in r
by parennoob 13y ago
I don't understand the "hard to read these articles and then see maybe 95% (99.5%?) of the commenters are men" bit.
These articles are typically published in rags like the Atlantic, which I would imagine have fairly equal gender-distributed commenters, or even skewing female. Or if you mean comments on HN, how do you know the genders of the people who are commenting? Not everyone mentions their gender in their comment / profile.
- marquis 13y agoI mean on HN - to say how it feels: it's like being put on show in some glass box, being talked about like a rare specimen. It's just strange. I don't know if it's just me as I can't speak for other women.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoYou're not wrong about the percentages. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2175603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2175603 There was a similar poll this year with similar results but I can't find it.
- saraid216 13y agoImagine if you put up a technical article and the only people commenting were career politicians.
- aestra 13y agoThis is an absolutely perfect example!!! "Series of tubes"
- overgryphon 13y agoGender discussion on HN can feel like men coming together to discuss their observations of women like a group of biologists. It can be a little dehumanizing.
- parennoob 13y agoI wonder if it feels the other way in women's studies classes. I understand those are largely female-populated.
- sambeau 13y agoI hate to disappoint but women's studies classes don't spend their time discussing men. The clue is in the name.
- parennoob 13y agoDecent amount of snark there, but could you back it up and have a women's studies class without discussing some form of male oppression or domination at least once?
- sambeau 13y agoDiscussing some form of male oppression or domination is not the same as discussing men.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoWomen are defined relative to men, just as men are defined relative to women. If there were no men, women would just be "people". In discussing one, you implicitly discuss the other. Whatever makes women into women, men are not that. Except, "woman" and "man" can also be seen as archetypes, and it's possible to integrate both, at least to some degree.
- mkr-hn 13y agoThis is contrary to everything I've heard from women who tried a women's studies class. Apparently the patriarchy hypothesis features prominently.
- Dewie 13y agoOne can try to visit feminists blogs and web-communities. I am a man, and I'm often left with a feeling of being 'the other', sometimes unfavourably so. The most obvious cause is that it is often a community of mostly women discussing both male and female characteristics. A more subtle clue is that it seems that they refer to men as "males", but women as simply "women". Some communities are even hostile to the idea of male feminists - in turn some male feminists call themselves feminist allies, instead. Those are my limited experiences, anyway. I'm sure some one will say that I've only encountered the most bigoted communities for me to have this impression.