5 ms·

Can't speak to the Duck Dynasty guy, but the skewering of PG is perfect example of the pc lynchmobs preventing a conversation about the absence of women in tech

by bobosha 13y ago

Can't speak to the Duck Dynasty guy, but the skewering of PG is perfect example of the pc lynchmobs preventing a conversation about the absence of women in tech. As a techie, I see think there's significant truth to PG's opinions. Surely it takes two to tango, the tech industry is keen to hire and encourage women entrepreneurs, but it's not like women are being turned away at the gates, by sexist VCs.

borski 13y ago
I'm genuinely afraid of stating opinions about women in tech, almost no matter what they are. Being a white male, I have a lot of fear of being completely ripped apart in TechCrunch or ValleyWag for stating my opinions or making suggestions, because I'm never sure if I'm totally PC or not. It sucks, because I want to help somehow, but I don't want to be misunderstood and have my name be raked through the coals either.
- smadge 13y ago
  There is a pretty easy solution to your problem: get informed. Your opinion is worthless if you don't know what you are talking about enough to not infuriate people who do.
  - borski 13y ago
    That's incredibly myopic. You have no idea how informed I am or am not. My point is not that I'm uninformed; my point is that often anything I say gets misconstrued into something I didn't mean, and then torn apart. So I avoid it, because that scares me. I'd like to discuss it, without judgment, and come to a way I can help. The process of getting there is hard when it's so easy to jump the gun and assume that I, as a white male, am definitionally likely to be discriminatory. That occurs a lot.
- 1337biz 13y ago
  Same here. It is pretty much pointless to discuss this issue. Any opinion that doesn't align with a hyper PC standard is getting framed as "controversial". Votes/Flags are the silent voices of those who can't afford to get drawn into a battle with potentially severe consequences about an issue which they have personally relatively little to gain from.
DoctorZeus 13y ago
And how does dismissing critics as "pc lynchmobs" advance the conversation? Some people have oversimplified Paul Graham's perspective; doing the same to other people's perspectives will get no one anywhere.
- skylan_q 13y ago
  The PC lynchmobs are the ones stopping the conversation. Instead of saying "prove yourself" they shout "bigot!" The OP itself says that PG is saying "Crazy" things. How are they crazy? He doesn't point out how this is the case. Instead, he's made a final judgment and anyone that disagrees must also be crazy. There is no reasoning with those who shun reason and react to disagreement with accusations of craziness and bigotry.
hobs 13y ago
DO you really think that there isnt a conversation about the absence of women in tech? Really? At least every other day I see a front page article highlighting this fact, people getting upset because some conference's either do or do not contain women (some version of either insinuation of "we need women because we dont have them" or "we have women but they might not be as qualified and that makes some dudes mad") People trying to get women into tech with whatever method possible etc. Maybe it isnt a pervasive piece of EVERY conversation, but you can literally find hundreds of articles on this site about that very topic. Hey look, right now! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6975533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6975533
- mtrimpe 13y ago
  Yup; and they're all flagged off the front page in no time. My favourite one is the article about one of the problems with women in tech being that Silicon Valley believes it's more meritocratic than it is, on which PG comments that it's really that meritocratic (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6795606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6795606) I'm still curious if he spotted my last minute edit just as it was dropping off the front page while an interesting discussion was emerging.
smadge 13y ago
But women chose not to join the tech industry because it is not an appealing option. It is not an appealing for any reason intrinsic to either women or the tech industry, but because the tech industry is currently dominated by men who are unable to create a comfortable work environment for women and because the tech industry enforces the norm that it is not for women. When an influential leader in the industry says that there is an intrinsic reason women can not be in technology, it is propagating that norm and preventing women from entering the industry.
- csallen 13y ago
  What? Where did PG say "there is an intrinsic reason women cannot be in technology"? He never said anything remotely close to that.
  - smadge 13y ago
    He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age. But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking. Either he believes women are intrinsically non-hackers, or he acknowledges it is a cultural/social issue but refuses to hire or fund anyone who does not have the exact life trajectory of Mark Zuckerberg.
    - csallen 13y ago
      > He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age. No, he never said that. He said that there are fewer women in tech, not that "women cannot be" in tech. > But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking. He never did this either. Find me one quote where he blamed women for their lack of interest? The only thing he said was that the real way to solve this problem would be to get girls interested in hacking at a younger age, but that that's a difficult task. Does anyone actually disagree with that? > ...but refuses to hire or fund anyone who does not have the exact life trajectory of Mark Zuckerberg. YC invested in me, and I'm black. There were girls in my batch, too. Rather than actually listen to the points being made, reflect on the nuances, and engage in conversation honestly, you'd rather feign outrage over falsified "facts" and make-believe quotes. This is exactly why discussions like this are always of such low quality.

by bobosha 13y ago

borski 13y ago

I'm genuinely afraid of stating opinions about women in tech, almost no matter what they are. Being a white male, I have a lot of fear of being completely ripped apart in TechCrunch or ValleyWag for stating my opinions or making suggestions, because I'm never sure if I'm totally PC or not. It sucks, because I want to help somehow, but I don't want to be misunderstood and have my name be raked through the coals either.

smadge 13y ago
There is a pretty easy solution to your problem: get informed. Your opinion is worthless if you don't know what you are talking about enough to not infuriate people who do.
- borski 13y ago
  That's incredibly myopic. You have no idea how informed I am or am not. My point is not that I'm uninformed; my point is that often anything I say gets misconstrued into something I didn't mean, and then torn apart. So I avoid it, because that scares me. I'd like to discuss it, without judgment, and come to a way I can help. The process of getting there is hard when it's so easy to jump the gun and assume that I, as a white male, am definitionally likely to be discriminatory. That occurs a lot.
1337biz 13y ago
Same here. It is pretty much pointless to discuss this issue. Any opinion that doesn't align with a hyper PC standard is getting framed as "controversial". Votes/Flags are the silent voices of those who can't afford to get drawn into a battle with potentially severe consequences about an issue which they have personally relatively little to gain from.

DoctorZeus 13y ago

And how does dismissing critics as "pc lynchmobs" advance the conversation? Some people have oversimplified Paul Graham's perspective; doing the same to other people's perspectives will get no one anywhere.

skylan_q 13y ago
The PC lynchmobs are the ones stopping the conversation. Instead of saying "prove yourself" they shout "bigot!" The OP itself says that PG is saying "Crazy" things. How are they crazy? He doesn't point out how this is the case. Instead, he's made a final judgment and anyone that disagrees must also be crazy. There is no reasoning with those who shun reason and react to disagreement with accusations of craziness and bigotry.

hobs 13y ago

DO you really think that there isnt a conversation about the absence of women in tech? Really? At least every other day I see a front page article highlighting this fact, people getting upset because some conference's either do or do not contain women (some version of either insinuation of "we need women because we dont have them" or "we have women but they might not be as qualified and that makes some dudes mad") People trying to get women into tech with whatever method possible etc. Maybe it isnt a pervasive piece of EVERY conversation, but you can literally find hundreds of articles on this site about that very topic. Hey look, right now! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6975533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6975533

mtrimpe 13y ago
Yup; and they're all flagged off the front page in no time. My favourite one is the article about one of the problems with women in tech being that Silicon Valley believes it's more meritocratic than it is, on which PG comments that it's really that meritocratic (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6795606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6795606) I'm still curious if he spotted my last minute edit just as it was dropping off the front page while an interesting discussion was emerging.

smadge 13y ago

But women chose not to join the tech industry because it is not an appealing option. It is not an appealing for any reason intrinsic to either women or the tech industry, but because the tech industry is currently dominated by men who are unable to create a comfortable work environment for women and because the tech industry enforces the norm that it is not for women. When an influential leader in the industry says that there is an intrinsic reason women can not be in technology, it is propagating that norm and preventing women from entering the industry.

csallen 13y ago
What? Where did PG say "there is an intrinsic reason women cannot be in technology"? He never said anything remotely close to that.
- smadge 13y ago
  He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age. But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking. Either he believes women are intrinsically non-hackers, or he acknowledges it is a cultural/social issue but refuses to hire or fund anyone who does not have the exact life trajectory of Mark Zuckerberg.
  - csallen 13y ago
    > He said woman cannot be in technology because they aren't interested in computers from a young age. No, he never said that. He said that there are fewer women in tech, not that "women cannot be" in tech. > But rather than seeking why women are excluded from technology even as children, he just blames women for not being interested in hacking. He never did this either. Find me one quote where he blamed women for their lack of interest? The only thing he said was that the real way to solve this problem would be to get girls interested in hacking at a younger age, but that that's a difficult task. Does anyone actually disagree with that? > ...but refuses to hire or fund anyone who does not have the exact life trajectory of Mark Zuckerberg. YC invested in me, and I'm black. There were girls in my batch, too. Rather than actually listen to the points being made, reflect on the nuances, and engage in conversation honestly, you'd rather feign outrage over falsified "facts" and make-believe quotes. This is exactly why discussions like this are always of such low quality.