3 ms·

I'm sympathetic to the problems women face in this industry, but the fact that HN did not leap to unwarranted conclusions in this case is something that should

by chc 13y ago

I'm sympathetic to the problems women face in this industry, but the fact that HN did not leap to unwarranted conclusions in this case is something that should be encouraged, not shamed. Maybe people were able to show restraint in this case because they felt less close to the issue due to sexist tendencies, but the modicum of restraint shown is not itself sexism — it's what should be the ideal across the board. Also, neither of those articles are by Horvath and they barely even go into her accusation of sexism, so I'm not sure how they're supposed to illustrate that she did elaborate on her accusation. Are you sure you linked the right ones?

pron 13y ago
> the fact that HN did not leap to unwarranted conclusions in this case is something that should be encouraged, not shamed Well, that it did so using the most banal chauvinistic terms makes it kind of shameful. > but the modicum of restraint shown is not itself sexism — it's what should be the ideal across the board. Yes, but the fact that restraint is shown only when women and sexism are involved is in itself sexist (actually, this is not quite true; I seem to recall similar calls to restraint of judgement back when Uber's employees picketed the company). > I'm not sure how they're supposed to illustrate that she did elaborate on her accusation They're not. Her accusations of systemic sexism are clearly laid out at the top of the original TechCrunch story, but have been largely ignored in the discussion. The flagging of those two stories is just another example of the commendable (yet strangely exceptional) restraint HN is showing today :) ... aaaand this very article just mysteriously dropped off the front page. Another fine example of admirable (albeit selective) restraint.
- chc 13y ago
  I just reread the article to be sure I hadn't glossed over it, and I personally do not see any clear account of sexism. She says it was there, and I believe her (because sexism at a tech startup is about as surprising as ants at a picnic), but she doesn't clearly describe it at all. None of the specific grievances she cites have any clear connection to her gender. PS: Sorry people are hating so much on your reply. I do appreciate your overall point.
  - pron 13y ago
    This isn't rape, you know. Sexism isn't an event. It's an atmosphere. She describes the atmosphere. Short of providing hours of videos or recordings, I'm not sure how much more clear she could have put it. Of course, if she had, those would have been generally dismissed as aberrations, or, more likely, as her "misunderstanding" the situation, or "natural in a competitive environment". But that's not surprising either, because the HN community is sexist, and those are textbook responses to allegations of sexism.
    - akerl_ 13y ago
      If she does not give examples of the sexist atmosphere, we can't accurately form opinions about GitHub and GitHub can't address her concerns. If I'm missing an actual example of sexism from her post, other than the hulahooping situation which I've already noted and addressed, please enlighten me.
      - pron 13y ago
        "aggressive communication on pull requests and how little the men I worked with respected and valued my opinion" "character started being discussed in inappropriate places like on pull requests and issues" "she felt she was being treated differently internally simply due to her gender and not the quality of her work" These are actual examples of sexism. I don't know what exactly you were expecting. Pictures of men dropping their pants? Because that's not sexism; that's sexual harassment. Sexism is an atmosphere and a culture which she says she experienced. Please read up on what sexism is before placing yourself in the role of the lawyer for the defense. Just ask yourself this: were you displaying the same sort of skepticism in the Aaron Swartz case, or were you inclined to believe his accounts or the accounts of those close to him? If the answer is that you weren't skeptical back then, then you're displaying sexist behavior right now even if you don't feel like you are or it's not your intention. When someone accuses you of sexism, then you are probably sexist even if you don't see it, precisely because you can't see it. It's just like someone telling you you've got something stuck in your teeth. When someone tells you you've got something stuck in your teeth, you don't assume they're lying, but you go look in the mirror; if you don't, you run the risk of looking stupid. Sexism is exactly the same: if someone tells you you're sexist, you go look in the mirror long and hard. If you deny it, you just look stupid, because how do you deny something that you can't see?

by chc 13y ago

pron 13y ago

> the fact that HN did not leap to unwarranted conclusions in this case is something that should be encouraged, not shamed Well, that it did so using the most banal chauvinistic terms makes it kind of shameful. > but the modicum of restraint shown is not itself sexism — it's what should be the ideal across the board. Yes, but the fact that restraint is shown only when women and sexism are involved is in itself sexist (actually, this is not quite true; I seem to recall similar calls to restraint of judgement back when Uber's employees picketed the company). > I'm not sure how they're supposed to illustrate that she did elaborate on her accusation They're not. Her accusations of systemic sexism are clearly laid out at the top of the original TechCrunch story, but have been largely ignored in the discussion. The flagging of those two stories is just another example of the commendable (yet strangely exceptional) restraint HN is showing today :) ... aaaand this very article just mysteriously dropped off the front page. Another fine example of admirable (albeit selective) restraint.

chc 13y ago
I just reread the article to be sure I hadn't glossed over it, and I personally do not see any clear account of sexism. She says it was there, and I believe her (because sexism at a tech startup is about as surprising as ants at a picnic), but she doesn't clearly describe it at all. None of the specific grievances she cites have any clear connection to her gender. PS: Sorry people are hating so much on your reply. I do appreciate your overall point.
- pron 13y ago
  This isn't rape, you know. Sexism isn't an event. It's an atmosphere. She describes the atmosphere. Short of providing hours of videos or recordings, I'm not sure how much more clear she could have put it. Of course, if she had, those would have been generally dismissed as aberrations, or, more likely, as her "misunderstanding" the situation, or "natural in a competitive environment". But that's not surprising either, because the HN community is sexist, and those are textbook responses to allegations of sexism.
  - akerl_ 13y ago
    If she does not give examples of the sexist atmosphere, we can't accurately form opinions about GitHub and GitHub can't address her concerns. If I'm missing an actual example of sexism from her post, other than the hulahooping situation which I've already noted and addressed, please enlighten me.
    - pron 13y ago
      "aggressive communication on pull requests and how little the men I worked with respected and valued my opinion" "character started being discussed in inappropriate places like on pull requests and issues" "she felt she was being treated differently internally simply due to her gender and not the quality of her work" These are actual examples of sexism. I don't know what exactly you were expecting. Pictures of men dropping their pants? Because that's not sexism; that's sexual harassment. Sexism is an atmosphere and a culture which she says she experienced. Please read up on what sexism is before placing yourself in the role of the lawyer for the defense. Just ask yourself this: were you displaying the same sort of skepticism in the Aaron Swartz case, or were you inclined to believe his accounts or the accounts of those close to him? If the answer is that you weren't skeptical back then, then you're displaying sexist behavior right now even if you don't feel like you are or it's not your intention. When someone accuses you of sexism, then you are probably sexist even if you don't see it, precisely because you can't see it. It's just like someone telling you you've got something stuck in your teeth. When someone tells you you've got something stuck in your teeth, you don't assume they're lying, but you go look in the mirror; if you don't, you run the risk of looking stupid. Sexism is exactly the same: if someone tells you you're sexist, you go look in the mirror long and hard. If you deny it, you just look stupid, because how do you deny something that you can't see?