3 ms·

>b0rk addresses this in the post above. And makes a completely sexist hash of it. Just suggest that because there are some male hackers that are uncomfortable

>b0rk addresses this in the post above. And makes a completely sexist hash of it. Just suggest that because there are some male hackers that are uncomfortable around women that there should be man-only events. Let me know how that goes for you. >When there's nothing but boys doing something, many girls think to themselves, "this is not something a girl like me should be doing." It's not just boys and men in the tech community, as anybody who would expend five seconds looking at the subject would see. We champion people like Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper. >Btw, why do you consider yourself such a patzer? I do hope it has nothing to do with your gender or skin tone, and that it's just a harmless joke. Do me a favor next time you want to make a comment like this - Google the term you're referring to. A patzer is somebody who lacks skill at chess. It's not a racist or sexist term. I just happen to be awful at chess (and much better at Go).

jordigh 12y ago
> A patzer is somebody who lacks skill at chess. It's not a racist or sexist term. My apologies, I didn't express myself correctly. I know what the term means. It's the self-deprecating nature of it that got me curious. Have you ever felt unsuitable as a chess player because of your sex or skin tone? I didn't really expect you to say so, but I thought the possibility might exist; that you have somehow been excluded from chess by those factors, which could have made you internalise the term "patzer". Of course, my armchair internet psychonanalysis was completely wrong, which makes me glad, and I feel humbled by you. :-)
- patzerhacker 12y ago
  >Have you ever felt unsuitable as a chess player because of your sex or skin tone? No. I've never felt unsuitable as a chess player for any reason. I'm just not good at chess, but that's probably a function of not spending more of my time on it. I have never seen myself as 'unsuitable' for any task due to who I am. Why would I? It's part of what makes exclusionary outreach programs infuriating to me. Yes, have a fund that tries to encourage engagement of an underrepresented crowd, but don't make it exclusionary to all others. Else the appearance (to me) is that you're saying that the only reason that the underrepresented group could ever make it is at the exclusion of all others.
n72 12y ago
> Just suggest that because there are some male hackers that are uncomfortable around women that there should be man-only events. Let me know how that goes for you. Either you completely misunderstand the issue and/or this is a straw man. It has nothing to do with comfort. It is the case that, because of institutional discrimination, women have a much higher mountain to climb as it were, to achieve success in the tech field. (If you dispute this, then you'll have to revise your reply to my other comment in which you acknowledge the existence of institutional discrimination.) Outreach to women, in this case, simply works towards helping them up that mountain a bit. The justification for that help is that for women the mountain is in fact higher than for men. So, yeah, a man-only event doesn't make any sense. If you can demonstrate that men are at a net disadvantage in some way and could use help compared to other groups, then you could justify a man-only event.
- patzerhacker 12y ago
  >> Just suggest that because there are some male hackers that are uncomfortable around women that there should be man-only events. Let me know how that goes for you. >Either you completely misunderstand the issue and/or this is a straw man. It is neither me misunderstanding nor is it a strawman. For context, I'm responding to a post by @b0rk on medium that says, in part: >If there are no men, nobody can get harassed by men. That’s it. That’s the entire hack. This has the unfortunate side effect of excluding all the delightful and wonderful men who would enrich an event. But it still makes people feel safer, and that’s what we’re trying to do. >It has nothing to do with comfort. It is the case that, because of institutional discrimination, women have a much higher mountain to climb as it were, to achieve success in the tech field. Except that this entire line of discussion does have to do with comfort...so I'm confused at to why you put it here (not that it's not worth discussing, mind you).

jordigh 12y ago

> A patzer is somebody who lacks skill at chess. It's not a racist or sexist term. My apologies, I didn't express myself correctly. I know what the term means. It's the self-deprecating nature of it that got me curious. Have you ever felt unsuitable as a chess player because of your sex or skin tone? I didn't really expect you to say so, but I thought the possibility might exist; that you have somehow been excluded from chess by those factors, which could have made you internalise the term "patzer". Of course, my armchair internet psychonanalysis was completely wrong, which makes me glad, and I feel humbled by you. :-)

patzerhacker 12y ago
>Have you ever felt unsuitable as a chess player because of your sex or skin tone? No. I've never felt unsuitable as a chess player for any reason. I'm just not good at chess, but that's probably a function of not spending more of my time on it. I have never seen myself as 'unsuitable' for any task due to who I am. Why would I? It's part of what makes exclusionary outreach programs infuriating to me. Yes, have a fund that tries to encourage engagement of an underrepresented crowd, but don't make it exclusionary to all others. Else the appearance (to me) is that you're saying that the only reason that the underrepresented group could ever make it is at the exclusion of all others.

n72 12y ago

> Just suggest that because there are some male hackers that are uncomfortable around women that there should be man-only events. Let me know how that goes for you. Either you completely misunderstand the issue and/or this is a straw man. It has nothing to do with comfort. It is the case that, because of institutional discrimination, women have a much higher mountain to climb as it were, to achieve success in the tech field. (If you dispute this, then you'll have to revise your reply to my other comment in which you acknowledge the existence of institutional discrimination.) Outreach to women, in this case, simply works towards helping them up that mountain a bit. The justification for that help is that for women the mountain is in fact higher than for men. So, yeah, a man-only event doesn't make any sense. If you can demonstrate that men are at a net disadvantage in some way and could use help compared to other groups, then you could justify a man-only event.

patzerhacker 12y ago
>> Just suggest that because there are some male hackers that are uncomfortable around women that there should be man-only events. Let me know how that goes for you. >Either you completely misunderstand the issue and/or this is a straw man. It is neither me misunderstanding nor is it a strawman. For context, I'm responding to a post by @b0rk on medium that says, in part: >If there are no men, nobody can get harassed by men. That’s it. That’s the entire hack. This has the unfortunate side effect of excluding all the delightful and wonderful men who would enrich an event. But it still makes people feel safer, and that’s what we’re trying to do. >It has nothing to do with comfort. It is the case that, because of institutional discrimination, women have a much higher mountain to climb as it were, to achieve success in the tech field. Except that this entire line of discussion does have to do with comfort...so I'm confused at to why you put it here (not that it's not worth discussing, mind you).