14 ms·

Ways Men in Tech Are Unintentionally Sexist (2014)

61 points by empressplay 12y ago

kelukelugames 12y ago
I don't think we can teach people to do or not do a dozen different things at once. Caring fatigue kicks in, people nitpick the lesser issues, etc. It would be nice if people could agree to end one specific behavior at a time. Edit: Before more people react negatively... Have you tried explaining microagressions to someone who has never exprienced any before? It is not easy. Edit 2: Focused campaigns such as Beyonce and co against the word 'bossy'. Edit 3: want to see nitpicking in action? Read the other comments.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- theOnliest 12y ago
  I'm not sure that anyone has to agree to work on one at a time. If each person worked on one at a time, that would be great! Nobody is going to get mad at someone for consciously trying to use "women" instead of "girls" just because we all agreed it's "No default male avatar" month.
- proksoup 12y ago
  I find enumerating the multiple types of micro-aggressions helps the micro-aggressor understand the larger picture of how their many different acts of micro-aggression add up to a hostile atmosphere. Doing so also helps me appear hostile to them, which distracts/sidelines the dialogue a bit.
- kaitai 12y ago
  That would be really interesting: if everyone focused on one behavior for a month, then tried another one for a month -- like zenhabits' monthly habit-formation themes but for tech citizenship. What a cool idea! (Also, I agree with your edits & comment re: caring fatigue.)
- brighteyes 12y ago
  > Have you tried explaining microagressions to someone who has never exprienced any before? It is not easy. It's hard because the term itself seems designed to make it hard, in my opinion. A microaggression is unintended, while aggression is very much intended. "Micro" + "aggression" should mean "a small aggression", but it means actually something very different. It's confusing. I think avoiding overly academic terms like "microaggressions" would help here. Instead of explaining terms, just talk plain and to the point: > "When you say 'Usually girls don't like [some geeky thing]', it can make the woman hearing it uncomfortable. It's factually true that few women are interested, but it's not cool to point it out, better to avoid saying it and not look like a jerk." No need for new theoretical terms with confusing meanings.
  - kelukelugames 12y ago
    I agree with you one hundred percent. We need better words than privilege and micro aggression. Even the fucking hr rep laughed at me when I used those words.
    - theorique 12y ago
      Maybe "microtransgression"? As pointed out upthread, "aggression" suggests intention, whereas "transgression" suggests a violated boundary, but does not assume intent.
slvv 12y ago
This is one of the best descriptions of microaggressions that I've come across. It also explains well the idea of unintentional-but-still-harmful; I love the comparison to accidentally stepping on someone's foot, and will totally use that as an example in future.
blue69 12y ago
I am sorry but I cringed while reading this. “Mom” as an example of a non-technical user. Describing software or algorithms as “sexy”, “hot”, etc. like lol, I am not sexist and I would love to have more females in engineering, but these pseudo-intellectual feminists do nothing but whine about the stupidest things
- NamTaf 12y ago
  If you wanted more females in engineering then you'd listen to their complaints about what's keeping them from entering it and address them. You're being sexist through trivialising their objections by saying they 'do nothing but whine about the stupidest things'. What position are you in to argue whether their objections have merit? You could argue, as others have, that some of these objections aren't inherently sexist because they can apply to both genders (i.e.: sexualising things is a trait performed by both genders), but dismissing this list as you did does nothing except undermine your own statement of wanting more women in tech.
  - mod 12y ago
    You can listen to the concerns of the group (all women) and still trivialize the objections of a minority (psuedo-intellectual women) without being sexist. The position he has to argue whether the objections have merit is that he's a thinking, rational human who can objectively consider whether something is sexist or not.
  - dmschulman 12y ago
    I would wonder whether these are opinions felt by a wide percentage of women in tech or if they are solely the gripes of the author.
tomlock 12y ago
Well this fell from number 5 article pretty quick. I've noticed this happening heaps with articles about sexism. Why is that?
- dang 12y ago
  Users flag-killed it. In such cases (where the article isn't spam or off-topic) we usually unkill the story so that ongoing discussion can continue, but don't override the flags altogether, meaning the story's rank is still penalized. We're open to overriding the flags altogether if people feel that the article and/or thread is particularly good. Edit: Based on user feedback via email, we've overridden the flags. We've also closed the threads to noob accounts. I hate doing that, but sometimes it's the only way to deal with trolls. Anyone with a new account who wants to participate civilly in the thread is welcome to email us.
  - functional_test 12y ago
    Dang, I have the highest respect for what your moderation has done for HN. That said, unkilling this is just wrong. This sort of drivel is what I'd expect on Tumblr -- nit picking minor things, focusing on people's phrasing rather than meaning, not accepting common terminology as if that advances some sort of social justice, and asking people (inherently Bayesian creatures) to ignore their priors for the sake of "equality". These articles detract from the real issues, and serve only to further separate women in technology, rather than integrating them. There's a reason this was flag killed (and it was not sexism).
    - robbrown451 12y ago
      I hope it stays. It was very well written and balanced, and did what it set out to do, which is get me to look at a couple things I've done or defended (for instance saying "guys" or calling women "girls" in a social context) and seen them in a different light. Also it is discouraging people from calling software "sexy", and I support that -- because it is just annoying and sounds like something lame marketing people would say.
    - deleted 12y ago
mckiddy 12y ago
Are you serious? Opinions like these are exactly why women are having a hard time in tech in the first place. If I have to spend every waking moment at work obsessing about whether a single comment will make my female coworkers label me as a sexist asshole, then you bet I'll avoid working with them as much as possible.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  Maybe if you were a decent human being, you wouldn't have to.
- gress 12y ago
  So it's ok for you to use demeaning language towards women, but not ok for them to consider that sexist?
  - mckiddy 12y ago
    Because so many of these points are demeaning, right? Practically everyone I've ever met uses "you guys" in place of "you all", etc, with no derogatory intent. Certainly anyone familiar with the western US would realize and understand this. My mom and dad are both technically illiterate, and I gladly use both as examples. I would never assume a woman is non-technical _at a technical conference_, but everywhere else in the country the average woman is far less likely to be in a technical career than the average man, by simple probability. IT IS UNUSUAL.
    - gress 12y ago
      Making assumptions about individuals based on your interpretation of statistics about their gender is inherently sexist. Most of us do it, but that doesn't make it less harmful.
- sbilstein 12y ago
  Perhaps you should consider what happens when a colleague has to spend time thinking about whether or not the comments you've failed to police yourself are actually threatening, creepy, or indicative of other much more harmful behaviors you may be capable of?
vletmixutechre 12y ago
"Yes, most people intend this in a gender-neutral way; no, it is not actually gender-neutral." Wrong.
- msandford 12y ago
  If words mean what people agree that they mean (and I don't really know how else it could be!) then if enough people say "guys" isn't necessarily male then it's like an election. You might not like who won, but it got enough votes to be a legitimate thing.
dataker 12y ago
Honestly, criticizing men at the micro-level is quite unrealistic and pointless. Controlling speech and avoiding saying 'guys' won't do much at the macro-level of women's rights. Hostility has never worked to foster equality. However, if individuals and organizations promote cooperation, equality and respect, these micro-aggressions become even smaller and, eventually, disappear.
- MattLaroche 12y ago
  I'm the person whose tweet is at the top of the linked article. My original curiosity was from that of someone who wants to promote "cooperation, equality and respect" - and, to me, part of doing that is asking for, and being open to, what minor things I might be doing to marginalize others. So perhaps you're right - in the long run, maybe if organizations promote respect without talking about little things people do wrong, we'll get further on equality. But I do see value in talking about little things that are systemically unequal, and I think we'll get to a better place faster by talking about even the little things.
  - abeisgreat 12y ago
    I think the real issue is that no one (including the author) is obeying the issue #9 "Stereotyping women’s needs". That's what the author is doing, that's what all these guys feeling bad for putting out "microagressions" are doing. Unless you are a women in tech then you can't speak for any women in tech and even if you are, you can only speak for one women in tech, yourself. Some women might be offended by saying "guys" but some others might feel that it's a term of endearment (as it is probably intended) and they might feel saying "men and women" is silly. But I don't know, because I'm a dude. What I do know is that every single successful person puts up with crap. That crap is often months of working on a project with a manager you dislike or putting in extra time to get things done when you'd rather be sitting around eating Cheetos. Work is a constant struggle and if you're throwing in the towel on your passion because someone called something sexy, then you clearly weren't meant to work with people, let alone in tech.
    - 12y ago
attackvectors 12y ago
Could there be any exceptions for this? For example, if a woman consents to a sexual intercourse in the workplace, will I be able to call her a "girl," or perhaps even a "bitch" in order to enhance her state of arousal? I'm eager to obtain some further guidelines on this.
- gress 12y ago
  You have demonstrated that nobody can reasonably claim that sexism in tech is not a problem.
  - attackvectors 12y ago
    Why just tech? Are all other industries free of sexism except tech? I'm willing to bet that the socially awkward nerds that compose tech companies are actually nicest and most respectful to females compared to other sectors of the economy. How's being a woman in Goldman Sachs like? Sexism is just a cheap excuse used to cover up for the fact that majority of females aren't willing to, or are generally uninterested in working in tech.
    - gress 12y ago
      So your response is that it's not a problem in tech because it's a problem elsewhere? Why are you defending sexism?
      - attackvectors 12y ago
        Because sexism in tech is not actually a problem, and constant attention to this non-issue constitutes mindless misandry.
      - dropit_sphere 12y ago
        The mirror question would be: is there a limit to how bad sexism is? Is it worse than murder? Theft? Speeding? Passing gas in public? Finding an exact ranking is of course an academic question. But the take-no-prisoners, root-it-out-at-any-cost ("Why are you defending sexism?" without nuance[0]) attitude communicates that feminism is an unreasonable (in the sense that it cannot be reasoned with) entity. If name-and-shame on an industrial scale ("Men in tech") continues despite widespread efforts and initiatives to correct problematic behavior, than a cost-benefit analysis leads to the conclusion that there is nothing to be gained by said efforts and initiatives[1]. I am fully aware that "feminism" is not a coherent organization and actions of individuals aren't necessarily representative of the wider movement, but I submit that that's a strategic problem for the movement. Here is what my intuition tells me: a)there is more sexism in the financial sector, and b) the financial sector is more resistant to change. A large feminist organization might have the resources, vision, and endurance to make an impact on the financial sector, but an army of individuals will collectively flock to the low-hanging fruit of technology. This is completely understandable at the activist level, but leads to credibility problems for the movement as a whole when the truth-tellers fail to speak truth where it is most needed. [0]Recommended: http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html [1]The crazy thing about cost-benefit analyses is that no one ever has to actually do them to react to them; society is a giant genetic algorithm selecting for individuals and organizations that act as if they had done them. Antibiotics, mismanaged, may give us superbugs; if feminism is done wrong, will it give us super-sexists?
radley 12y ago
It's not the harmful stereotypes, it's the mundane. Is anyone else waiting for a woman to point out the obvious stereotype of women (and then some men) writing tons of this stuff at similar points of mainstream integration in similar emerging industries... so men are finally free to mention it too?
nothrabannosir 12y ago
5. Describing software or algorithms as “sexy”, “hot”, etc. By sexualizing something that does not need to be sexualized, you’re creating a college-frat-boy type environment, as well as implicitly conflating quality with sexual attractiveness. If I work with you, I want to know that you’re enough of an adult to be able to appreciate something (or someone) without wanting to fornicate with it. What? Are women not sexually aware now? Or are men the only ones who act immature? I like some of the points, but this one is coated so thickly in irony I can't even tell if there's any substance at the bottom. Honest to God, what's inherently male about calling an algorithm sexy? Why couldn't a woman do just that? Isn't the mere perpetuating of that idea exactly the type of "oh no think of the poor women" thinking that the article tries to dissuade? Or is the irony all on me? Truly I don't understand this one. EDIT: Just to clarify: I'm not trying to advocate "calling algorithms sexy." If you don't like it because you think it's immature or unprofessional; well, it's not my cup of tea, either. But don't put that in a list about sexism. Conflating the two is precisely the latter.
- tannk11001 12y ago
  You don't think that needlessly sexualizing things might be insensitive to people who are themselves subject to exactly the same kind of needless sexualizing? It's no less insensitive just because women are also capable of sexualizing things, or because men may also find it uncomfortable.
  - meric 12y ago
    That argument does not counter his point this isn't a sexism thing.
    - comex 12y ago
      A person can perpetuate sexism without meaning to. It is just a matter of getting people aware and encouraging them to actively think about whether any things they do might be making women uncomfortable, and to try to be considerate.
vezzy-fnord 12y ago
I think equating the so-called "dark patterns" in user interfaces with sexism is a little far-fetched, but the rest I can agree with (other than #13). I have yet to hear about any "hot and sexy algorithms", however.
jonnybgood 12y ago
> 1. Using “guys” to mean “people”. Everytime I see this sentiment I always wonder how the author, and others like the author, feel about Spanish speakers and the language.
- joelrunyon 12y ago
  Or any other language that has gendered nouns.
- albemuth 12y ago
  "los y las programadoras"
parennoob 12y ago
Some things I agree with. > 6. Assuming women they meet are in non-technical roles. Yeah, monumentally stupid. I don't even understand the reason for this -- usually at any event I just straight up ask people what they do. Assuming something is pretty weird. > 7. Fetishizing “hot geek girls”. > 8. Denigrating things by comparing them to women or femininity. Common sense. A desperate man slavering over a "hot geek girl" looks ridiculous, as does a man who talks about "manning up" or "hitting like a girl" in the workplace in 2015. Stop it. -------------------------- Some rebuttals, or at least different perspectives on some of these points. > 1. Using 'guys' to mean people The majority of girls/women in college do this. In fact, anecdotal, but I have seen this used much more often by women outside the tech field. I cannot count the number of times I have heard "So where are you guys going out tonight" amongst an all-female college group. So I don't think men who use this term are being micro-aggressive, unless you count female usage of this term as a "micro-aggression" as well. > 2. "Girls" for "women" Similarly, unless older women are being micro-aggressive when they use this term, I don't see why this is micro-aggressive. One of my biggest surprises was hearing my 50+ female co-worker telling me "I'm a good girl, I pay all my bills on time." > 3. "Mom" as an example of a non-technical user I always use my dad as an example, even though my mom is the more non-technical person. But if "mom" is used way more often, maybe I can go along with this. Still, the suggestion therein to use "cat, non-technical user, Ubuntu user" is pretty silly in my opinion. > 4. Using a default male avatar How do you decide if an avatar is male? Jeans and T-shirts do not a male make in this day and age. I am not quite certain how you would distinguish between a non-gendered and gendered avatar. > 5. Describing software or algorithms as “sexy”, “hot”, etc. According to the author, this creates a "college frat-boy environment". I would argue that outlawing normal adult words like "sexy" and "hot" creates more of an infantilized classroom environment where you are essentially saying "Hey, don't say that bad word in front of the girls, or you'll get punished." Using "sexy" to refer to a well-designed, sleek new website is, in my opinion, perfectly reasonable. > 10. Using dark UI patterns. This is a problem for all users. I don't see why this should disproportionately drive women off. If it is, the solution lies in more privacy education and outreach, not bashing people who write the software.
- ilyanep 12y ago
  I've never actually heard the term "mom" or "grandma" used in that case. Why not just "non-technical user," "less savvy user," "our average user," etc? I don't understand the point of bringing up the specific example.
ta82828 12y ago
I am male. When I was in school I was on a project with two women. I asked them if the term "guys" bothered them. They both said no. I even used it when there were only women in the group. Guys is the plural of you in some dialects of English. "Hot" has many many meanings other than "sexy". When not referring to a person's attractiveness, it means "popular, being paid a lot of attention to" or "high in temperature", or "fast" or "contains a lot of energy".
- ilyanep 12y ago
  You are implying that a few individual women you know being okay with a thing implies that it is alright / not sexist / shouldn't be offensive to other women. I'm not necessarily sure that that follows. (This is independent of whether or not the term 'guys' is sexist or offensive to women or anything else).
  - ta82828 12y ago
    I will accept many corrections for the benefit of diversity, but when even the majority of the disadvantaged group uses the word in a non-hostile way, I stop feeling like I'm being asked to be helpful and start feeling like I'm being micromanaged and controlled by people who refuse to take into account the obvious intent of my words that the majority of listeners understand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You#Informal_plural_forms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You#Informal_plural_forms Informal plural forms Despite you being both singular and plural, some dialects retain the distinction between a singular and plural you with different words. Examples of such pronouns sometimes seen and heard are: ... you guys – U.S.,[2] particularly in the Midwest, Northeast, South Florida and West Coast; Canada, Australia. Used regardless of the genders of those referred to ... (I live, work, and went to school in Northeastern U.S.)
    - 4ydx 12y ago
      If you explain your intent and they still feel offended, I do wonder how one should react to that. It feels to me like someone who is being pedantic who thinks they are "right". Who knows, maybe it does offend enough people that this usage will decline.
mikestew 12y ago
Man, I'd love emery boards as conference swag (#9). I've got enough shirts and 256KB USB keys to last me a lifetime. And I guarantee, even as male who isn't all that obsessed with his manicure but likes smooth nails, I'll see sponsor name much more often than I would on a dated USB key that sits in a box until electronics recycling day comes. I'd preface my next statement with "all kidding aside" were I actually kidding, but as a male manager who has actually chastised males on my team for refererring to the females on that team as "the girls" (#2 on the list), I have to say "good luck" with getting that list implemented. I say that because even though I obviously agree with some of the items, I just internally sigh when reading half those items. Pick your battles, as the saying goes, and this list has a lot of metaphoric hills that aren't worth dying on.
- gress 12y ago
  Is there a particular battle you think can be won?
- parennoob 12y ago
  As another man who likes smooth nails, I agree with you. I'd much rather get a decent nail file than an ill-fitting T-shirt at a conference. In fact, I'd say thinking that Emery boards are female-only is in itself... RuntimeError: maximum sexism accusation depth exceeded
  - bisrael 12y ago
    There is no feeling worse than typing all day with overgrown nails. Source: I'm a man who programs all day.
- bisrael 12y ago
  Imagine if you combined all those KB....!
seandhi 12y ago
My wife addresses her team of mostly females as 'you guys'. Granted, she's also not a man or in tech, but I am having a hard time seeing how this is sexist. Now, some of the items on the list are quite good. My mom, for example, is just as technical, or more so, than my dad. She is not a good archetype of the non-technical user.
- ilyanep 12y ago
  You are implying that one woman doing a thing implies that it is alright / not sexist / shouldn't be offensive to other women. I'm not necessarily sure that that follows. (This is independent of whether or not the term 'guys' is sexist or offensive to women or anything else).
  - ta82828 12y ago
    Well, OP is implying that a single woman finding something sexist or offensive makes it so. I've presented two counterexamples upthread and grandparent here presented one, that's three. OP presented only two, and one of them is a man who makes his point by conflating the singular and plural forms of "guys".
Alleluja 12y ago
Stop objectifying women! They know what they are doing! They are not retarded. If they wanted go to tech, they would go to tech! Duuuuuhhhhh... who are you bitchez to tell them to go study CS, to do mammography, to go to work? Who are you? When was the last time you saw commercials telling men to have prostate checked, or go and study foreign languages? Not so keen to advise agents (men), huh? All about telling objects (women) what to do. Stop objectifying women feminist bitchez!!! THANKS!
wyager 12y ago
1 is a feature of the English language. English uses male pronouns as genderless personal pronouns. This is not a Tech thing. 2 is a result of the fact that English diminutives apply to adults as well. I often say to my male friends "what's up, boys?" For 4, UX designers should set this based on their expected userbase. For 5, just because something is sexual does not make it sexist. There is nothing wrong with using sexual metaphor unless you have puritanical Victorian-era morals. For 7, this goes for both genders... People use "cock", "dick", etc. as derogatory terms all the time. 10: This has nothing to do with gender. This might be the most tenuous claim in the entire article. Privacy is a good UX practice, but a lack of privacy doesn't hurt women in particular.
sinak 12y ago
As with many articles about sexism, it's easy to read this and have an immediate, emotional reaction. If you "cringed" like one of the other commenters (and as I did reading some of the points listed), its worth taking a moment to think more carefully about why that emotional response was triggered. Few HN users self-identify as "sexist." Yet reading this post, many of us will have done things that the author identifies as subtly sexist micro-aggressions. If you think that that makes you a sexist, well, you're right. All of us are. Sexism, like racism, is a societal problem, engrained in all of us. To try and shift away from our current sexist norms we need to redefine them, and that means recasting behaviors that many of us currently view as completely unoffensive. Another common reaction is something like "these things aren't important, will never change, and feminists should pick their battles." But that's misguided - you're silencing and dismissing viewpoints that deserve to be heard. Just because a subtle but widespread societal norm isn't likely be fixed in the short term doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. We certainly have the ability to change own behaviors, and nudge those around us to do the same.
- irishcoffee 12y ago
  > Sexism, like racism, is a societal problem, engrained in all of us. Are you trying to somehow imply everyone is racist? Are you further implying that everyone is sexist? > ... a right to complain and be heard I'm curious, who (in the US anyways) doesn't have that right. At this point I feel like I can get sued for calling a stop sign red. It's getting a little absurd.
  - sinak 12y ago
    > Are you trying to somehow imply everyone is racist? Are you further implying that everyone is sexist? Yes and yes. Much of our context for judging people comes from society, and society is both sexist and racist. Numerous studies have shown that even people who identify as being non-racist will shoot a black person more quickly, dismiss a resume if it contains a black-sounding name, etc: More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/nicholas-kristof-is-everyone-a-little-bit-racist.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/nicholas-kristof-i... The same applies to sexism. You can Google your way to plenty of similar studies. > I'm curious, who (in the US anyways) doesn't have that right. At this point I feel like I can get sued for calling a stop sign red. It's getting a little absurd. It's true that people (mostly) have the right to free speech in the US. But there are two ways to prevent people from expressing their views: you can literally disallow them from saying something, or you can "silence" them by making them feel uncomfortable for having spoken at all. I'm talking about the latter.
lqdc13 12y ago
>Don’t do the “guys and girls” thing >either, which is marginally better but >still makes it feel like an afterthought. >Try: “folks”, “y’all”, “everyone”, >“team”, “channel”, or just “awesome >people”. Yall is too ghetto Team is too corporate Awesome people diminishes the value of the word awesome and also too long Everyone would mean you're addressing everyone who can hear you say it... Folks is too official. Why not just people? Also, girls/women even say dude and guys to each other. Would seem weird to not say it that way after they say it themselves. If someone acts too PC, people stop hanging around them.
spcoll 12y ago
Good writeup. Women in tech are faced with a constant barrage of microaggressions. I see many men taking a stance of "I'm not sexist, this is not my problem", but really this is every man's responsibility. And it needs to stop. What are YOU doing about it?
habosa 12y ago
> 6. Assuming women they meet are in non-technical roles. I like to think I am not a sexist person (intentionally or not), but this is one I have to make an actual silent effort to get right. It's just that the statistics are unfortunately very skewed. Some 80%+ of software engineering roles at big companies go to men, but for non-technical roles it can be 50% women or more. So if you meet a woman it is more likely that she is not an engineer. But statistics don't make assumptions acceptable. I try to make sure I don't assume anything about people I meet around work (don't assume a man is an engineer, don't assume a woman is not). Makes me cringe when I hear this conversation: Man: "So what do you do here?" Woman: "I'm a SWE on _______" Man: "Oh really?"
habosa 12y ago
> 6. Assuming women they meet are in non-technical roles. I like to think I am not a sexist person (intentionally or not), but this is one I have to make an actual silent effort to get right. It's just that the statistics are unfortunately very skewed. Some 80%+ of software engineering roles at big companies go to men, but for non-technical roles it can be 50% women or more. So if you meet a woman it is more likely that she is not an engineer. But statistics don't make assumptions acceptable. I try to make sure I don't assume anything about people I meet around work (don't assume a man is an engineer, don't assume a woman is not). Makes me cringe when I hear this conversation: Man: "So what do you do here?" Woman: "I'm a SWE on _______" Man: "Oh really?"
rsuelzer 12y ago
Although, while I understand the authors concerns on point #1 I think it comes from a misunderstanding of the reason on why so many people use the phrase "you guys". I'm going to go out on a limb here and defend all of us who with use this phrase regularly. "You guys" is the most common form of "you" plural used in the mid-west and western United States. For those who were not taught English in a region where "you guys" is standard, I can assure you that we consider "you guys" to be completely gender neutral. I can see how this phrase would seem strange to someone from a region of the United States that uses "you" or "you all" or "ya'll" or "folks", but for us it is simply a phrase that is used by both women and men when addressing a group of people of any gender (all women, all men, mixed). See you guys tomorrow != See you men tomorrow. Are you guys done yet? != Are you boys done yet? Now, is the etymology of the word sexist, a la "mankind"? That I do not know (it probably is), but the intent of those of us who use it is simply that it is two words meaning "you all". We do not think about injecting gender at all into the conversation, in fact we use this phrase to avoid it (as silly as that may seem)! I would imagine that this phrase is more likely to turn heads when it is used in a region of The United States where it is not the normal linguistic way of saying "you" plural.
- tannk11001 12y ago
  You're absolutely right. It's casual and doesn't carry an explicit gender connotation to most people that use it. At the same time, bringing attention to the implicit sexism (a la 'mankind') is valid. It doesn't mean anybody has to shame themselves for saying 'guys', it just suggests that they might want to consider other word choices in delicate situations or when they've got the reserves to be a little more conscientious.
  - rsuelzer 12y ago
    Yeah, and it if you are working in a region that doesn't use "you guys" as a gender neutral "you all" you should be aware that it can be seen a loaded term and adjust accordingly to make sure that you properly convey your true intent and not make others feel marginalized.
- trynumber9 12y ago
mod 12y ago
For her #2 point, (using "girls"), I think "girls" is not actually the closest thing to "guys." I think you say "boys & girls" or "guys & gals," traditionally. Gals has fallen out of common use, but it's probably the most appropriate word if women are taking offense to "girls."
karmacondon 12y ago
None of these things seem like problems that need to be corrected (within reason [1]). Part of being a member of a minority group is that members of the majority group will never speak or behave in exactly the way you would like. That's the nature of living in a heterogeneous society. There will never be equal proportions of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or culture in any group. In the interest of everyone being able to work together effectively, we all have a responsibility to draw a line between preference and abuse. People who become abusive should obviously be castigated or removed for the good of everyone. But if we place too much emphasis on appeasing the preferences of every group or individual, we'll be too busy focusing on choosing just the right word in every situation to get things done. Effective communication is hard enough as it is. Parsing every word because it might potentially offend someone only makes the problem worse. Everyone has a cross to bear and no one will ever feel that they fit in perfectly. Some times toes get stepped on, and that's ok. I think the term "unintentionally sexist" says it all. There was a time when open and aggressive *-ism was common, but that kind of thing is generally no longer acceptable in polite or professional society. It seems like the best thing for all of us would be to focus on what we have and common and what we can do to get along, instead of publishing lists of "I hate it when group X says thing Y". [1] clearly numbers 6, 9 and 10 on this list are right out. there are several others that might not be acceptable depending on the context/wording
- tannk11001 12y ago
  You're assuming a very extreme context and using it to throw out the real value that's being offered to you in this article. It's completely reasonable for a person or group to describe behaviors that make them uncomfortable, and it's especially valuable for them to do so when those offenses aren't immediately obvious. Listing these behaviors doesn't involve some fantasy that they'll all be eradicated tomorrow with subsequent violators ostracized and sent to prison. It's just sharing a real problem that's really experienced by someone. In point fact, there's almost certainly debate to be had within a community about which items have broader import and which might just be personal issues to the individual who composed the list. The value being offered to you is that you can read this and identify a few behaviors that do hurt some people, some times. And that -- as you're available and ready to exercise them -- you have a few specific changes you can make so that the people around you are more comfortable.
kelukelugames 12y ago
when i worked in retail my gay friends and i made fun of each other for being gay all of the time. i dont see why i cant make fun of other gays. /s thats essentially half of the comments in here.
deciplex 12y ago
> 1. Using “guys” to mean “people”. I agree with the author that a guy is a man is a guy. Using 'guys' is a micro-aggression. A rather minor one, in my opinion, but if it's contributing to an unwelcome environment then we should try to cut it out. However: > Relatedly, avoid assuming male users in your documentation. Just stop worrying and embrace the singular “they”. I mean, no I'm not going to do that. Which is to say, I will not and do not assume male users in my documentation, and I will use singular they when appropriate. However I will also continue to use generic he from time to time, because this is a legitimate feature of the English language. Singular they has been around for a really long time - for a lot longer than anyone has cared about feminism certainly (i.e. 600 years or so at least). So it is not, as is sometimes claimed, some sort of recent invention by feminists to change the English language from the top down. Rather, it has existed alongside the generic he for about as long as people have been speaking English. I use them both freely: in speech I probably use singular they about 95% of the time, in writing more like 75%. Sometimes one sounds better, sometimes the other does. If he is a pronoun which is used by English speakers in both a gender specific sense and a gender neutral sense, then that's what it is. The argument against generic he seems to presume that in fact there is no generic he, and that all instances of generic he in speech and writing are in fact instances of presumed maleness. I've never really seen this argued though, it's just always taken as a given. I do not take it as a given - is it really so hard to imagine that a word would have two functions? Most languages do this all the time, and English is no exception. When there are instances of sexism ingrained in our language we should make the effort to remove them, but this often-cited example of same does not foot the bill in my opinion. I will go to great lengths for the cause of feminism, but I will not needlessly degrade the beauty of my native tongue.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > I agree with the author that a guy is a man is a guy. This depends on dialect, and saying that some dialects are wrong, or sexist, is bigoted in a "regionalist" fashion.
jayvanguard 12y ago
> Using “guys” to mean “people” I do this accidentally all the time and really need to stop it.
- theorique 12y ago
  I actually hear a lot of women doing this too - referring to mixed sex groups or even all-female groups as "you guys". I assumed it was just a change in the language, where "guys" was changing from meaning "men" to meaning "y'all" or "you people".
ljak 12y ago
> [instead of referring to "Mom" as an example of a non technical user] ideal nouns will refer to non-human or purely technical categories, such as cat, non-technical user, Ubuntu user, or “newbie.” The persona for which you are designing your software is a cat? Are they going to chase the cursor? Are they illiterate? Do they lack color vision? Similarly, "newbie" means something completely different from "my mom". A newbie is new to your software, or perhaps this class of software, but may be quite technical otherwise. An Ubuntu user is far more technical than average. This is an absurd level of political correctness that gets in the way of design by forcing designers to use language that's inconsistent with their thoughts. If this is really such a big issue, you can create a male persona and use his name to refer to this class of users. > Describing software or algorithms as “sexy”, “hot”, etc. Describing someone or something as sexy is by no means male-specific language.
likeclockwork 12y ago
Reading the article linked in point #9... http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/T-shirts http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/T-shirts Wow. Women's clothing is so broken. (Maybe clothing in general.) The dual requirement of non-sexualizing women (or paying undue attention to their bodies) but also being able to provide flattering perfectly form-fitting t-shirts as swag.. wow. I'd say just drop t-shirts entirely and go to patches, everyone brings their own blank shirt or vest or jacket or whatever that they like and have someone on hand at the event with a sewing machine to sew the patches on.

61 points by empressplay 12y ago

I don't think we can teach people to do or not do a dozen different things at once. Caring fatigue kicks in, people nitpick the lesser issues, etc. It would be nice if people could agree to end one specific behavior at a time. Edit: Before more people react negatively... Have you tried explaining microagressions to someone who has never exprienced any before? It is not easy. Edit 2: Focused campaigns such as Beyonce and co against the word 'bossy'. Edit 3: want to see nitpicking in action? Read the other comments.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
theOnliest 12y ago
I'm not sure that anyone has to agree to work on one at a time. If each person worked on one at a time, that would be great! Nobody is going to get mad at someone for consciously trying to use "women" instead of "girls" just because we all agreed it's "No default male avatar" month.
proksoup 12y ago
I find enumerating the multiple types of micro-aggressions helps the micro-aggressor understand the larger picture of how their many different acts of micro-aggression add up to a hostile atmosphere. Doing so also helps me appear hostile to them, which distracts/sidelines the dialogue a bit.
kaitai 12y ago
That would be really interesting: if everyone focused on one behavior for a month, then tried another one for a month -- like zenhabits' monthly habit-formation themes but for tech citizenship. What a cool idea! (Also, I agree with your edits & comment re: caring fatigue.)
brighteyes 12y ago
> Have you tried explaining microagressions to someone who has never exprienced any before? It is not easy. It's hard because the term itself seems designed to make it hard, in my opinion. A microaggression is unintended, while aggression is very much intended. "Micro" + "aggression" should mean "a small aggression", but it means actually something very different. It's confusing. I think avoiding overly academic terms like "microaggressions" would help here. Instead of explaining terms, just talk plain and to the point: > "When you say 'Usually girls don't like [some geeky thing]', it can make the woman hearing it uncomfortable. It's factually true that few women are interested, but it's not cool to point it out, better to avoid saying it and not look like a jerk." No need for new theoretical terms with confusing meanings.
- kelukelugames 12y ago
  I agree with you one hundred percent. We need better words than privilege and micro aggression. Even the fucking hr rep laughed at me when I used those words.
  - theorique 12y ago
    Maybe "microtransgression"? As pointed out upthread, "aggression" suggests intention, whereas "transgression" suggests a violated boundary, but does not assume intent.

slvv 12y ago

This is one of the best descriptions of microaggressions that I've come across. It also explains well the idea of unintentional-but-still-harmful; I love the comparison to accidentally stepping on someone's foot, and will totally use that as an example in future.

blue69 12y ago

I am sorry but I cringed while reading this. “Mom” as an example of a non-technical user. Describing software or algorithms as “sexy”, “hot”, etc. like lol, I am not sexist and I would love to have more females in engineering, but these pseudo-intellectual feminists do nothing but whine about the stupidest things

NamTaf 12y ago
If you wanted more females in engineering then you'd listen to their complaints about what's keeping them from entering it and address them. You're being sexist through trivialising their objections by saying they 'do nothing but whine about the stupidest things'. What position are you in to argue whether their objections have merit? You could argue, as others have, that some of these objections aren't inherently sexist because they can apply to both genders (i.e.: sexualising things is a trait performed by both genders), but dismissing this list as you did does nothing except undermine your own statement of wanting more women in tech.
- mod 12y ago
  You can listen to the concerns of the group (all women) and still trivialize the objections of a minority (psuedo-intellectual women) without being sexist. The position he has to argue whether the objections have merit is that he's a thinking, rational human who can objectively consider whether something is sexist or not.
- dmschulman 12y ago
  I would wonder whether these are opinions felt by a wide percentage of women in tech or if they are solely the gripes of the author.

tomlock 12y ago

Well this fell from number 5 article pretty quick. I've noticed this happening heaps with articles about sexism. Why is that?

dang 12y ago
Users flag-killed it. In such cases (where the article isn't spam or off-topic) we usually unkill the story so that ongoing discussion can continue, but don't override the flags altogether, meaning the story's rank is still penalized. We're open to overriding the flags altogether if people feel that the article and/or thread is particularly good. Edit: Based on user feedback via email, we've overridden the flags. We've also closed the threads to noob accounts. I hate doing that, but sometimes it's the only way to deal with trolls. Anyone with a new account who wants to participate civilly in the thread is welcome to email us.
- functional_test 12y ago
  Dang, I have the highest respect for what your moderation has done for HN. That said, unkilling this is just wrong. This sort of drivel is what I'd expect on Tumblr -- nit picking minor things, focusing on people's phrasing rather than meaning, not accepting common terminology as if that advances some sort of social justice, and asking people (inherently Bayesian creatures) to ignore their priors for the sake of "equality". These articles detract from the real issues, and serve only to further separate women in technology, rather than integrating them. There's a reason this was flag killed (and it was not sexism).
  - robbrown451 12y ago
    I hope it stays. It was very well written and balanced, and did what it set out to do, which is get me to look at a couple things I've done or defended (for instance saying "guys" or calling women "girls" in a social context) and seen them in a different light. Also it is discouraging people from calling software "sexy", and I support that -- because it is just annoying and sounds like something lame marketing people would say.
  - deleted 12y ago

mckiddy 12y ago

Are you serious? Opinions like these are exactly why women are having a hard time in tech in the first place. If I have to spend every waking moment at work obsessing about whether a single comment will make my female coworkers label me as a sexist asshole, then you bet I'll avoid working with them as much as possible.

s73v3r 12y ago
Maybe if you were a decent human being, you wouldn't have to.
gress 12y ago
So it's ok for you to use demeaning language towards women, but not ok for them to consider that sexist?
- mckiddy 12y ago
  Because so many of these points are demeaning, right? Practically everyone I've ever met uses "you guys" in place of "you all", etc, with no derogatory intent. Certainly anyone familiar with the western US would realize and understand this. My mom and dad are both technically illiterate, and I gladly use both as examples. I would never assume a woman is non-technical _at a technical conference_, but everywhere else in the country the average woman is far less likely to be in a technical career than the average man, by simple probability. IT IS UNUSUAL.
  - gress 12y ago
    Making assumptions about individuals based on your interpretation of statistics about their gender is inherently sexist. Most of us do it, but that doesn't make it less harmful.
sbilstein 12y ago
Perhaps you should consider what happens when a colleague has to spend time thinking about whether or not the comments you've failed to police yourself are actually threatening, creepy, or indicative of other much more harmful behaviors you may be capable of?

vletmixutechre 12y ago

"Yes, most people intend this in a gender-neutral way; no, it is not actually gender-neutral." Wrong.

msandford 12y ago
If words mean what people agree that they mean (and I don't really know how else it could be!) then if enough people say "guys" isn't necessarily male then it's like an election. You might not like who won, but it got enough votes to be a legitimate thing.

dataker 12y ago

Honestly, criticizing men at the micro-level is quite unrealistic and pointless. Controlling speech and avoiding saying 'guys' won't do much at the macro-level of women's rights. Hostility has never worked to foster equality. However, if individuals and organizations promote cooperation, equality and respect, these micro-aggressions become even smaller and, eventually, disappear.

MattLaroche 12y ago
I'm the person whose tweet is at the top of the linked article. My original curiosity was from that of someone who wants to promote "cooperation, equality and respect" - and, to me, part of doing that is asking for, and being open to, what minor things I might be doing to marginalize others. So perhaps you're right - in the long run, maybe if organizations promote respect without talking about little things people do wrong, we'll get further on equality. But I do see value in talking about little things that are systemically unequal, and I think we'll get to a better place faster by talking about even the little things.
- abeisgreat 12y ago
  I think the real issue is that no one (including the author) is obeying the issue #9 "Stereotyping women’s needs". That's what the author is doing, that's what all these guys feeling bad for putting out "microagressions" are doing. Unless you are a women in tech then you can't speak for any women in tech and even if you are, you can only speak for one women in tech, yourself. Some women might be offended by saying "guys" but some others might feel that it's a term of endearment (as it is probably intended) and they might feel saying "men and women" is silly. But I don't know, because I'm a dude. What I do know is that every single successful person puts up with crap. That crap is often months of working on a project with a manager you dislike or putting in extra time to get things done when you'd rather be sitting around eating Cheetos. Work is a constant struggle and if you're throwing in the towel on your passion because someone called something sexy, then you clearly weren't meant to work with people, let alone in tech.
  - 12y ago

attackvectors 12y ago

Could there be any exceptions for this? For example, if a woman consents to a sexual intercourse in the workplace, will I be able to call her a "girl," or perhaps even a "bitch" in order to enhance her state of arousal? I'm eager to obtain some further guidelines on this.

gress 12y ago
You have demonstrated that nobody can reasonably claim that sexism in tech is not a problem.
- attackvectors 12y ago
  Why just tech? Are all other industries free of sexism except tech? I'm willing to bet that the socially awkward nerds that compose tech companies are actually nicest and most respectful to females compared to other sectors of the economy. How's being a woman in Goldman Sachs like? Sexism is just a cheap excuse used to cover up for the fact that majority of females aren't willing to, or are generally uninterested in working in tech.
  - gress 12y ago
    So your response is that it's not a problem in tech because it's a problem elsewhere? Why are you defending sexism?
    - attackvectors 12y ago
      Because sexism in tech is not actually a problem, and constant attention to this non-issue constitutes mindless misandry.
    - dropit_sphere 12y ago
      The mirror question would be: is there a limit to how bad sexism is? Is it worse than murder? Theft? Speeding? Passing gas in public? Finding an exact ranking is of course an academic question. But the take-no-prisoners, root-it-out-at-any-cost ("Why are you defending sexism?" without nuance[0]) attitude communicates that feminism is an unreasonable (in the sense that it cannot be reasoned with) entity. If name-and-shame on an industrial scale ("Men in tech") continues despite widespread efforts and initiatives to correct problematic behavior, than a cost-benefit analysis leads to the conclusion that there is nothing to be gained by said efforts and initiatives[1]. I am fully aware that "feminism" is not a coherent organization and actions of individuals aren't necessarily representative of the wider movement, but I submit that that's a strategic problem for the movement. Here is what my intuition tells me: a)there is more sexism in the financial sector, and b) the financial sector is more resistant to change. A large feminist organization might have the resources, vision, and endurance to make an impact on the financial sector, but an army of individuals will collectively flock to the low-hanging fruit of technology. This is completely understandable at the activist level, but leads to credibility problems for the movement as a whole when the truth-tellers fail to speak truth where it is most needed. [0]Recommended: http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html [1]The crazy thing about cost-benefit analyses is that no one ever has to actually do them to react to them; society is a giant genetic algorithm selecting for individuals and organizations that act as if they had done them. Antibiotics, mismanaged, may give us superbugs; if feminism is done wrong, will it give us super-sexists?

radley 12y ago

It's not the harmful stereotypes, it's the mundane. Is anyone else waiting for a woman to point out the obvious stereotype of women (and then some men) writing tons of this stuff at similar points of mainstream integration in similar emerging industries... so men are finally free to mention it too?

nothrabannosir 12y ago

5. Describing software or algorithms as “sexy”, “hot”, etc. By sexualizing something that does not need to be sexualized, you’re creating a college-frat-boy type environment, as well as implicitly conflating quality with sexual attractiveness. If I work with you, I want to know that you’re enough of an adult to be able to appreciate something (or someone) without wanting to fornicate with it. What? Are women not sexually aware now? Or are men the only ones who act immature? I like some of the points, but this one is coated so thickly in irony I can't even tell if there's any substance at the bottom. Honest to God, what's inherently male about calling an algorithm sexy? Why couldn't a woman do just that? Isn't the mere perpetuating of that idea exactly the type of "oh no think of the poor women" thinking that the article tries to dissuade? Or is the irony all on me? Truly I don't understand this one. EDIT: Just to clarify: I'm not trying to advocate "calling algorithms sexy." If you don't like it because you think it's immature or unprofessional; well, it's not my cup of tea, either. But don't put that in a list about sexism. Conflating the two is precisely the latter.

tannk11001 12y ago
You don't think that needlessly sexualizing things might be insensitive to people who are themselves subject to exactly the same kind of needless sexualizing? It's no less insensitive just because women are also capable of sexualizing things, or because men may also find it uncomfortable.
- meric 12y ago
  That argument does not counter his point this isn't a sexism thing.
  - comex 12y ago
    A person can perpetuate sexism without meaning to. It is just a matter of getting people aware and encouraging them to actively think about whether any things they do might be making women uncomfortable, and to try to be considerate.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

I think equating the so-called "dark patterns" in user interfaces with sexism is a little far-fetched, but the rest I can agree with (other than #13). I have yet to hear about any "hot and sexy algorithms", however.

jonnybgood 12y ago

> 1. Using “guys” to mean “people”. Everytime I see this sentiment I always wonder how the author, and others like the author, feel about Spanish speakers and the language.

joelrunyon 12y ago
Or any other language that has gendered nouns.
albemuth 12y ago
"los y las programadoras"

parennoob 12y ago

Some things I agree with. > 6. Assuming women they meet are in non-technical roles. Yeah, monumentally stupid. I don't even understand the reason for this -- usually at any event I just straight up ask people what they do. Assuming something is pretty weird. > 7. Fetishizing “hot geek girls”. > 8. Denigrating things by comparing them to women or femininity. Common sense. A desperate man slavering over a "hot geek girl" looks ridiculous, as does a man who talks about "manning up" or "hitting like a girl" in the workplace in 2015. Stop it. -------------------------- Some rebuttals, or at least different perspectives on some of these points. > 1. Using 'guys' to mean people The majority of girls/women in college do this. In fact, anecdotal, but I have seen this used much more often by women outside the tech field. I cannot count the number of times I have heard "So where are you guys going out tonight" amongst an all-female college group. So I don't think men who use this term are being micro-aggressive, unless you count female usage of this term as a "micro-aggression" as well. > 2. "Girls" for "women" Similarly, unless older women are being micro-aggressive when they use this term, I don't see why this is micro-aggressive. One of my biggest surprises was hearing my 50+ female co-worker telling me "I'm a good girl, I pay all my bills on time." > 3. "Mom" as an example of a non-technical user I always use my dad as an example, even though my mom is the more non-technical person. But if "mom" is used way more often, maybe I can go along with this. Still, the suggestion therein to use "cat, non-technical user, Ubuntu user" is pretty silly in my opinion. > 4. Using a default male avatar How do you decide if an avatar is male? Jeans and T-shirts do not a male make in this day and age. I am not quite certain how you would distinguish between a non-gendered and gendered avatar. > 5. Describing software or algorithms as “sexy”, “hot”, etc. According to the author, this creates a "college frat-boy environment". I would argue that outlawing normal adult words like "sexy" and "hot" creates more of an infantilized classroom environment where you are essentially saying "Hey, don't say that bad word in front of the girls, or you'll get punished." Using "sexy" to refer to a well-designed, sleek new website is, in my opinion, perfectly reasonable. > 10. Using dark UI patterns. This is a problem for all users. I don't see why this should disproportionately drive women off. If it is, the solution lies in more privacy education and outreach, not bashing people who write the software.

ilyanep 12y ago
I've never actually heard the term "mom" or "grandma" used in that case. Why not just "non-technical user," "less savvy user," "our average user," etc? I don't understand the point of bringing up the specific example.

ta82828 12y ago

I am male. When I was in school I was on a project with two women. I asked them if the term "guys" bothered them. They both said no. I even used it when there were only women in the group. Guys is the plural of you in some dialects of English. "Hot" has many many meanings other than "sexy". When not referring to a person's attractiveness, it means "popular, being paid a lot of attention to" or "high in temperature", or "fast" or "contains a lot of energy".

ilyanep 12y ago
You are implying that a few individual women you know being okay with a thing implies that it is alright / not sexist / shouldn't be offensive to other women. I'm not necessarily sure that that follows. (This is independent of whether or not the term 'guys' is sexist or offensive to women or anything else).
- ta82828 12y ago
  I will accept many corrections for the benefit of diversity, but when even the majority of the disadvantaged group uses the word in a non-hostile way, I stop feeling like I'm being asked to be helpful and start feeling like I'm being micromanaged and controlled by people who refuse to take into account the obvious intent of my words that the majority of listeners understand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You#Informal_plural_forms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You#Informal_plural_forms Informal plural forms Despite you being both singular and plural, some dialects retain the distinction between a singular and plural you with different words. Examples of such pronouns sometimes seen and heard are: ... you guys – U.S.,[2] particularly in the Midwest, Northeast, South Florida and West Coast; Canada, Australia. Used regardless of the genders of those referred to ... (I live, work, and went to school in Northeastern U.S.)
  - 4ydx 12y ago
    If you explain your intent and they still feel offended, I do wonder how one should react to that. It feels to me like someone who is being pedantic who thinks they are "right". Who knows, maybe it does offend enough people that this usage will decline.

mikestew 12y ago

Man, I'd love emery boards as conference swag (#9). I've got enough shirts and 256KB USB keys to last me a lifetime. And I guarantee, even as male who isn't all that obsessed with his manicure but likes smooth nails, I'll see sponsor name much more often than I would on a dated USB key that sits in a box until electronics recycling day comes. I'd preface my next statement with "all kidding aside" were I actually kidding, but as a male manager who has actually chastised males on my team for refererring to the females on that team as "the girls" (#2 on the list), I have to say "good luck" with getting that list implemented. I say that because even though I obviously agree with some of the items, I just internally sigh when reading half those items. Pick your battles, as the saying goes, and this list has a lot of metaphoric hills that aren't worth dying on.

gress 12y ago
Is there a particular battle you think can be won?
parennoob 12y ago
As another man who likes smooth nails, I agree with you. I'd much rather get a decent nail file than an ill-fitting T-shirt at a conference. In fact, I'd say thinking that Emery boards are female-only is in itself... RuntimeError: maximum sexism accusation depth exceeded
- bisrael 12y ago
  There is no feeling worse than typing all day with overgrown nails. Source: I'm a man who programs all day.
bisrael 12y ago
Imagine if you combined all those KB....!

seandhi 12y ago

My wife addresses her team of mostly females as 'you guys'. Granted, she's also not a man or in tech, but I am having a hard time seeing how this is sexist. Now, some of the items on the list are quite good. My mom, for example, is just as technical, or more so, than my dad. She is not a good archetype of the non-technical user.

ilyanep 12y ago
You are implying that one woman doing a thing implies that it is alright / not sexist / shouldn't be offensive to other women. I'm not necessarily sure that that follows. (This is independent of whether or not the term 'guys' is sexist or offensive to women or anything else).
- ta82828 12y ago
  Well, OP is implying that a single woman finding something sexist or offensive makes it so. I've presented two counterexamples upthread and grandparent here presented one, that's three. OP presented only two, and one of them is a man who makes his point by conflating the singular and plural forms of "guys".

Alleluja 12y ago

Stop objectifying women! They know what they are doing! They are not retarded. If they wanted go to tech, they would go to tech! Duuuuuhhhhh... who are you bitchez to tell them to go study CS, to do mammography, to go to work? Who are you? When was the last time you saw commercials telling men to have prostate checked, or go and study foreign languages? Not so keen to advise agents (men), huh? All about telling objects (women) what to do. Stop objectifying women feminist bitchez!!! THANKS!

wyager 12y ago

1 is a feature of the English language. English uses male pronouns as genderless personal pronouns. This is not a Tech thing. 2 is a result of the fact that English diminutives apply to adults as well. I often say to my male friends "what's up, boys?" For 4, UX designers should set this based on their expected userbase. For 5, just because something is sexual does not make it sexist. There is nothing wrong with using sexual metaphor unless you have puritanical Victorian-era morals. For 7, this goes for both genders... People use "cock", "dick", etc. as derogatory terms all the time. 10: This has nothing to do with gender. This might be the most tenuous claim in the entire article. Privacy is a good UX practice, but a lack of privacy doesn't hurt women in particular.

sinak 12y ago

As with many articles about sexism, it's easy to read this and have an immediate, emotional reaction. If you "cringed" like one of the other commenters (and as I did reading some of the points listed), its worth taking a moment to think more carefully about why that emotional response was triggered. Few HN users self-identify as "sexist." Yet reading this post, many of us will have done things that the author identifies as subtly sexist micro-aggressions. If you think that that makes you a sexist, well, you're right. All of us are. Sexism, like racism, is a societal problem, engrained in all of us. To try and shift away from our current sexist norms we need to redefine them, and that means recasting behaviors that many of us currently view as completely unoffensive. Another common reaction is something like "these things aren't important, will never change, and feminists should pick their battles." But that's misguided - you're silencing and dismissing viewpoints that deserve to be heard. Just because a subtle but widespread societal norm isn't likely be fixed in the short term doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. We certainly have the ability to change own behaviors, and nudge those around us to do the same.

irishcoffee 12y ago
> Sexism, like racism, is a societal problem, engrained in all of us. Are you trying to somehow imply everyone is racist? Are you further implying that everyone is sexist? > ... a right to complain and be heard I'm curious, who (in the US anyways) doesn't have that right. At this point I feel like I can get sued for calling a stop sign red. It's getting a little absurd.
- sinak 12y ago
  > Are you trying to somehow imply everyone is racist? Are you further implying that everyone is sexist? Yes and yes. Much of our context for judging people comes from society, and society is both sexist and racist. Numerous studies have shown that even people who identify as being non-racist will shoot a black person more quickly, dismiss a resume if it contains a black-sounding name, etc: More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/nicholas-kristof-is-everyone-a-little-bit-racist.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/nicholas-kristof-i... The same applies to sexism. You can Google your way to plenty of similar studies. > I'm curious, who (in the US anyways) doesn't have that right. At this point I feel like I can get sued for calling a stop sign red. It's getting a little absurd. It's true that people (mostly) have the right to free speech in the US. But there are two ways to prevent people from expressing their views: you can literally disallow them from saying something, or you can "silence" them by making them feel uncomfortable for having spoken at all. I'm talking about the latter.

lqdc13 12y ago

>Don’t do the “guys and girls” thing >either, which is marginally better but >still makes it feel like an afterthought. >Try: “folks”, “y’all”, “everyone”, >“team”, “channel”, or just “awesome >people”. Yall is too ghetto Team is too corporate Awesome people diminishes the value of the word awesome and also too long Everyone would mean you're addressing everyone who can hear you say it... Folks is too official. Why not just people? Also, girls/women even say dude and guys to each other. Would seem weird to not say it that way after they say it themselves. If someone acts too PC, people stop hanging around them.

spcoll 12y ago

Good writeup. Women in tech are faced with a constant barrage of microaggressions. I see many men taking a stance of "I'm not sexist, this is not my problem", but really this is every man's responsibility. And it needs to stop. What are YOU doing about it?

habosa 12y ago

> 6. Assuming women they meet are in non-technical roles. I like to think I am not a sexist person (intentionally or not), but this is one I have to make an actual silent effort to get right. It's just that the statistics are unfortunately very skewed. Some 80%+ of software engineering roles at big companies go to men, but for non-technical roles it can be 50% women or more. So if you meet a woman it is more likely that she is not an engineer. But statistics don't make assumptions acceptable. I try to make sure I don't assume anything about people I meet around work (don't assume a man is an engineer, don't assume a woman is not). Makes me cringe when I hear this conversation: Man: "So what do you do here?" Woman: "I'm a SWE on _______" Man: "Oh really?"

habosa 12y ago

rsuelzer 12y ago

Although, while I understand the authors concerns on point #1 I think it comes from a misunderstanding of the reason on why so many people use the phrase "you guys". I'm going to go out on a limb here and defend all of us who with use this phrase regularly. "You guys" is the most common form of "you" plural used in the mid-west and western United States. For those who were not taught English in a region where "you guys" is standard, I can assure you that we consider "you guys" to be completely gender neutral. I can see how this phrase would seem strange to someone from a region of the United States that uses "you" or "you all" or "ya'll" or "folks", but for us it is simply a phrase that is used by both women and men when addressing a group of people of any gender (all women, all men, mixed). See you guys tomorrow != See you men tomorrow. Are you guys done yet? != Are you boys done yet? Now, is the etymology of the word sexist, a la "mankind"? That I do not know (it probably is), but the intent of those of us who use it is simply that it is two words meaning "you all". We do not think about injecting gender at all into the conversation, in fact we use this phrase to avoid it (as silly as that may seem)! I would imagine that this phrase is more likely to turn heads when it is used in a region of The United States where it is not the normal linguistic way of saying "you" plural.

tannk11001 12y ago
You're absolutely right. It's casual and doesn't carry an explicit gender connotation to most people that use it. At the same time, bringing attention to the implicit sexism (a la 'mankind') is valid. It doesn't mean anybody has to shame themselves for saying 'guys', it just suggests that they might want to consider other word choices in delicate situations or when they've got the reserves to be a little more conscientious.
- rsuelzer 12y ago
  Yeah, and it if you are working in a region that doesn't use "you guys" as a gender neutral "you all" you should be aware that it can be seen a loaded term and adjust accordingly to make sure that you properly convey your true intent and not make others feel marginalized.
trynumber9 12y ago

mod 12y ago

For her #2 point, (using "girls"), I think "girls" is not actually the closest thing to "guys." I think you say "boys & girls" or "guys & gals," traditionally. Gals has fallen out of common use, but it's probably the most appropriate word if women are taking offense to "girls."

karmacondon 12y ago

None of these things seem like problems that need to be corrected (within reason [1]). Part of being a member of a minority group is that members of the majority group will never speak or behave in exactly the way you would like. That's the nature of living in a heterogeneous society. There will never be equal proportions of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or culture in any group. In the interest of everyone being able to work together effectively, we all have a responsibility to draw a line between preference and abuse. People who become abusive should obviously be castigated or removed for the good of everyone. But if we place too much emphasis on appeasing the preferences of every group or individual, we'll be too busy focusing on choosing just the right word in every situation to get things done. Effective communication is hard enough as it is. Parsing every word because it might potentially offend someone only makes the problem worse. Everyone has a cross to bear and no one will ever feel that they fit in perfectly. Some times toes get stepped on, and that's ok. I think the term "unintentionally sexist" says it all. There was a time when open and aggressive *-ism was common, but that kind of thing is generally no longer acceptable in polite or professional society. It seems like the best thing for all of us would be to focus on what we have and common and what we can do to get along, instead of publishing lists of "I hate it when group X says thing Y". [1] clearly numbers 6, 9 and 10 on this list are right out. there are several others that might not be acceptable depending on the context/wording

tannk11001 12y ago
You're assuming a very extreme context and using it to throw out the real value that's being offered to you in this article. It's completely reasonable for a person or group to describe behaviors that make them uncomfortable, and it's especially valuable for them to do so when those offenses aren't immediately obvious. Listing these behaviors doesn't involve some fantasy that they'll all be eradicated tomorrow with subsequent violators ostracized and sent to prison. It's just sharing a real problem that's really experienced by someone. In point fact, there's almost certainly debate to be had within a community about which items have broader import and which might just be personal issues to the individual who composed the list. The value being offered to you is that you can read this and identify a few behaviors that do hurt some people, some times. And that -- as you're available and ready to exercise them -- you have a few specific changes you can make so that the people around you are more comfortable.

kelukelugames 12y ago

when i worked in retail my gay friends and i made fun of each other for being gay all of the time. i dont see why i cant make fun of other gays. /s thats essentially half of the comments in here.

deciplex 12y ago

> 1. Using “guys” to mean “people”. I agree with the author that a guy is a man is a guy. Using 'guys' is a micro-aggression. A rather minor one, in my opinion, but if it's contributing to an unwelcome environment then we should try to cut it out. However: > Relatedly, avoid assuming male users in your documentation. Just stop worrying and embrace the singular “they”. I mean, no I'm not going to do that. Which is to say, I will not and do not assume male users in my documentation, and I will use singular they when appropriate. However I will also continue to use generic he from time to time, because this is a legitimate feature of the English language. Singular they has been around for a really long time - for a lot longer than anyone has cared about feminism certainly (i.e. 600 years or so at least). So it is not, as is sometimes claimed, some sort of recent invention by feminists to change the English language from the top down. Rather, it has existed alongside the generic he for about as long as people have been speaking English. I use them both freely: in speech I probably use singular they about 95% of the time, in writing more like 75%. Sometimes one sounds better, sometimes the other does. If he is a pronoun which is used by English speakers in both a gender specific sense and a gender neutral sense, then that's what it is. The argument against generic he seems to presume that in fact there is no generic he, and that all instances of generic he in speech and writing are in fact instances of presumed maleness. I've never really seen this argued though, it's just always taken as a given. I do not take it as a given - is it really so hard to imagine that a word would have two functions? Most languages do this all the time, and English is no exception. When there are instances of sexism ingrained in our language we should make the effort to remove them, but this often-cited example of same does not foot the bill in my opinion. I will go to great lengths for the cause of feminism, but I will not needlessly degrade the beauty of my native tongue.

cbd1984 12y ago
> I agree with the author that a guy is a man is a guy. This depends on dialect, and saying that some dialects are wrong, or sexist, is bigoted in a "regionalist" fashion.

jayvanguard 12y ago

> Using “guys” to mean “people” I do this accidentally all the time and really need to stop it.

theorique 12y ago
I actually hear a lot of women doing this too - referring to mixed sex groups or even all-female groups as "you guys". I assumed it was just a change in the language, where "guys" was changing from meaning "men" to meaning "y'all" or "you people".

ljak 12y ago

> [instead of referring to "Mom" as an example of a non technical user] ideal nouns will refer to non-human or purely technical categories, such as cat, non-technical user, Ubuntu user, or “newbie.” The persona for which you are designing your software is a cat? Are they going to chase the cursor? Are they illiterate? Do they lack color vision? Similarly, "newbie" means something completely different from "my mom". A newbie is new to your software, or perhaps this class of software, but may be quite technical otherwise. An Ubuntu user is far more technical than average. This is an absurd level of political correctness that gets in the way of design by forcing designers to use language that's inconsistent with their thoughts. If this is really such a big issue, you can create a male persona and use his name to refer to this class of users. > Describing software or algorithms as “sexy”, “hot”, etc. Describing someone or something as sexy is by no means male-specific language.

likeclockwork 12y ago

Reading the article linked in point #9... http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/T-shirts http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/T-shirts Wow. Women's clothing is so broken. (Maybe clothing in general.) The dual requirement of non-sexualizing women (or paying undue attention to their bodies) but also being able to provide flattering perfectly form-fitting t-shirts as swag.. wow. I'd say just drop t-shirts entirely and go to patches, everyone brings their own blank shirt or vest or jacket or whatever that they like and have someone on hand at the event with a sewing machine to sew the patches on.