1) Attraction: Oh my god, it's a girl and she has a brain
and is interested in some of the same things I am
interested in. Maybe I can get a date!
I wouldn't put it past the majority of my gender.
2) Misguided attempts to encourage women to post more: Oh
my god, it's a girl and we need more girls posting here.
Let's be nice and friendly and make her feel all welcome
and stuff so she will post more (thereby sucking all the
intellectual content out of their posts and killing any
reason you have to post there).
I wouldn't put it past HN.
3) It's not really kid gloves, it's really walking on egg
shells: Oh my god, it's a girl and what if she breaks
down and cries because I argued with her (like my
girlfriend routinely does)
Now that I just can not see.
3b) or what if I make a joke and she takes it all wrong
and everyone will think I am some horrible sexist pig!
People have lost their jobs to that one. Even I'm doing that. You would be crazy not to do that
4) Shyness: A lot of the very intelligent men you find
hanging out in certain types of online forums (like
Hacker News) are very introverted and just awkward around
women and some of them have gotten a lot of rejection, so
they get nervous once they find out it's a girl.
5) I don't really care what your gender is (unless it is particularly germane to the topic of discussion) and I don't take it into account with regard to the content of my posts or responses.
People aren't taken aback at the office, when they deal with female engineers. Why should it be any different on the internet?
I understand women often have to deal with these awkward situations online. Granted. But let's remember that these are a minuscule fraction. It's like walking down the streets of New York and applying the reaction of one construction whistler cat-calling someone passing by and painting the other four million men in the city.
Of course, when you're on the receiving end of encounters with the one person in a massive group that always zooms in on you, it likely feels disproportionate.
I'm a pretty introspective person, I recognize that when the context changes, my behaviour changes. I want to be dispassionate and logical, but I am human.
I know many people arn't introspective, they don't think their behaviour changes at all. How many people have you met that have honestly told you: "Well placebo's don't really effect me." "Commercials don't have an effect on me." "I don't see race when I'm interviewing someone." "I treated that person as I would anyone else."
I hear it often, I also hear about study after study debunking such beliefs.
I believe you are right, most of HN would definitely take #5. I'm convinced most of HN would be mistaken. I can't help be racist, I can't help be sexist, I can't help be misguided and mislead. What I can do is recognize that I am effected by such proclivities, and compensate for them.
That is truly the best I can do. I am jealous of the person who can justifiably say they are #5.
As an example, the dongle joke had nothing to do with sexism.
I am not trying to shame you but have you ever been around groups of women as they work or play? Off color jokes are typical of the species homo sapiens in 2014.
Well, the dongle joke was kind of a play on the word "dong" as euphemism for penis. So it had some vague allusion to sexual content, but you're absolutely right that it had nothing to do with sexism.
The real sexists are the people - including the distinguished Miss Richards who initially reported the joke - who presume that women are such delicate little flowers that they can't exist in an environment for adults, where people occasionally make jokes that are unsuitable for kindergarten kids.
At least you also said what you really mean, that the sexism is problematic, but far too often I have seen people pretend that their issue with a offensive/bigoted/problematic joke is that it is not funny or cliche^. Let's be honest here, that is not actually what bothers people. We only hear those objections when there is something else wrong with the joke; nobody objects to non-offensive unfunny jokes. Groan perhaps, but not object.
^ Usually this manifests as something like "it's not even that it is offensive, the joke is just _lazy_"
There's no accounting for taste I suppose. I'll happily wade through a mountain of bad puns, but scatology and sexual dimorphism jokes are just wearisome.
> "scatology and sexual dimorphism jokes are just wearisome."
Right, but that is not because they are unimaginative or cliched (evidenced by you being able to wade through mountains of bad puns). It is because they are scatological or sexist.
The author has a really high opinion of commenters on hacker news. I don't really think it's that high quality. There are all kinds of weird conspiracy theorists, uncritical guffaws and just plain obnoxious toxic commentary. I think it was pretty high quality about one thousand days ago[1], but it isn't anymore. And yes this is a new account, but I'm not new.
It's true that the discussion quality isn't at some zenith, but it's still far beyond the vast majority of the web. There's plenty of expert commentary and educated comments to be found, despite the general drop.
I haven't really seen that much "weird conspiracy theorists", though.
I am moving a few things from an old personal blog to a new one. This was previously posted on HN under the old url. I did not expect it to be upvoted this much or get any traction. I just thought a few people might be interested in knowing where it got moved.
As a guy, I get pretty sick of it. I've noticed the "kiddie gloves" effect for a long time on HN and so I tend to just stay out of those threads altogether. I've found that if I disagree or critique a woman a thousand misguided defenders swoop in, presumably in some attempt to be chivalrous.
Guys, give it a rest and treat women the same as you would men. They don't want or need special treatment.
If anything, I would find myself more concerned about all the overly sensitive fellow males swarming me for something they perceive to take offense to on behalf of someone or a group entirely unrelated to them than I am potentially upsetting anyone on whose actual behalf the offense is feigned.
We must read a different HN and participate in different industries.
> They don't want or need special treatment.
Many women these days are certainly expressing that they want special treatment. The question is if they need it, and if they are representative of women in IT as a whole.
I suspect the women who unhappy are writing posts about it, and the ones who don't want special treatment aren't saying anything because they're doing just fine. IMO it's a noisy minority, but given the recent story about the woman who got felt up at a Bitcoin meetup, perhaps more sexist behavior is going on than I see.
I'm a female programmer. I don't want to be hit on or looked at like I'm from another planet; I want to be judged by the quality of my work. It's going to my satisfaction, so I don't feel the need to complain.
This is probably being brought up due to the Bropages post from yesterday which resulted in hundreds of comments stating that a rubygem with the simple name of 'bro' is somehow going to totally devastate the fragile psyche of all women in IT.
Ugh, as a guy, that whole thread was silly. I got the joke, saw they were erring on the side of "dude" rather than "immature jerk" and stopped reading. What stopped me from contributing was that I couldn't find an easy way to cut examples out of a man page. Although it does occur to me belatedly that a grep for "<command> -" would probably do it for many commands. Or maybe there's another standard syntax that could be used. It also reminded me of that tool that could explain a command by annotating a given example. Hmm, maybe the sexist name debate stopped me from contributing more than I'd thought. That said, it was because the debate didn't interest me -- it wasn't relevant enough to the original subject matter, I felt.
Related, one can now not use the Swedish name for "bridge" in projects. Bridge being a common technical term is the same exact 3 letter "bro", and will likely call down the storm if used.
My dream of bridging man pages and info manuals crushed.
As an early HN user I secured the username "amanda" before promptly ditching it after 2 weeks. While I don't hide that I am female in my bio, I have also found that the style of interactions changed significantly when I changed my username. Figuring out how to leave the kid-gloves off in real life has been a bigger challenge.
Weird, I wonder what percent of HN users are actually looking at a user name when posting a reply, I personally don't even read a username of a person who I reply to, never mind looking for any male/female meanings in it.
But because you posted this sort of comment I actually read your username for the first time :)
It is relevant to the subject of the post. (If nobody looks at usernames, then the issue cited in the post doesn't matter.)
Personally, I at least look at who I am responding to (especially when I disagree with them; sometimes the person you're responding to has readily-apparent expertise that you'd feel foolish disagreeing with.)
True. I also tend to look at usernames when a commenter annoys me, just to see if it's a troll who is camping out on a thread waiting to say the same things again. But... By then I've made up my mind what I'm going to say, and whether the troll's name is Jack or Jane isn't going to change that.
It would put some useful bounds on the behavior. If only 1% of people look at usernames when posting replies, she could conclude it's a very small subset of people generating this nonsense. If everyone does, we don't learn much at all.
Yeah. If I could get people to see me differently in real life without actually having to change anything about myself to do it, that'd be the real Jedi mind trick. ;-) As to the original topic, I worry everything I say is going to be taken the wrong way on HN: gender or otherwise -- HN's mods have touchy trigger fingers. :)
It feels slightly horrible to admit it, but I'd probably try to be more encouraging/nicer to someone who posted something I disagree with if I thought that person was very young, new to the topic, female, or other underrepresented group. The "female" part is probably specific to tech; if it were a forum with equal gender distribution (biotech, or say fans of a tv show or something), I wouldn't.
OTOH, I'd also be similarly polite to a respected person, particularly from outside the field, who posted something wrong. e.g. if a regulator or most VCs said something fundamentally incorrect, I'd politely try to counter it, but I'd back off rapidly unless the disagreement were really core.
All of this is without specific information about the person; there are specific counterexamples. e.g. if pmarca were the VC who said something "wrong", I don't think "back off to be polite" would be useful or necessary; however, he's probably also less often wrong about things.
yes - exactly - most of us use gender agnostic language, rather than he/she usage, it is preferred to use they. this takes away any gender identity, except where specifically called out for gender specific topics.
this whole thing about how women are treated is utterly dumb. am I male or female? Who can tell, does it matter, does it change anything about this comment? Of course not. gender agnostic language begets gender nondiscrimination.
I'm sure many people don't notice. I'm sure some people do notice but don't talk down to female users.
But not everyone is like that. When people complain about sexism in the tech industry, they aren't saying that everyone in the industry is sexist. I'm sure that at least some of the time people would treat you differently online if your username was stephanieburleson.
I find that I try and avoid certain topics on HN, they tend to be clustered around:
1) discussions of gender
2) discussions of gentrification in the bay area
3) financial or political ideology (anything especially randian, for instance)
Interactions / discussion tend to not be as factual or informative as other discussions.
The poster makes great points on how to engage, sometimes, however, good posts are lost within a bunch of noise.
> A lot of the very intelligent men you find
hanging out in certain types of online forums (like
Hacker News) are very introverted and just awkward around
women and some of them have gotten a lot of rejection, so
they get nervous once they find out it's a girl
Imagine if man posted a similar statement about some female community, he would be called sexist right away...
Maybe. You have to keep in mind though that the two situations are not equivalent. Men have been the "in group" for a long time, and as members of the in group there are a lot of social dynamics that we don't tend to have a deep understanding of. See the parable of the old fish asking the young, "How's the water?"
Conversely, as "outsiders" who are greatly affected by the dynamics of the in group, women have had more of a reason to pay attention to the group dynamics of men for a long time. They are more likely to have a sense of these things, conscious or not. The same dynamic happens any time there is a minority. Black people tend to be more astute observers of white people's behavior than the reverse because a white person is more likely to live their life without having to understand how to get what they want from the black folks who have the power, while the reverse is less often true.
Many mention they can't think of cases where gender would come up in discussions. While it doesn't often come up, there are some discussions where personal anecdotes leads to the inference of the gender of the author.
Personally, in my AFK life and online, I treat women with the same respect (and critique) as I do men. I also don't know many people who would treat people differently based on their gender. Well, obviously disregarding the case for romance/relations..
I do understand the interest in women in fields like tech and gaming. It certainly is something that can pique ones interest when a person of the opposite gender shares the same interests as you, but that doesn't mean you need to treat them differently unless otherwise hinted.
The only people I can think of that do (treat women the way the OP describes), are also people that are generally awkward in social settings, so it's not gender focused per se, just a bit more apparent there, maybe.
Gender discussions seem to arise on here (and almost every other geek/tech/whatever related group) between about one and three times per day. I'm pretty sure we have shared very similar discussions to the topic of this thread at least six other times around here in the last seven days.
I once needed help on a project I was working on (building a lithium iron battery pack out of 18560 cells) and posted as DIYGirl. Got a ton of responses in a relatively less-traversed tech-heavy sub-reddit. If you explicitly state you are female people will treat you different.
Well, not necessarily the only factor. When I was living in Bangalore (a few years ago), I remember that if I post a question on StackOverFlow at night (Indian Standard Time), I had a higher chance of getting more responses than if I did it during the day. I presumed it must be because that translates into about morning in Americas and mid day in Europe and probably these places had the bulk of the active users.
Heh, a buddy of mine always picks a female username when on freenode IRC looking for help with a technical problem. He says sometimes dudes fight over who has the better solution. Don't fight over me boys!
I have a very obese male friend who discussed his situation on the internet and had a flood of hateful messages (and mild real life stalking) to the point that he almost had a nervous breakdown. I couldn't count how many times "just kill yourself" or "I hope you fucking die you fat lazy fuck" appeared in his inbox.
So, really, it's hard to reduce these ingredients to a sex or gender.
OMG not this again. This has to be the most overinflated topic in tech. Just do your thing, if you're good, nobody cares what sex you are, if you're bad, don't use your sex as an excuse.
"if you're good, nobody cares what sex you are..."
Part of the reason this is such a hot topic right now is because the above statement is not at all true. It is certainly applicable for some, but not enough to claim true equality in the system.
Yes, this is the myth that people tell themselves in order to ignore the fact that they had to work less to get to the same place because of their advantages in race, sex, economic or educational background, etc. Well illustrated.
EDIT: Perhaps more constructively, you have demonstrated exactly why "this again" -- because many people still don't understand that tech is not exceptional and is not a "meritocracy". The same biases that exist in all other walks of life exhibit themselves in the tech world but are often more insidious because people refuse to acknowledge them.
There are established behaviors people exhibit towards males who are good or bad. The author is noting that people tend to treat women differently, period.
YES. Women in tech would probably be treated more equally if they talked about ANYTHING other than being a woman. These types of posts do a serious disservice to women.
Show me a woman who has actually accomplished something of merit who also writes about gender inequality. Complaining about inequality is just an excuse for not producing anything of value.
Do you think I star repos on Github based on the sex of the author? NO! I star them based on their utility, elegance, etc.
Hm. I worked on the European space program. I contributed to a bunch of AAA games with fairly big names. I currently work on a fairly large OSS project. I think I can claim I created one or two things that have a tiny bit of merit.
And yet, I write about gender inequality - because it actually exists. I'd be very happy if it were a non-issue, but it isn't.
It's very rarely the big ticket items that are the problem, even if they grab all the attention, though. It's all the small things that say "you're not quite welcome here". The constant barrage of sexist jokes, followed by "present company excluded". The eternal "you're a programmer?" question at conferences. The media portrayal of computer scientists. And yes, the constant denial that there even is an issue.
Yes, I know the jokes are not meant to hurt. And the question is honest surprise. And media in general sucks. But at every step, women do get told they're "not part of the club". It grates, occasionally.
So please, do listen a tiny bit to the women who do talk about gender inequality. Don't assume a priori we're just doing it for the attention. I'd rather discuss the latest awesome CS paper, too - so please assume instead that we talk about a problem because there seems to be a problem.
Yes, there do exist some people who "complain" about gender inequality in instances when that is not quite the fundamental issue, but you're ignoring the entire picture. These are serious issues that actually do exist and that people are trying to change. Some people aren't as constructive as others, but ignoring the reality and weight of the issue is certainly not productive.
Don't feed the troll. "Controversial" is clearly not trying to have a legitimate discussion, which is probably why they felt the need to register a new user name.
Seems legitimate to me. You're the one not trying to have a legitimate discussion. That's why you would attack my username and not the content of my post.
Do you mean that not all of them have accomplished something of merit in the sense that their contributions to feminism were unimportant? Or do you mean that some of them detracted from the discussion?
I have to admit that I know very little about feminism, so I'm honestly all ears here.
It's not that they haven't accomplished anything in feminist discourse or that they weren't influential.
Rather, they contributed to the derailing of feminism into the contemporary postmodern feminism that dominates the public sphere. The one which gets uptight over private jokes between people at tech conferences.
Opinions on dating are opinions on gender, and they're not unusual, they're ridiculous.
I'm male. I consider myself a feminist. It's just as possible to offend me with ignorant statements as it is to offend anyone else, female or otherwise.
Right, and frankly they're not professional. An in that sense, why are you hung-up on them? Its a bit of a stretch to assume everything that is <not> professional is "un" professional.
This thread brings up 2 obvious points: Often minorities are treated differently [and] because of the relatively anonymous nature of the internet, it is difficult to get true demographic information or user statistics.
Isn't the whole benefit of the internet that you don't know anything about the other people and can thereby consider them on the merits of their words and actions? I'm not pre-judged by being white or male or fat (and therefore inherently "dumb and lazy") or anything else.
I don't even look at peoples' handles when I reply to them. I suspect a lot us are similar to me in that regard. Also, are men just attracted to women in general, site unseen?
Yes, I did just change it. But I am logging off now. So no more fiddling. (I did not expect this to make the front page. It is a repost. I figured it would be completely ignored, or I would not have done it late in the day before logging off.)
1. Hacker News usernames became a blur of random characters quite some time ago. I don't know how I'd begin to tell what gender you all are, and it never enters my mind. 2. I really don't think there are that many people who care whether you're carrying the batter or the oven. 3. I don't know how to say this nicely, but you - not your gender, but you the individual - are sort of known to be a little sensitive to this, in a way that comes off a bit attention seeking. If you feel this is your message to bring, then great. More power to you, really. Just saying, this seems like one of your things.
Eh, while on most sites I completely ignore usernames, I actually do read usernames habitually on HN. The community is small enough and there are enough frequent users that I find recognizing usernames to be helpful in understanding where somebody is coming from.
i got the same sense from reading the comments/blog.
majority of people dont read into usernames, nor care of your gender.
the only time i see kid gloves being used based on gender is that the lack of that gender in this field may raise some questions about the skillset. applies either way to gender.
i have never seen kid gloves used on here for several years
i think blogposts like this, no i dont think someone is being nice for a date on here because you are female, leads to gender discrimination. attention seekers using gender for cover of seeking attention.
Maybe HN should have an intentional name obfuscator. You sign up, you're assigned a random handle. It's consistent and has no meaning other than as a pointer.
Noone ever seems to bring up the fact that sex and gender are NOT the same thing.
sex - either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
gender - the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
