6 ms·

Things I Never, Ever Want to Hear Again

26 points by decklin 13y ago

a3voices 13y ago
I think more men are successful at tech because more enter the field. At my university, which was actually 56% female (IIRC), my electrical engineering classes almost entirely consisted of males.
- prutschman 13y ago
  I think it's worth looking at why more men enter the field. I think it's also worth looking at why the participation of women in computer science in particular, as opposed to other technical fields, decreased on a relative basis after initial increases.[1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html?_r=0
  - a3voices 13y ago
    I'd wager that it's a variety of factors that are mostly cultural.
    - cliveb 13y ago
      It is. Here’s the science of why by Heidi Grant Halvorson PhD citing research by Carol Dweck PhD. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/201101/the-trouble-bright-girls http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/2011...
lutusp 13y ago
Quote: "I am less and less interested in engaging with the white male establishment, even though it’s been hard to resist with the deluge of stupid racist, misogynist bullshit they’ve been spewing lately." Translation: because sexism is a problem limited to men, any rhetorical excess is justified by the victim class. I wonder if there's an irony gene, and whether it may sometimes be completely deactivated in some individuals.
- readme 13y ago
  Agreed. The only person I see stereotyping or blaming any biological group is the author of the article. Not a single example or well articulated point, just diatribe.
  - eevee 13y ago
    You need examples? Are we on the same website?
- limulus 13y ago
  Your translation seems to be oblivious to the fact that "the white male establishment" != "all white men". In fact, there are plenty of women and plenty of people of color who are a part of the white male establishment. And there are even plenty of white men who aren't a part of it! How can that be? Well, all it takes to be a part of it is to be an apologist for inequality or to otherwise perpetuate inequality. So the reason why it can be referred to as the "white male establishment" isn't because of its membership, but because its existence is mainly for the benefit of white males.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Your translation seems to be oblivious to the fact that "the white male establishment" != "all white men". The term "white male establishment" seems pretty unambiguous. Even if it involves proxies of many colors and genders, which is your point, it's still fair to describe it as a "problem with men". > Well, all it takes to be a part of it is to be an apologist for inequality or to otherwise perpetuate inequality. Yes, and the most effective way for women to address that inequality is to start their own institutions (schools, financial institutions, businesses) that proactively and positively address injustice and inequality, which women can certainly do. Oh, and stop whining about men, which can only serve to hide the fact that the key obstacle women face in 2013 is ... women.
vukmir 13y ago
Men: "Why Are You So Angry? She: "I cannot even tell you how sick I am of men telling me how I feel." I have to admit ... I'm not a native speaker of English, but asking a question and "telling you how to feel" are two different things. TIP #1: Don't call someone an asshole if you want his help. Just saying. EDIT: Getting downvoted because I think that asking a question and telling someone how she feels are two different things?! Interesting...
- potatolicious 13y ago
  Agree with kevingadd, and to add a bit more to it: There is another statement between the lines. "Why are you so angry?" implies "This is too unimportant/trivial/false to get angry about." That's the prescriptive part that I think author is referring to. This can be extra-infuriating, because not only can you not get your listener to engage on the topic at hand, they're outright dismissing this as a problem worth your/their time. To put a cherry on top, they're laying the blame at your feet for getting worked up about "nothing". It's a lot of implications and insinuations wrapped up in a neat little package. Fundamentally this statement is objectionable because it demonstrates neither understanding of the issue at hand nor a basic amount of respect for the speaker (that he/she is capable of telling major issues apart from trivialities). If your goal is to belittle and disrespect someone, use this phrase frequently. If your goal is understanding and genuine engagement with someone who thinks and believes differently than you, don't use this phrase at all.
  - vukmir 13y ago
    Not to repeat myself, see the answer to kevingadd's comment. EDIT: "If your goal is to belittle and disrespect someone, use this phrase frequently. If your goal is understanding and genuine engagement with someone who thinks and believes differently than you, don't use this phrase at all." I didn't know this. Out of curiosity, how do you ask someone who is obviously angry why he/she/it is being angry?
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      If someone stole my car, and I come up to you. Angrily: "vukmir, some asshole stole my car! I can't believe it! I was late to an important meeting! What a fucking shitbag!" Would you respond with: "Woah woah, why are you so angry?" You know why I'm angry. The only context under which "why are you angry" is even a sensical question is one where the thing I'm angry about isn't worth being angry about. Which is also to say "why are you so angry" necessarily entails the dismissal of the subject the speaker is angry about. edit: > "how do you ask someone who is obviously angry why he/she/it is being angry?" How would you respond to my hypothetical rant above, where someone has stolen my car?
nsxwolf 13y ago
Holy crap this is an unpleasant read.
- prutschman 13y ago
  That's the point.
potatolicious 13y ago
I feel like author went off the rails in a few places, and there were more digs at White Men than I thought was justified (note: I'm a non-white male). It's become somewhat vogue to use "White" as a pejorative and synonym with "bigot", and I'm not okay with that. If we want people to stop seeing us as our collective racial/gender/cultural stereotypes, then we can't engage in the same shenanigans ourselves. That being said, this post struck a chord with me. As a pretty vanilla straight male, I can't identify with much of the gender issues she posed, but her blog post reminds me heavily of trying to discuss race on HN. I frequently see some incredibly racist things being posted around here in the comments, and I've basically stopped calling them out. You see a lot of the same reactions in this community as what she describes - a lot of "why are you so angry", a lot of trivialization of the issue, a lot of unexamined privilege, and lots of people reacting very defensively as if simply by pointing out inequities I'm painting a giant bullseye on your racial-majority forehead. These problems exist. They are real. If you are not part of a racial minority you probably won't fully comprehend what it's really like. But that's okay, no one expects you to fully grok it, and no one is calling you out just because you're [insert majority race in whatever locale]. What we do want is some modicum of understanding, some modicum of respect, and less middle-brow dismissals of things that millions upon millions of people are experiencing. So yeah, I think the general thesis of this post is sound. I just wish she were less vitriolic about it - but honestly, having gone through similar things (in a racial, rather than gender, context) I can see why she is.
- polemic 13y ago
  Going "off the rails" is, I believe, a fair response. It's easy to call out anger when it's a response the relentless passive oppression. But anger is the correct response. Often it's the only way to break through the heavy repressive blanket of faux-politeness. Otherwise, I agree with you =D
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with the angry tone of the piece. That part is fine - IMO the opportunity for sober, quiet debate about sexism in IT has sailed. We work in an industry where blatant sexism can be seen around every corner, and yet every time it is (politely, respectfully, intelligently) brought up the overwhelming community response has been deplorable. We work in an industry where a large portion of the population does not believe sexism is a real, substantial problem. I think getting angry is about all anyone's got left. That said, that's not the "off the rails" part I was referring to. Discrimination is, despite the common lay narrative, not frequently about hating anyone, it's about treating individuals by the (alleged) characteristics of some class they belong to. It's about treating someone based on Asian stereotypes if they're Asian, or female stereotypes if they're women, etc etc. It is an incredibly suffocating environment to be in, where every corner you turn you must first prove "I am more than your mental construct of my class" before you can be treated like an individual. So it would be doubly hypocritical for those of us fighting these injustices to engage in the same. "White male" is stereotyped with "bigot", but we need not engage in persisting these stereotypes, and we need not paint individuals with large brushes based on the alleged transgressions of their (involuntarily chosen!) groups. This is, after all, exactly what is frequently done to us. The off the rails part is the repeated use of "White male" as a synonym for bigotry and intolerance.
Fuzzwah 13y ago
I'm a white male. I'm a husband. I'm about to become a father (we're avoiding finding out the sex until birth, so there's a 50% chance I'm the father of a daughter). I work in IT. I've worked with a few women. Some of been excellent, some haven't. Just the same as the men I've worked with. I tried to work out what Shanley never, ever wanted to hear again, and I figure that it is the following 7 words..... "I don’t know much about this, but" However, my follow on from the but is; I'd like to get educated. The following are the points I'm taking out of this article (please let me know if I missed any, I am seriously not being sarcastic or a jerk). - do not try to defend the "white male establishment" which I apparently am part of. (I do not feel part of it, but I guess I get lumped in it until I prove I'm not part of it?) - do not attempt to tell a woman what she is feeling (luckily, I've learned this lesson a long time ago) - do not talk about my experiences with women in IT (they are probably outliers like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer) - be able to read vague complaints about general sexism with out thinking they're targeted at me They're fairly easy things for me to work on. I would actually be interested in advice from Shanley on what book I should pick up to educate myself with. A wall of passionate words with out a good call to action for white males to pick up on is frustrating to me. I want to try and help, but beyond being the decent human I've been relying on, I'm at a loss.
- theorique 13y ago
  do not talk about my experiences with women in IT (they are probably outliers like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer) Oddly, 99.99% of women in IT are not senior executives of large companies like these two. I think what Shanley's article meant is, you aren't supposed to point at these two and claim that everything's cool for women in IT, because they are outliers. Presumably, it's reasonable to employ anecdotes about the female CTO you worked with, or the female developers on your team with whom you have personal experience?
- jfarmer 13y ago
  Honestly, it seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. Although you might think the author is being maximalist, you don't need to respond in kind. I realize you said you aren't and that you're being sincere, but it's hard to reconcile how those were the points you took from the article with a sincere desire to understand what the author wrote. In fact, to quote the author: "They bring nothing to the table except ... self-involved demands for “education”, endless derailing techniques paraded as “logic”, [and ] disingenuous bewilderment." I'll take you at your word, though. > I tried to work out what Shanley never, ever wanted to hear again, and I figure that it is the following 7 words....."I don’t know much about this, but" I think if there were one thing the author never wants to hear again, it's something like "There there, I know you're upset, but let me educate you on just how wrong you are." That conveys the quality of it, at least. > - do not try to defend the "white male establishment" which I apparently am part of. (I do not feel part of it, but I guess I get lumped in it until I prove I'm not part of it?) Personally, my main qualm with the phrase "white male establishment" is how cliché it is. Here are some lighthearted reflections on what the author was talking about, as I understand it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4LkrQCyIz8 http://bit.ly/JZJYMv > - do not talk about my experiences with women in IT (they are probably outliers like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer) No, her point was that Sandberg and Mayer are exceptions and shouldn't be used as a counterexample to statements like, "In technology it is more difficult for a woman to become a member of executive management than a man." This has the same flavor as folks arguing that racism in the United States is a thing of the past because we elected a black President. I'm sure the author would love folks to talk about the everyday experience of women in IT -- which is to say their experience, not your picture of their experience. > - be able to read vague complaints about general sexism with out thinking they're targeted at me Yeah, man up. Don't take it personally. Maybe instead of getting defensive, ask, "Have I ever done anything to make you feel like that or disempower you? Please let me know in private if I ever do or anyone else working here does. I don't want to make you feel that way, I don't want to implicitly model that behavior in front of other people, and I don't want other people to feel they have the license to do it." When feminists talk about "allies" they mean folks who both say and inhabit this sort of thing.
glenra 13y ago
"derailing" is a very strange concept. In a conversation, you generally don't get to declare all your premises off-limits, nor do you get to determine unilaterally what the other participants will find most interesting to talk about. Sometimes people will consistently disagree with one or more assumptions you make. If they do, it might be because your assumption is wrong or because you did a poor job of explaining it. In which case it's worth spending some time on that area of contention. And sometimes what you find most interesting about a subject won't be the same thing other people find most interesting - and that's okay. As near as I can tell, complaints about "derailing" translate into "I wanted to make a speech, but the other guy kept insisting on wanting to have a conversation." Is that all there is to it?
- theorique 13y ago
  As near as I can tell, complaints about "derailing" translate into "I wanted to make a speech, but the other guy kept insisting on wanting to have a conversation." Is that all there is to it? Pretty much, yeah. Derailing implies that there exist "rails" on which the conversation needs to go (i.e. the 'agenda' of the person making the speech). If you don't engage his or her central point, then you risk being accused of derailing. Now, if you really, really don't want to hear what they have to say, that's one thing - you should probably just tell them so rather than passive-aggressively shift the subject of conversation. But if a shift in the subject of conversation happens naturally, it's not derailing, it's just the natural flow of conversation.
  - glenra 13y ago
    Is there a name for having that sort of agenda? If not, can we call it "railing"? Does the person with the agenda explicitly SAY "I have this agenda and want to only talk about X and want you to say Y about it", or is the listener expected to magically intuit the intent? If the listener "really really doesn't want to hear", doesn't that imply they already know what's going to be said, and hence that it's not worth saying it? And doesn't that in turn suggest that shifting the subject is more likely to be informative and productive than staying on the original topic? I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why railing would be considered LESS rude than derailing. Does railing exist in some sort of additional explanatory context I'm missing, like as part of a roleplaying game or as a form of therapy?
lutusp 13y ago
Quote: "At the same time, literally thousands of white men have engaged me solely to derail, discredit and co-opt conversation about systemic inequalities and the lived experiences of marginalized and oppressed people in our industry." The solution is so obvious that I am astonished that people like the author haven't thought of it -- stop whining, stop listening to haters of both genders, and start schools and companies with the express aim of teaching women technology, and then employing women. Women helping women. There's no rational basis for the idea that women have any deficits that would prevent this idea from working, indeed all evidence points in the opposite direction: when motivated, women easily produce first-rate technology and personally enriching experiences as well. There's just one tiny, little, trivial, detail -- women must stop playing the victim and blaming men for their problems. This is simultaneously necessary and fair, because the problems women face in 2013 aren't caused by men, they're caused by women. Women have the right to vote, the right to self-determination, the right to an education, and 60% of the money: http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-america-2012-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the... Quote: "More women are taking the reins on their finances, holding 60 percent of all personal wealth and 51 percent of all stocks in the U.S. ..." Want to keep feminism from becoming a mildly amusing historical footnote? Stop whining, start networking. Anyone who thinks men are the networking experts haven't watched women communicate information they consider important. The single biggest obstacle to gender equality are women who undermine other women by trying to blame men for problems women can easily solve for themselves.
- eevee 13y ago
  This comment is written like a helpful suggestion, but the subtext—"stop whining", "women helping women", "blame men"—reads as though you just don't want it to be your problem. You don't disagree that women are marginalized, but you still tell them to just go bootstrap themselves and accuse them of playing the victim. There are plenty of women running programs designed to help other women in the tech sector, but you propose them as though you're unaware that they even exist, which speaks volumes about how easy it is for them to make an impact. Can men just stop being dicks to women? That seems way simpler than starting schools and companies for teaching women how to overcome all the men who are being dicks to them. It's so obvious, I'm astonished you haven't thought of it.
ianstallings 13y ago
That article is filled with racist vitriolic nonsense. Any real issues are swept aside with the anger broom so she can make room for her profane fury. Why would I ever engage a person that acts like that in debate, man or woman?
__--__ 13y ago
This reminds me of a child having a temper tantrum. Do you want to know why men in general are having problems being feminist allies? Because feminism, at its core, is hatred of men. Why would we want to be part of a group that shows unfiltered contempt for us because we were born male?
bonaldi 13y ago
Woman: "Tone policing is destroying communication" Hacker News: "Don't you dare use that tone with us!"

26 points by decklin 13y ago

I think more men are successful at tech because more enter the field. At my university, which was actually 56% female (IIRC), my electrical engineering classes almost entirely consisted of males.

prutschman 13y ago
I think it's worth looking at why more men enter the field. I think it's also worth looking at why the participation of women in computer science in particular, as opposed to other technical fields, decreased on a relative basis after initial increases.[1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html?_r=0
- a3voices 13y ago
  I'd wager that it's a variety of factors that are mostly cultural.
  - cliveb 13y ago
    It is. Here’s the science of why by Heidi Grant Halvorson PhD citing research by Carol Dweck PhD. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/201101/the-trouble-bright-girls http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/2011...

lutusp 13y ago

Quote: "I am less and less interested in engaging with the white male establishment, even though it’s been hard to resist with the deluge of stupid racist, misogynist bullshit they’ve been spewing lately." Translation: because sexism is a problem limited to men, any rhetorical excess is justified by the victim class. I wonder if there's an irony gene, and whether it may sometimes be completely deactivated in some individuals.

readme 13y ago
Agreed. The only person I see stereotyping or blaming any biological group is the author of the article. Not a single example or well articulated point, just diatribe.
- eevee 13y ago
  You need examples? Are we on the same website?
limulus 13y ago
Your translation seems to be oblivious to the fact that "the white male establishment" != "all white men". In fact, there are plenty of women and plenty of people of color who are a part of the white male establishment. And there are even plenty of white men who aren't a part of it! How can that be? Well, all it takes to be a part of it is to be an apologist for inequality or to otherwise perpetuate inequality. So the reason why it can be referred to as the "white male establishment" isn't because of its membership, but because its existence is mainly for the benefit of white males.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Your translation seems to be oblivious to the fact that "the white male establishment" != "all white men". The term "white male establishment" seems pretty unambiguous. Even if it involves proxies of many colors and genders, which is your point, it's still fair to describe it as a "problem with men". > Well, all it takes to be a part of it is to be an apologist for inequality or to otherwise perpetuate inequality. Yes, and the most effective way for women to address that inequality is to start their own institutions (schools, financial institutions, businesses) that proactively and positively address injustice and inequality, which women can certainly do. Oh, and stop whining about men, which can only serve to hide the fact that the key obstacle women face in 2013 is ... women.

vukmir 13y ago

Men: "Why Are You So Angry? She: "I cannot even tell you how sick I am of men telling me how I feel." I have to admit ... I'm not a native speaker of English, but asking a question and "telling you how to feel" are two different things. TIP #1: Don't call someone an asshole if you want his help. Just saying. EDIT: Getting downvoted because I think that asking a question and telling someone how she feels are two different things?! Interesting...

potatolicious 13y ago
Agree with kevingadd, and to add a bit more to it: There is another statement between the lines. "Why are you so angry?" implies "This is too unimportant/trivial/false to get angry about." That's the prescriptive part that I think author is referring to. This can be extra-infuriating, because not only can you not get your listener to engage on the topic at hand, they're outright dismissing this as a problem worth your/their time. To put a cherry on top, they're laying the blame at your feet for getting worked up about "nothing". It's a lot of implications and insinuations wrapped up in a neat little package. Fundamentally this statement is objectionable because it demonstrates neither understanding of the issue at hand nor a basic amount of respect for the speaker (that he/she is capable of telling major issues apart from trivialities). If your goal is to belittle and disrespect someone, use this phrase frequently. If your goal is understanding and genuine engagement with someone who thinks and believes differently than you, don't use this phrase at all.
- vukmir 13y ago
  Not to repeat myself, see the answer to kevingadd's comment. EDIT: "If your goal is to belittle and disrespect someone, use this phrase frequently. If your goal is understanding and genuine engagement with someone who thinks and believes differently than you, don't use this phrase at all." I didn't know this. Out of curiosity, how do you ask someone who is obviously angry why he/she/it is being angry?
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    If someone stole my car, and I come up to you. Angrily: "vukmir, some asshole stole my car! I can't believe it! I was late to an important meeting! What a fucking shitbag!" Would you respond with: "Woah woah, why are you so angry?" You know why I'm angry. The only context under which "why are you angry" is even a sensical question is one where the thing I'm angry about isn't worth being angry about. Which is also to say "why are you so angry" necessarily entails the dismissal of the subject the speaker is angry about. edit: > "how do you ask someone who is obviously angry why he/she/it is being angry?" How would you respond to my hypothetical rant above, where someone has stolen my car?

nsxwolf 13y ago

Holy crap this is an unpleasant read.

prutschman 13y ago
That's the point.

potatolicious 13y ago

I feel like author went off the rails in a few places, and there were more digs at White Men than I thought was justified (note: I'm a non-white male). It's become somewhat vogue to use "White" as a pejorative and synonym with "bigot", and I'm not okay with that. If we want people to stop seeing us as our collective racial/gender/cultural stereotypes, then we can't engage in the same shenanigans ourselves. That being said, this post struck a chord with me. As a pretty vanilla straight male, I can't identify with much of the gender issues she posed, but her blog post reminds me heavily of trying to discuss race on HN. I frequently see some incredibly racist things being posted around here in the comments, and I've basically stopped calling them out. You see a lot of the same reactions in this community as what she describes - a lot of "why are you so angry", a lot of trivialization of the issue, a lot of unexamined privilege, and lots of people reacting very defensively as if simply by pointing out inequities I'm painting a giant bullseye on your racial-majority forehead. These problems exist. They are real. If you are not part of a racial minority you probably won't fully comprehend what it's really like. But that's okay, no one expects you to fully grok it, and no one is calling you out just because you're [insert majority race in whatever locale]. What we do want is some modicum of understanding, some modicum of respect, and less middle-brow dismissals of things that millions upon millions of people are experiencing. So yeah, I think the general thesis of this post is sound. I just wish she were less vitriolic about it - but honestly, having gone through similar things (in a racial, rather than gender, context) I can see why she is.

polemic 13y ago
Going "off the rails" is, I believe, a fair response. It's easy to call out anger when it's a response the relentless passive oppression. But anger is the correct response. Often it's the only way to break through the heavy repressive blanket of faux-politeness. Otherwise, I agree with you =D
- potatolicious 13y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with the angry tone of the piece. That part is fine - IMO the opportunity for sober, quiet debate about sexism in IT has sailed. We work in an industry where blatant sexism can be seen around every corner, and yet every time it is (politely, respectfully, intelligently) brought up the overwhelming community response has been deplorable. We work in an industry where a large portion of the population does not believe sexism is a real, substantial problem. I think getting angry is about all anyone's got left. That said, that's not the "off the rails" part I was referring to. Discrimination is, despite the common lay narrative, not frequently about hating anyone, it's about treating individuals by the (alleged) characteristics of some class they belong to. It's about treating someone based on Asian stereotypes if they're Asian, or female stereotypes if they're women, etc etc. It is an incredibly suffocating environment to be in, where every corner you turn you must first prove "I am more than your mental construct of my class" before you can be treated like an individual. So it would be doubly hypocritical for those of us fighting these injustices to engage in the same. "White male" is stereotyped with "bigot", but we need not engage in persisting these stereotypes, and we need not paint individuals with large brushes based on the alleged transgressions of their (involuntarily chosen!) groups. This is, after all, exactly what is frequently done to us. The off the rails part is the repeated use of "White male" as a synonym for bigotry and intolerance.

Fuzzwah 13y ago

I'm a white male. I'm a husband. I'm about to become a father (we're avoiding finding out the sex until birth, so there's a 50% chance I'm the father of a daughter). I work in IT. I've worked with a few women. Some of been excellent, some haven't. Just the same as the men I've worked with. I tried to work out what Shanley never, ever wanted to hear again, and I figure that it is the following 7 words..... "I don’t know much about this, but" However, my follow on from the but is; I'd like to get educated. The following are the points I'm taking out of this article (please let me know if I missed any, I am seriously not being sarcastic or a jerk). - do not try to defend the "white male establishment" which I apparently am part of. (I do not feel part of it, but I guess I get lumped in it until I prove I'm not part of it?) - do not attempt to tell a woman what she is feeling (luckily, I've learned this lesson a long time ago) - do not talk about my experiences with women in IT (they are probably outliers like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer) - be able to read vague complaints about general sexism with out thinking they're targeted at me They're fairly easy things for me to work on. I would actually be interested in advice from Shanley on what book I should pick up to educate myself with. A wall of passionate words with out a good call to action for white males to pick up on is frustrating to me. I want to try and help, but beyond being the decent human I've been relying on, I'm at a loss.

theorique 13y ago
do not talk about my experiences with women in IT (they are probably outliers like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer) Oddly, 99.99% of women in IT are not senior executives of large companies like these two. I think what Shanley's article meant is, you aren't supposed to point at these two and claim that everything's cool for women in IT, because they are outliers. Presumably, it's reasonable to employ anecdotes about the female CTO you worked with, or the female developers on your team with whom you have personal experience?
jfarmer 13y ago
Honestly, it seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. Although you might think the author is being maximalist, you don't need to respond in kind. I realize you said you aren't and that you're being sincere, but it's hard to reconcile how those were the points you took from the article with a sincere desire to understand what the author wrote. In fact, to quote the author: "They bring nothing to the table except ... self-involved demands for “education”, endless derailing techniques paraded as “logic”, [and ] disingenuous bewilderment." I'll take you at your word, though. > I tried to work out what Shanley never, ever wanted to hear again, and I figure that it is the following 7 words....."I don’t know much about this, but" I think if there were one thing the author never wants to hear again, it's something like "There there, I know you're upset, but let me educate you on just how wrong you are." That conveys the quality of it, at least. > - do not try to defend the "white male establishment" which I apparently am part of. (I do not feel part of it, but I guess I get lumped in it until I prove I'm not part of it?) Personally, my main qualm with the phrase "white male establishment" is how cliché it is. Here are some lighthearted reflections on what the author was talking about, as I understand it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4LkrQCyIz8 http://bit.ly/JZJYMv > - do not talk about my experiences with women in IT (they are probably outliers like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer) No, her point was that Sandberg and Mayer are exceptions and shouldn't be used as a counterexample to statements like, "In technology it is more difficult for a woman to become a member of executive management than a man." This has the same flavor as folks arguing that racism in the United States is a thing of the past because we elected a black President. I'm sure the author would love folks to talk about the everyday experience of women in IT -- which is to say their experience, not your picture of their experience. > - be able to read vague complaints about general sexism with out thinking they're targeted at me Yeah, man up. Don't take it personally. Maybe instead of getting defensive, ask, "Have I ever done anything to make you feel like that or disempower you? Please let me know in private if I ever do or anyone else working here does. I don't want to make you feel that way, I don't want to implicitly model that behavior in front of other people, and I don't want other people to feel they have the license to do it." When feminists talk about "allies" they mean folks who both say and inhabit this sort of thing.

glenra 13y ago

"derailing" is a very strange concept. In a conversation, you generally don't get to declare all your premises off-limits, nor do you get to determine unilaterally what the other participants will find most interesting to talk about. Sometimes people will consistently disagree with one or more assumptions you make. If they do, it might be because your assumption is wrong or because you did a poor job of explaining it. In which case it's worth spending some time on that area of contention. And sometimes what you find most interesting about a subject won't be the same thing other people find most interesting - and that's okay. As near as I can tell, complaints about "derailing" translate into "I wanted to make a speech, but the other guy kept insisting on wanting to have a conversation." Is that all there is to it?

theorique 13y ago
As near as I can tell, complaints about "derailing" translate into "I wanted to make a speech, but the other guy kept insisting on wanting to have a conversation." Is that all there is to it? Pretty much, yeah. Derailing implies that there exist "rails" on which the conversation needs to go (i.e. the 'agenda' of the person making the speech). If you don't engage his or her central point, then you risk being accused of derailing. Now, if you really, really don't want to hear what they have to say, that's one thing - you should probably just tell them so rather than passive-aggressively shift the subject of conversation. But if a shift in the subject of conversation happens naturally, it's not derailing, it's just the natural flow of conversation.
- glenra 13y ago
  Is there a name for having that sort of agenda? If not, can we call it "railing"? Does the person with the agenda explicitly SAY "I have this agenda and want to only talk about X and want you to say Y about it", or is the listener expected to magically intuit the intent? If the listener "really really doesn't want to hear", doesn't that imply they already know what's going to be said, and hence that it's not worth saying it? And doesn't that in turn suggest that shifting the subject is more likely to be informative and productive than staying on the original topic? I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why railing would be considered LESS rude than derailing. Does railing exist in some sort of additional explanatory context I'm missing, like as part of a roleplaying game or as a form of therapy?

lutusp 13y ago

Quote: "At the same time, literally thousands of white men have engaged me solely to derail, discredit and co-opt conversation about systemic inequalities and the lived experiences of marginalized and oppressed people in our industry." The solution is so obvious that I am astonished that people like the author haven't thought of it -- stop whining, stop listening to haters of both genders, and start schools and companies with the express aim of teaching women technology, and then employing women. Women helping women. There's no rational basis for the idea that women have any deficits that would prevent this idea from working, indeed all evidence points in the opposite direction: when motivated, women easily produce first-rate technology and personally enriching experiences as well. There's just one tiny, little, trivial, detail -- women must stop playing the victim and blaming men for their problems. This is simultaneously necessary and fair, because the problems women face in 2013 aren't caused by men, they're caused by women. Women have the right to vote, the right to self-determination, the right to an education, and 60% of the money: http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-america-2012-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the... Quote: "More women are taking the reins on their finances, holding 60 percent of all personal wealth and 51 percent of all stocks in the U.S. ..." Want to keep feminism from becoming a mildly amusing historical footnote? Stop whining, start networking. Anyone who thinks men are the networking experts haven't watched women communicate information they consider important. The single biggest obstacle to gender equality are women who undermine other women by trying to blame men for problems women can easily solve for themselves.

eevee 13y ago
This comment is written like a helpful suggestion, but the subtext—"stop whining", "women helping women", "blame men"—reads as though you just don't want it to be your problem. You don't disagree that women are marginalized, but you still tell them to just go bootstrap themselves and accuse them of playing the victim. There are plenty of women running programs designed to help other women in the tech sector, but you propose them as though you're unaware that they even exist, which speaks volumes about how easy it is for them to make an impact. Can men just stop being dicks to women? That seems way simpler than starting schools and companies for teaching women how to overcome all the men who are being dicks to them. It's so obvious, I'm astonished you haven't thought of it.

ianstallings 13y ago

That article is filled with racist vitriolic nonsense. Any real issues are swept aside with the anger broom so she can make room for her profane fury. Why would I ever engage a person that acts like that in debate, man or woman?

__--__ 13y ago

This reminds me of a child having a temper tantrum. Do you want to know why men in general are having problems being feminist allies? Because feminism, at its core, is hatred of men. Why would we want to be part of a group that shows unfiltered contempt for us because we were born male?

bonaldi 13y ago

Woman: "Tone policing is destroying communication" Hacker News: "Don't you dare use that tone with us!"