>> As to being excluded in a more social sense, the best way to defeat that is not to care about it. It's basic human psychology that not caring about acceptance will make the other group members wonder why you don't care, which naturally enough and quickly makes you an insider.
> You can't seriously believe this.
Yes, it's true, and it's the most basic kind of psychology. One doesn't need to spend much time as an adult before seeing scores of examples.
> This same argument is made in gaming about issues people have with how women are treated and depicted within that industry: "If you don't bring it up and act like it's a problem, people won't think it's a problem and therefore it won't happen."
You just changed the subject, and it's not remotely the "same argument". I'm talking about perceptions of exclusivity and being or not being an insider on purely psychological grounds. You're talking about proactive behavior toward women.
> Hateful people don't care that they're the minority; they'll type in all-caps, call you a crybaby, show up with their guns out for all to see, call you sheeple and claim their truth is the real truth regardless of their numbers.
Faced with that, you have three choices -- the first two are ignore them or have them arrested. If what they do isn't an arrestable offense, if it's "free speech", then ignore them. If you cannot ignore them and can't arrest them, then we have a case of PyCon syndrome -- an impasse in which everyone gets hurt and no one benefits.
The third choice should be obvious -- for those women who can't stand the behavior of men, they should start their own tech companies -- an occupation for which women are fully qualified -- and turn the tables on the overgrown adolescents. There is venture capital ready to support women's companies, there is plenty of political support, and there are plenty of talented women. Let men collide with a glass ceiling for a change.
But you know what? The day when women could blame men for their professional and economic problems has passed. It's unseemly, out of date and it contradicts everyday reality.
You must be missing the weekly blog entries by women on harassment in the workplace and at industry functions that get posted and subsequently flagged and responded to with "Not this again," and "Why is this on Hacker News?" I initially wrote "avoiding" but it makes sense you'd miss them since they hardly ever get on the front page (despite how often people complain they do).
You must also gloss over all of the threads relating to women-only events and women-centric ventures wherein the comments boil down to "Why do women need this? How is actively excluding themselves going to help us as a whole?" and "Great, now they'll feel like even specialer snowflakes." When Github announced that they were doing on-site talks by women for women, the comments broke out in fears that men were not allowed to show up and how bothersome this "trend" was and how disappointed they would be in Github for allowing such.
And your point that the exclusion is purely psychological is unfortunate. I was oblivious to gender issues until I started experiencing them for myself. The outright discrimination was degrading and unexpected and if I hadn't started building websites because of the love of the craft and that I started doing so in a community dominated by women, I probably would have reconsidered my life's path right then and there.
Lastly, while I understand you mean well by your other comments (re: men and women really being no different), I don't think a man can speak on behalf of any female-identifying persons' "everyday reality."
I'm particularly enjoying how ignorance of the state of the industry leads to victim-blaming. Telling women who are continuing to deal with these issues in their "everyday realities" that it's all in their heads is the exact attitude that is perpetuating this mess.
Some men honestly don't see it. I have upvoted a lot of your remarks here and I hope it opens some eyes, but I mostly prefer a less confrontational path forward. (Not saying you should.) Just saying that if you think you will change this person's mind, you are likely mistaken. If that is not your goal, hey, you go girl.
Thanks for your support, Mz. After reading "Guess what? Men don't possess this kind of self-doubt. They don't start arguments, they start companies.", I am officially out of words (but at least I had a few laughs). Knowledge and understanding don't come as an all-inclusive package, and it is a shame we see otherwise smart folks speaking so authoritatively on topics that are deep and multi-faceted and begin at birth, so-much-so that they couldn't possibly understand them (just as I cannot speak on behalf of someone else's life experiences and do not wish to). Ah well, just another day.
It's not a question of not seeing it, it's a question of dwelling on it, allowing it to degrade one's effectiveness. You need to realize that men face the same kinds of erosive, degrading comments from their peers, but they (at least successful men) process them differently -- they ignore all but the constructive suggestions. And so do successful women.
More constructively: your advice is not really actionable if your premise is that one must have the same emotions as you and think the way you do. And people can't just rewire their brains because a man on the Internet says their problems are all in their head.
I sometimes wonder why people are so desperate to craft a position that the other person has never taken. Want to constructively discuss issues? Limit yourself to thing the other person has actually said.
My statement is that men have chosen a more effective way to deal with erosive influences, and it's a behavior that women can and should adopt -- not by imitating men, but by adopting a more effective approach to negative influences. There's no gender dimension to it.
If I had said that gerbils have a more effective adaptation, would you have the right to ask, "So you want everyone to become a gerbil?"
> And people can't just rewire their brains because a man on the Internet says their problems are all in their head.
You need to stop inventing imaginary positions for other people. I never said or implied what you claim. My remarks address, not the original influences, but constructive ways to deal with them.
> Telling women who are continuing to deal with these issues in their "everyday realities" that it's all in their heads is the exact attitude that is perpetuating this mess.
Yes, so it's a good thing I never said any such thing, anywhere, ever. It's not in your head, it's real -- so start your own company and exclude the overgrown adolescents. But you need to stop blaming men -- there's no point and it makes you look childish.
At a certain age, usually early teens, everything is the fault of one's parents. Isn't it nice that we all outgrow that phase, move on to the kind of personal accountability that validates other people's trust in us?
Correct -- if there are no legal or practical remedies, to focus on the speech or behavior can only waste time and energy. That's what the PyCon episode ought to have taught all of us -- it was purely negative in its outcome, for all involved.
> That's a great way to avoid holding anyone accountable for their peers' behavior or their own behavior.
Read the history of the PyCon episode before deciding that sounding an alarm at every slight is a constructive choice. The PyCon episode (which was based on speech, not behavior) is a perfect example of what goes wrong when everything is reinterpreted as a gender issue. It also shows the danger of escalation -- when the reaction is a bigger offense than the original stimulus.
> The way to address this is to call people out on their sexist bullshit and force them to own it, not to ignore it and thereby grant tacit approval.
If I believed that, I would call people out on their clear (reverse) sexist bullshit expressed in this exchange. But it's not worth it -- it's not important, it's below my personal radar, and I have better ways to spend my time. But clearly this is not true for everyone, for example those desperate to retain their victim status at a time of declining justification and rationale for that perception and status.
Better to ask yourself which actions move women forward faster -- constructive engagement with activities that will improve the status of women, or unconstructive complaints about imagined slights, or as a recent correspondent put it here a week ago, "microaggressions".
When I read the "microaggressions" meme, I almost fell off my chair. How can anyone think reacting to "microaggressions" represents constructive behavior?
Bottom line -- if the activity is simple speech, not a direct action that discriminates, you're better off ignoring it. Oversensitivity -- turning everything into a gender issue -- does more harm than good. It falsely portrays women as powerless victims whose ascending status can be undermined by words.
> You must also gloss over all of the threads relating to women-only events and women-centric ventures wherein the comments boil down to "Why do women need this? How is actively excluding themselves going to help us as a whole?"
Guess what? Men don't possess this kind of self-doubt. They don't start arguments, they start companies. All evidence says that women could easily do as well or better, if they choose.
> I don't think a man can speak on behalf of any female-identifying persons' "everyday reality."
After you get done building the make-believe wall between men and women you clearly intend to build and defend, start your own company. Let men experience a glass ceiling for a change. Or are you satisfied to complain about men without actually doing anything about it?
In all seriousness, a strategy of blaming men is a non-starter. It worked when women had no vote and no rights, but those days are long past. The "it's all the fault of men" meme has expired -- apart from being out of date, it lacks credibility.
> So you're claiming that there is never any good that comes from speaking up against discrimination unless the law is involved?
Why, in discussions like this, do people struggle so hard to invent position the other person has never taken?
> How do you think laws get made?
No, the operative question is how do you think it happens? A group's wishes are compared to the wishes of other groups and to the Constitution. If the Constitution isn't violated and there's a public mandate (meaning there is something other than two equal groups, one for, one against), then there might be a new law.
> She quit because of the abuse.
Already answered -- let her start her own company. That's what a man would do in the same circumstances, and women are just as qualified as men to start a company. Or do you disagree?
> That's a professional and economic problem.
Yes, and it is one that women need to solve without trying to blame men for their problems. The sell-by date on that idea has passed.
Women need to wake up to the fact that there's no longer a man standing in the road, obstructing the path to the future -- only a straw man, one invented by women.
My favorite feminist anecdote took place during the MacArthur administration in Japan after the end of World War II. As part of MacArthur's constitutional reforms, women were immediately given the right to vote.
After the first election, the number of elected women became a matter of public comment -- they were elected in greater numbers than the pollsters had predicted. The newly enfranchised women were asked about it, and many said, "Oh, we thought we were only allowed to vote for women. Sumimasen (small bow)."
Sorry, but not being a woman, how would you know whether or not men are standing in the way? And in what respect are you qualified to pronounce women's complaints invalid? Yeah, whoever accused you of mansplaining upthread has your number.
Your premise rests on the idea that in order to get along with men, women must behave like men, in a system originally designed by and for men. And if they don't succeed, well, it's their fault because it's past the sell-by date.
Good call. You neatly absolve men from any responsibility, and completely disappear the uneven playing field. (Starting your own business is a non-answer— you're again playing the "have you tried acting like a man" card.)
> Sorry, but not being a woman, how would you know whether or not men are standing in the way?
That viewpoint is innately sexist. It essentially says only women can interpret women's experiences. If that were true (it's not) then by the same rationale only men can interpret men's experiences, which means women have no right to complain about men's motivations or behavior. So think before you post.
Women spend much of their time freely interpreting men's behavior, for example whether it's acceptable or not as though only a woman's perspective on men's behavior has validity, but when a man does the same thing, it's a sexist offense.
> Your premise rests on the idea that in order to get along with men, women must behave like men ...
Locate where I said or implied this. To get along with men, women must behave like people first and foremost (as do men). Your remarks continue the currently fashionable trend of reinterpreting everything as a gender issue. But in fact, much of human experience is not affected by gender -- certainly not technical or scientific activities, the present context. Good code, good mathematics, good scientific research, has no gender.
> ... in a system originally designed by and for men.
Living in the past will get you nowhere. Humans evolved in a world most recently shaped by and for prehuman simians. Did that hinder us? Not at all -- we reshaped the world to suit our needs. Now reshape yours.
> Starting your own business is a non-answer ...
Okay, I get it -- you really, really want to remain a victim. If you can't blame men for your problems, there are no other options. How do you think creative men and women deal with situations they find intolerable? Steve Wozniak repeatedly petitioned his managers at Hewlett-Packard to accept and produce his design for a personal computer, but failing at this, he left the company and started his own.
Marissa Mayer has a similar background -- Mayer joined Google in 1999 as employee number 20 and was the company's first female engineer. She eventually left Google and is now the CEO of Yahoo. Imagine how far she would have gotten by instead complaining about the very real sexism at Google and elsewhere.
Early in life, men learn that they have to build something positive, that to perpetually complain about how the world is arranged is a dead end. Many women learn this too, but it's voluntary.
> Starting your own business is a non-answer— you're again playing the "have you tried acting like a man" card.
Ah, so, based on the above quote, you believe than only men can start businesses. If I said that, you would have the right to call it a sexist and outrageous claim.
> You can't seriously believe this.
Yes, it's true, and it's the most basic kind of psychology. One doesn't need to spend much time as an adult before seeing scores of examples.
> This same argument is made in gaming about issues people have with how women are treated and depicted within that industry: "If you don't bring it up and act like it's a problem, people won't think it's a problem and therefore it won't happen."
You just changed the subject, and it's not remotely the "same argument". I'm talking about perceptions of exclusivity and being or not being an insider on purely psychological grounds. You're talking about proactive behavior toward women.
> Hateful people don't care that they're the minority; they'll type in all-caps, call you a crybaby, show up with their guns out for all to see, call you sheeple and claim their truth is the real truth regardless of their numbers.
Faced with that, you have three choices -- the first two are ignore them or have them arrested. If what they do isn't an arrestable offense, if it's "free speech", then ignore them. If you cannot ignore them and can't arrest them, then we have a case of PyCon syndrome -- an impasse in which everyone gets hurt and no one benefits.
The third choice should be obvious -- for those women who can't stand the behavior of men, they should start their own tech companies -- an occupation for which women are fully qualified -- and turn the tables on the overgrown adolescents. There is venture capital ready to support women's companies, there is plenty of political support, and there are plenty of talented women. Let men collide with a glass ceiling for a change.
But you know what? The day when women could blame men for their professional and economic problems has passed. It's unseemly, out of date and it contradicts everyday reality.