
Ways Men in Tech Are Unintentionally Sexist (2014) - empressplay
http://notapattern.net/2014/10/14/ways-men-in-tech-are-unintentionally-sexist/
======
nothrabannosir
_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
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
That argument does not counter his point this isn't a sexism thing.

~~~
comex
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.

~~~
meric
Using sexual language to describe a non-gendered object in the workplace is a
different issue to sexism.

"That car is sexy" = Could mean sexy as James Bond. It depends on the car, and
the tone of person speaking, and who is saying it. You can't automatically
assume it is sexualising women.

You can discuss whether saying such things is appropriate in the workplace but
what the original comment say is this issue isn't related to discrimination
against one particular gender, unless one is prejudicing one particular gender
to be more prone to being uncomfortable with sexuality to begin with.

"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"

should be corrected 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 _people_
uncomfortable".

The former is gender discrimination, the second isn't. The former subtly
suggests women are more prone to be uncomfortable, and can, for example,
worsen the bias a potential employer may have against hiring women, for fear
getting into trouble with women being easily uncomfortable in the workplace,
because they're women. I am aware of this bias in mind consciously, already.

~~~
comex
Of course the meaning of any particular instance of language depends on
context, but the most common case of a straight man (for this is about
behavior by men, and most men are straight) calling something sexy without
additional context is unlikely to be interpreted as "sexy like James Bond".

More broadly, on average, men who are used to operating in all-male social
groups are less likely to have thought about, and more likely to do, things
that would make women uncomfortable in particular than things that would make
anyone uncomfortable, because they wouldn't have gotten (as much, or any)
negative feedback in the past. Therefore, while one should be concerned with
anyone's discomfort, it makes sense for such people to give special thought to
the former. That seems pretty obvious; I hardly think it constitutes
discrimination. (And of course, you could substitute any common descriptor for
"all-male", and stumble on other real issues, but writing like the present
article provides evidence that today's tech culture has serious dissonance
with gender in particular.)

For the record, one could also argue, like the argument you originally replied
to, that people already set on edge by previous discomforting events are more
likely to be negatively affected by additional ones - i.e. women (in tech) are
more prone to be uncomfortable not inherently, but because of externalities
only partially under any given person's control. That is not discrimination
either, but a reason to be extra empathetic.

~~~
meric
I don't know if you've ever met a narcissist in your life, I have been
involved with a narcissistic woman before.

And here someone describes the concept of a "mental filter".

"Narcissists install a mental filter in our heads a little bit at a time.
Before we know it, everything we do, say, or think, goes through this filter.
'Will he get upset if I do/say/think this? Will he approve/disapprove? Will he
feel hurt by this?"

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-
self/2014...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-
self/201404/the-vampire-s-bite-victims-narcissists-speak-out)

 _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._

This sounds like a rephrasing of what a narcissist might tell me, suggesting
everything wrong to do with her is my fault and my responsibility.

The suggestions of advocates of feminism remind me of many aspects of that
experience.

------
rsuelzer
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.

~~~
erroneousfunk
Did you read the article that the author linked to, in regards to this? You
wouldn't walk up to a woman and say "You're a really great guy!" What would
happen if you went into a mixed-gendered room and asked all the "guys" to
stand up? If someone said "everyone knows it's a guys' world" what would they
mean?

If you went into a restaurant with cutely-named bathrooms, and went into the
"guys" bathroom, you would probably be surprised to find women in there. If
someone described The Spice Girls as a "group of guys" that would likely be
more confusing than someone describing The Beatles as a "group of guys"

It might sound completely normal to your ears to use "guys" in reference to
any group of people because you're so used to responding to it (and, yes, I
Internet-stalked you a bit to confirm your gender). Having never personally
identified with the word "guy," however, I, at least sub-consciously, and
sometimes consciously, think it's odd when someone calls me a "guy." I mean,
I'll absolutely respond, and won't say anything to the speaker, but I'll feel
a tiny bit put-off, and maybe a little self-conscious, because I'm the only
person in my company who isn't actually a "guy"

Like the author also brought up, there are plenty of alternatives to "guys"

~~~
ta82828
Human languages don't work like programming languages, you can't always derive
the meaning of a phrase from its parts. There are large groups of English
speakers among whom, men and women alike, "you guys" is an idiom independent
in meaning from the word "guy", and is used as a gender neutral plural second
person pronoun. If one is in the company of such speakers there is nothing
wrong with using it.

~~~
erroneousfunk
Sure, it might be well-accepted in some groups and in some contexts. But why
would you use it in the workplace, when there is absolutely controversy around
the phrase?
[https://www.google.com/webhp?q=is+%22you+guys%22+gender+neut...](https://www.google.com/webhp?q=is+%22you+guys%22+gender+neutral)
Why would you use it in an environment where women already feel oddly singled-
out because they're in the extreme minority, and when there are plenty of
other perfectly-acceptable phrases? It's definitely not as bad as a group I'm
in being addressed as "gentlemen" (which has happened too many times to
count), but it's still annoying, in a work context. I don't mind it when I'm
with a group of friends, or there are roughly equal numbers of men and women.

------
dataker
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
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
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.

~~~
kaitai
Agree with: "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." "What I do know is that every single successful person puts up with
crap."

Disagree with implied ideas that: because we can all only speak for ourselves,
we shouldn't speak. Because everyone gets crap, we don't need to fight against
shit. That guys feeling bad for microaggressions are stereotyping women's
needs (?).

We're all jerks sometimes, and often we don't even know it. When we realize we
did something that made someone else feel bad, it's natural to feel defensive
and at the same time sorry. It's not stereotyping to listen honestly to
someone's viewpoint and consider it. And not having time to eat Cheetos is not
what women are facing, it's weird stuff like the boss never inviting them to
beer or getting sexually explicit trolling. You've read the news; you know
what's in the harassment lawsuits: retaliation for sexual relationships had or
not had, promotions denied because of "fit", networking events that were male-
only, and all the guys in the company going along. If a guy had practice
saying, "Hey, let's not call that app sexy and then ask if grandma can use
it," he might actually have the practice and the courage to stand up to some
of this serious stuff.

~~~
abeisgreat
To your point, everything you mention about things in the news are significant
issues. However, they are not small slips by good natured men. Those are bad
people actively discriminating against people they deem unworthy.

That being said, I didn't say we shouldn't speak. I said we shouldn't speak
for others. This article wasn't written as "here's how I feel when this
happens" it was "here's how women feel when you do this". Generalizing in this
way is just as sexist as any of the issues she brings up, if not more so, but
because she wraps her sexism in good intentions we ignore it.

It's hard to qualify disliking certain adjectives as worse "shit" then
anything else you have to go through as a professional. We're specifically
talking about microagressions here, not firing someone for not sleeping with
you, not excluding women from events, etc. These are not major issues, they
are small things that make some people uncomfortable.

I understand it can suck when a company's culture doesn't fit, I deal with a
fair share of bad culture fit as I consultant for many companies. I'm a 20yo
male bisexual who doesn't drink or smoke. I just spent time with a company
where the entire staff went to the bar and I wasn't just invited, but
pressured to go and I felt very outside when I had to repeatedly refuse. I had
a different client make unwarranted comments about us cuddling and he brought
up multiple times who would be the big spoon (I'm unsure if he knew my
orientation, I suspect he did). I later had a very negative falling out with
him, was it because I ignored his advances? Who knows. My point is that we're
all different and you're extremely unlikely to mesh perfectly with every
member of a group, but being successful often means putting aside these things
and doing business regardless. It sucks, but it's an issue that will always
exist and isn't exclusive to women. It's not called work because it's super
fun, it's called work because you put up with crap and all these
"microaggressions" are on the level of all this other crap.

To your final disagreement about me saying that men feeling bad are
stereotyping women's needs/issues, imagine you take what I've just told you
about me and imagine we're hanging out one night and we're quite close, so you
want to share some story about your sexual exploits from the night before. You
start to tell your story but then think "well, he's bisexual, I probably
shouldn't tell him this story because he's confused about his sexuality and
trying to figure himself out". That's you stereotyping, obviously. It's no
different than saying "she's a women, I shouldn't call this software sexy". If
you knew me personally and I had said "don't talk about sex around me" then
you would have grounds to think that. Similarly if I'm working with a women
and she says "hey don't call me a guy" then I say okay and I don't do that
anymore. But by assuming she'd be offended, I'm stereotyping.

The goal of communication isn't to make everyone feel great all the time, you
shouldn't err on the side of inclusion, you should err on the side of
openness, so if you say something that makes someone feel bad or out of place,
they can say "hey bud, pls don't". By shuttering communication and wildly
speculating about what all people of any group dislike or are offended by,
you're belittling their individuality and overall moving communication in the
wrong direction.

------
sinak
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
> 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
> 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-i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/nicholas-kristof-is-
everyone-a-little-bit-racist.html)

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.

~~~
irishcoffee
I didn't ask about society. Everyone, is every single individual racist and/or
sexist?

> 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...

Did those studies talk to every single person in the US? Or are you only
concerned about white people being racist towards black people? That's how
you're coming across, just so you know.

You can't acknowledge that you think 'everyone' is racist and then pivot back
to society. You've just blanket accused every single person of being racist,
and sexist. Are black women racist and sexist? Middle-eastern women? Its easy
to stand on a soapbox and quote a study. It does not seem as though you've run
this line of thinking to its conclusion, you stopped in the middle.

> 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.

Mostly have the right to free speech? Can you elaborate about that? I'm not
sure if you're aware of how controversial the issue of 'free speech' has
become. [0] Once again, its easy to soapbox and pick the parts you agree with.

We must not live in the same US (or perhaps you don't) if you think people are
shamed into not talking out against racism and sexism. They're both wrong,
and, compared to even 20 years ago, the US is making forward progress, leaps
and bounds of forward progress. Then people come along and say things like you
did, as if there isn't change.

It literally takes generations to wipe out hatred in the manner you're
concerned about. Making blanket statements about everyone being a horrible,
shitty person on the internet doesn't speed things up, and makes you look
silly.

[0] [http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Spe...](http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Speech)

~~~
dragonwriter
Racism/sexism aren't binary states but continuous ones. And, sure, everyone
probably had non-zero degrees of both racism and sexism. And, yes, that
includes black and middle-eastern women -- not uniquely so, but in the same
way as it includes people of every race and sex. And, yes, people of races
that are generally viewed poorly by the dominant sectors of the society they
live in often have internalized some of the dominant society's racist views
against their own race.

I'm not sure by you think acknowledging that is problematic.

------
ta82828
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
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
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
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.

~~~
ta82828
Well, it's judgement call, but offense alone is not enough to change behavior
IMO. There was a case where a person reading a history book about the KKK in
the presence of blacks was accused of harassment because the picture on the
cover depicted: the KKK. That's just ridiculous.

~~~
4ydx
I just realized that my wording was pretty vague. I would err on the side of
not changing your attitude. I say this primarily because using one persons
reaction (or even a few peoples reactions) to something you do as a test for
deciding if you should reevaluate yourself would make you chase your tail like
a dog: there would be no end to it. But yeah it is mostly about intent, in my
mind. Disagreement is necessary but not sufficient for change.

------
karmacondon
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
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.

~~~
cbd1984
> 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.

Which cannot be had as long as people feel justified in making personal
attacks on the character ("racist!" "sexist!") of anyone who disagrees with
them.

------
blue69
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
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
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.

------
jonnybgood
> 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.

~~~
albemuth
"los y las programadoras"

------
seandhi
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
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
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".

------
mikestew
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.

~~~
parennoob
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
There is no feeling worse than typing all day with overgrown nails.

Source: I'm a man who programs all day.

------
habosa
> 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?"

------
wyager
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.

------
ljak
> [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.

------
kelukelugames
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.

~~~
brighteyes
> 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
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
Maybe "microtransgression"? As pointed out upthread, "aggression" suggests
intention, whereas "transgression" suggests a violated boundary, but does not
assume intent.

------
radley
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?

------
slvv
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.

------
lqdc13
>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.

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

Wrong.

~~~
msandford
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.

------
vezzy-fnord
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.

------
mod
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."

------
likeclockwork
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.

------
parennoob
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.

~~~
kaitai
The article itself notes that not all of these things are problems to/for all
women/people. At some point you have to take that at face value. The writer
finds these to be problems. Take it as a point of information.

Similarly, your 50+ year old coworker's use of "girls" is a point of
information. I find it very weird and creepy when an older female co-worker
calls me a "girl" in front of my boss, or says something like "We girls just
need to do things a little differently, you know!" Weird and creepy, and no
less sexist because it's from a lady.

(Apparently women her age, on the other hand, find "lady" somewhat...
inappropriate....?)

Re: dark UI patterns and more, making things better for women makes things
better for all users. Glad you seem to have noticed that. If you don't see why
it should disproportionately drive off women, you should read/listen up a bit.
For instance, direct messages on Twitter are different experiences for women
and men: [http://blog.ameliagreenhall.com/post/the-hand-on-the-
knee-a-...](http://blog.ameliagreenhall.com/post/the-hand-on-the-knee-a-guide-
to-twitter-dm-etiquette-for-men)

~~~
parennoob
> The article itself notes that not all of these things are problems to/for
> all women/people...The writer finds these to be problems.

Excellent, looks like we all agree. These are specific problems faced by the
writer. Then why on earth is the article titled "Ways Men in Tech are
Unintentionally Sexist", rather than "Problem I have Faced in Tech and that
Made Me Specifically Uncomfortable"?

> I find it very weird and creepy when an older female co-worker calls me a
> "girl" in front of my boss,

Yes, and I find it vaguely disquieting that feminists are trying to ban the
word "sexy" in the workplace. That doesn't mean I'm going to write a
hyperbolic article titled "Why Feminists in Tech are Extreme Puritans".

> (Apparently women her age, on the other hand, find "lady" somewhat...
> inappropriate....?)

Haha, one place where we agree totally. I have no idea. My quick guess is,
being an older lady, it gives her a comfortable sense of youthfulness to say
"Us girls", when she is slowly heading towards 60, and being called "Grandma"
at home. But I think it's her choice, and I accept it as such.

> making things better for women makes things better for all users. Glad you
> seem to have noticed that.

Nope, I said quite the opposite. All users face these problems.

> For instance, direct messages on Twitter are different experiences for women
> and men: [http://blog.ameliagreenhall.com/post/the-hand-on-the-
> knee](http://blog.ameliagreenhall.com/post/the-hand-on-the-knee)

That post in itself opens a can of hornets, so I'd like not to go too deep
into it. Twitter has an option to stop DMs from people you don't follow, and
that article does nothing to educate people about that option. Instead, it
makes the sexist, ageist, Puritanical statement that "older men DM'ing younger
women on Twitter is 'creepy'" with quasi-religious fervour.

------
deciplex
> _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
> 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.

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

~~~
dang
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
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).

~~~
deciplex
> people (inherently Bayesian creatures)

If only this were true.

~~~
deciplex
_sigh_ downvoting my post is not going to turn humans into Bayesian creatures.
And, if you think humans are _inherently_ Bayesian, I am _very interested_ to
hear your reasoning, since it would be: 1. wonderful news and, 2. fly in the
face of thousands of years of human history.

------
jayvanguard
> Using “guys” to mean “people”

I do this accidentally all the time and really need to stop it.

~~~
theorique
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".

------
spcoll
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?

------
kelukelugames
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.

------
mckiddy
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.

~~~
sbilstein
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?

~~~
TACIXAT
>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

If they have to spend time thinking about whether or not it was actually
threatening or creepy they might be digging a little too deep to find those
meanings.

