
Ask a Female Engineer: Employees with Kids and Relationships at Work - cbcowans
http://themacro.com/articles/2016/10/ask-a-female-engineer-4/
======
nserrino
I don't get this... Male engineers have kids and date too. Female employees,
engineer or not, get pregnant. "As a female engineer" I would prefer if people
-- including fellow women -- stopped treating us like we are some kind of
exotic species.

~~~
Consultant32452
I'm a male engineer and single father. So I'm responsible for all of the
facets of child rearing including but not limited to dealing with a sick kid.
All of the talk of making workplaces better for people with families seemed
really foreign to me. I would prefer that my company not even be aware of the
concept people having children. It's none of their business. Of course it's
not practical for companies to have zero awareness, but the less they are
involved the better. If I prioritize X over work, then that's an opportunity
for someone else to move into that slot and get the promotion. It doesn't
matter if X is boogie-boarding, playing video games, or taking care of a
child.

I support extending maternity/paternity leave for everyone. But if I take 3
months off work every year for 4 years in a row I shouldn't expect to get the
same raises and promotions as everyone else. If at N years of tenure I get
more vacation days? Time spent on paternity leave shouldn't count towards
that. It's the same as if I chose to take 3 months off to section hike the
Appalachian Trail.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
> _It 's the same as if I chose to take 3 months off to section hike the
> Appalachian Trail_

Only it isn't. If you don't hike, nothing happens. If you (or someone) doesn't
take care of your sick child, including doctor's visits if needed and so on,
that is a criminal act. You are responsible for your child.

We need folks to take care of their children. Both men and women. I'm more
than willing to give parents extra time off work to do so. I support both
maternity and paternity leave and I wish both would take it. I'm saying this
as a childless woman.

And I think since our children are important, both for families and society in
the present and future - I don't think folks should be punished for doing so.
This includes holding future promotions and days off against them for _doing
the very things society thinks they should be doing_ \- namely, parenting.

~~~
fundie
> You are responsible for your child.

You are, but it's a responsibility you chose.

If I choose to go camping instead, should my company pay for the permit
because not having one would be a criminal act?

> And I think since our children are important, both for families and society
> in the present and future - I don't think folks should be punished for doing
> so.

So let's raise everyone's taxes to reimburse private companies for the cost.
But let's not punish companies for hiring parents.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
You might choose the responsibility... that could be argued to a point,
actually. And I assume you are smart enough to realize that having a child and
going camping are two different sorts of things. One has a lot more free
choice than the other one - and a lot more control over when it happens and
stuff like that. No one suddenly needs to camp: But some folks suddenly need
to take care of a sick child or take them to the hospital.

I don't think the employer should have to pay the camping fees any more than I
think they are responsible for directly paying for school-related costs for
children: However, I do think paid vacations should be a standard thing for
everyone, to the point you can take a month off to do that hiking. Even if you
work at some fast food place. So in a round-about way, yes. You should bet
paid for that through some manner.

I'm also very much supportive of comprehensive sick time so that you can take
2 months off after surgery and not have that held against you.

> _So let 's raise everyone's taxes to reimburse private companies for the
> cost. But let's not punish companies for hiring parents_

First, I fully agree with having higher taxes for this purpose. I don't view
taxes as a punishment, in general, though I have the understanding that
applied correctly, they can be a deterrent or encouragement. This, to me, is
on par with everyone being taxed to provide education to children. I don't
mind because education is important and society improves because of it... even
if I don't have children.

Heck, I'm willfully living in a country that does exactly this. There are a
few downsides. Some folks do abuse it (true with any sick leave policy,
really), and stuff costs a bit more. On the other hand, they credit these
sorts of policies to better equality and things like that.

~~~
Chris2048
> One has a lot more free choice than the other one

What difference does this make? It means deciding to have a child is a much
bigger decision than deciding to go camping, but doesn't suddenly push the
burden of that decision onto anyone else. Taking care of a sick child should
be the kind of risk you accept when deciding to have a child - your
responsibility.

------
Spooky23
> Never assume that all your employees are straight, all your employees only
> date one person at a time, all of your employees define dating the same way
> you do, or that you’ll know if your employees are dating. I think a flat
> prohibition of romantic relationships in your company is going to be very
> hard to enforce; most likely, your employees are not going to disclose their
> relationships.

Red Flag. Key advice: don't shit where you eat.

The problem with these sorts of things is that people have feelings and often
react poorly when things implode. If you have people with their varying views
of what's ok and what isn't doing their thing, you're going to have a big
problem on your hands.

The corner cases are really painful to deal with. My wife had one where an
ambitious female working for her was sleeping with 4-5 directors, created
awkward situations, then started a lawsuit/eeoc complaint. The three months of
depositions were lots of fun.

I witnessed one where two high-level director level people were engaged, which
was great, until the male was discovered to be also "dating" a subordinate. He
had to transfer, but there was nowhere to go due to his level, so he got
canned. It was a bad situation on every dimension.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
> Red Flag. Key advice: don't shit where you eat.

I mean sure it's good _advice_ but a prohibition of romantic relationships
doesn't actually work. When people get close after working together romantic
feelings can happen its only natural. A study from 2006 found 40% of office
workers had a romance with someone they worked with. ___40%_ __[1]. Hell,
anecdotally almost half of everyone I can think (that I know personally of
course) in a relationship I know met their spouse at a place where they both
worked.

Yeah there are reasons why it's a bad idea. Yeah it shouldn't happen with
supriors. But it _will_ happen and a flat out prohibition on it will cause
more harm than good. If you flat out prohibit it then it won't get reported
and then no one will know about the possibile conflict of instrest that needs
to be handled properly.

If you have open policies regarding this and encourage people to notice
management and that they won't get punished then you can make arrangements to
ensure no conflicts of instrests occur (or at least minimize them).

I would be curious if there have been studies between the two schools of
thought.

[1]
[http://www.siop.org/Media/News/office_romance.aspx](http://www.siop.org/Media/News/office_romance.aspx)

~~~
exhilaration
_If you flat out prohibit it then it won 't get reported and then no one will
know about the possibile conflict of instrest that needs to be handled
properly._

Arguably this would shield the company from lawsuits if things go south and
one party files a sexual harassment lawsuit. The employer can claim ignorance,
point to the policy, and fire both parties.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
Would it though? I'm not a lawyer but what's the difference between the
employer understanding there is a consensual relationship and then sexual
harassment is accused versus not knowing about a relationship and the same
thing occurring? It's not like the company knew about _sexual harassment_ and
once they know about it they'll likely be terminating the offending party. So
why would them knowing there is a consensual relationship add to their
accountability?

------
ng12
> It was a big relief that I could take a sick child with me to work (of
> course only when the illness was not serious).

Please don't bring a sick person into the office for any reason. This is why
work-from-home policies are so important.

~~~
mason240
My daycare has a policy where kids have to go home if their temps are over a
certain number, and can't come back for 24 hours, even if they are not sick. I
have to take a handful of days off a year to stay home with a kid who isn't
sick.

You also have to remember that little kids frequently get sick from things
adults are already immune to. Both of our kids went to daycare at about 6
months, both were frequently sick for that first month with things there were
exposed to for the first time.

~~~
mikestew
_You also have to remember that little kids frequently get sick from things
adults are already immune to._

Which would explain why every parent I know is sick certainly more often than
my wife and I are with no kids, and usually sick every time the kids drag
something home.

~~~
Bartweiss
Seriously. Ask any elementary school teacher you know how often they and their
families get sick - it might well be an order of magnitude more than other
people.

It's pretty possible to avoid (contagious) illness for a year at a time if you
don't have kids and don't spend time at schools/campuses/conventions. Change
one of those things and you'll be sick in a month.

------
brhsiao
Unrelated, but as a 21 year old (male!) who knows little about society, human
psychology, etc., can I ask with sincerity what is probably a really dumb
question?

Why do companies/society need to accommodate people who have kids? Why are
maternity/paternity leave a thing? How come we don't expect people to price
the fact that having a kid is a lot of work that will inherently set their
life back into their decision of whether to have one?

Is it really so "evil" when one makes the assumption that someone with kids is
on balance less dedicated, more tired, more preoccupied, etc. than someone
without? Can't we rephrase that as, someone who has a matter in their life
they need to spend hours a day on will have less time for other things? Is
that discrimination?

~~~
projektir
> How come we don't expect people to understand that having a kid is a lot of
> work, something that will inherently set their life back, and price that
> into their decision of whether to have a kid?

Specifically because people understand this is why we need to accommodate
people who have children. If having children starts really setting you back
because it's not accommodated in the slightest, all the ambitious, driven, and
responsible people will decide that they can't afford to have children. If it
gets bad enough, it becomes so common that the fertility rate of your entire
country falls down.

The other reason is a business oriented one: a very large portion of the
population intends to have children. It would be rather strange to exclude
them all from your employment pool.

> Can't we rephrase that as, someone who has a matter in their life they need
> to spend hours a day taking care of will have less hours for other things?

Now a question for you. Would you want to live in a world where the only way
to survive was to dedicate 100% of your life to your job? No relationships, no
hobbies, no time for things like exercise. Just your job.

~~~
brhsiao
Makes sense. Ok, you changed my mind.

I did read once that humans basically evolved to handle childcare as a
society. Apparently villages used to raise all the kids together. So I am
probably arguing against biology here.

I'm still not sure assuming that people with kids have less time left over is
discrimination, but I am probably projecting my own lack of desire to have
kids onto the separate issue of how society should be run.

~~~
telesilla
>humans basically evolved to handle childcare as a society

On that, you are right. It's incredibly frustrating for many trying to raise a
family in Western-style living arrangements being so separate from their
extended families and community. Child-raising is most efficient when done by
a group: alone, it's exhausting and challenging and it's bad for the economy
in the long term:

[http://www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/why-the-nuclear-family-
ne...](http://www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/why-the-nuclear-family-needs-to-die-
in-order-for-us-to-live/)

Even if you don't care about the emotional aspect, there are many impacts on
society caused by the very recent rise of the Nuclear Family.

------
rmchugh
The thing about a Netflix room for sick kids really reminded how good we've
got things in Denmark. I have two days off every time a kid gets sick, no
questions asked, as does my partner. I work in the public sector though, so
I'm not sure what the standard arrangement is in the private sector.

~~~
clifanatic
Well, the reality in America is that in most places you can take time off if
your kid gets sick... you'll just be "downsized" during the next
"reorganization" if you ever do.

~~~
cookiecaper
You almost had it here. In America, most employers of professionals are
flexible, sympathetic and understanding. They'll usually give you the time off
without further ramifications. Just because the law doesn't require it doesn't
mean it doesn't happen.

~~~
shas3
There's no correct answer to this. But, from personal experience, there are
companies and roles in which too many sick days and even maternity leave can
shaft your promotion. They usually give fuzzy reasons like "you weren't fully
present," etc. and won't necessarily directly say "you took too many sick days
to care for your kid!" There is an implicit assumption that at certain early-
career roles you are childless and managers and peers at such levels are quite
poor at accommodating working parents.

------
Mz
_If you’re going to have a policy on employee romantic relationships, my
suggestion would be to focus on relationships where one partner is in a
position of authority over the other ... And yes, this policy should be
clearly spelled out in a company handbook – it shouldn’t be something your
team is confused about or has to ask about._

This pretty closely describes the situation at the Fortune 500 company I
worked at for a time. I thought it worked pretty well.

~~~
gkya
>> Dorothy : I’ve never seen policy on employee dating that was effective.
I’ve seen policies that made sense in theory – i.e. like don’t date within
your reporting chain – that lead to bad outcomes in practice – people hiding
their relationship.

~~~
Mz
I sure as hell do not want my boss asking me out. Ever. I do not want that
kind of situation at work and I am totally fine with people being fired for
"inappropriate relationships" as happened in my department per the company
policy.

~~~
gkya
When you start with "I" you can say anything, but with an objective look I'd
say everything is fine as long as it does not affect the business itself,
i.e., if they continue to do properly as before their own jobs. A per-case
approach is way better thus.

~~~
Mz
In theory, this may work in small businesses. In practice, there are very
serious problems with a) potentially being subtly pressured into a
relationship because your job depends upon it and b) potentially getting
promoted because of whom you are sleeping with instead of that being based on
job performance.

The military treats certain situations similar to statutory rape because if
you are being threatened or pressured in some way, the perp will expect you to
swear it is consensual. They jail officers (or did at one time) found to be
sleeping with the wives of lower ranking men in their unit, and her testimony
is irrelevant.

This is considered a morale issue in the military. You don't want an officer
to have to order a man to do a job that might kill him under circumstances
where the motive might be "I want you dead so I can have your wife."

The stakes may be lower than that in most jobs, but I think the effect of
wondering why Sally got promoted or wondering if Anna got fired because the
boss asked her out and she said "no" is still incredibly corrosive to the
environment. I don't see any good coming from it.

~~~
gkya
Hey I'm sorry but it's disgusting to compare a romantic relationship to rape,
and then I don't like the sexism in your comment. Also, army is an extreme
case in comparison with anything that's not army. I'm not a US citizen so what
I know about your army is limited to what I see on the news, but what I know
of armies in general is that they are organisations of legitimised killers
with loads of weapons at their disposal and tamed with the power of dogma and
discipline and submission. So go figure.

Whatever, staying on topic: if some people abuse a given freedom, it does not
mean that the freedom itself need be banned. The abusers need be punished. In
my mother tongue we have this expression: don't burn the quilt for the flea.
The initiative for a relationship need not come from the superior, and in case
it does, it need not be corrupt and exploitative. And then it's not that the
lower-ranking one is always a Sally or an Anna, can also be a Joe or Tom.
(edit:) At the end of the day, each case is different and should be taken in
its own.

You say you don't see any good in it, but partners of such relationships that
lead to happy families will beg to differ. Usually people get to meet each
other in school, work or friend gatherings. It's not like you can stop people
in the street and ask them out.

edit: grammar are hards

~~~
Mz
I am not comparing a romantic relationship to rape. I am telling you that
there are ways to coerce someone into sex that look completely polite on the
surface. If you want your business to function well, it should never be okay
to put someone in the position of feeling they have to date their boss to keep
their job.

It was perfectly fine to date people from work at my old job. It was not fine
to date someone whom you had power over. There were plenty of people there
that were married to other employees or dating other employees. In some cases,
they worked closely together.

Such a policy protects both the boss and their underlings. It means the boss
doesn't have to worry if someone is asking them out in hopes of sleeping their
way into a promotion. No one is allowed to ask their boss out either.

Edit: Since you say you are foreign, "Statutory rape" is a term that means you
had sex with someone who was legally too young to consent. So even if that
individual was totally enthusiastic about sleeping with you, due to their
status as a legal minor, they are not deemed competent enough to fully
consider the consequences of their actions and provide informed consent. It
does not mean you dragged someone off down an alleyway and violently assaulted
them.

This is pertinent in situations where one party is not in a position to freely
say "no" because the other individual has power over them (or some other
advantage that is allowing them take advantage of someone).

~~~
gkya
Dating need not include sex. Sex is not abuse. And that there is possibility
of abuse does not mean that the abuse will happen. Precautions need be taken,
but an outright ban is uncivil, because it carries prejudice towards
individuals, i.e., the superiors are filthy exploiters who'll do anything for
sex and the underlings immoral people who'll trade their bodies and emotions
for professional returns.

WRT statutory rape, I didn't know, sorry. WRT me being foreign, I din't know
that HN was a US-centric forum.

~~~
greglindahl
I did a little googling, and it appears that countries like China, India,
Russia, Brazil, South Africa, France, and Germany all have the concept of
statutory rape, even if you aren't familiar with that particular wording in
English.

------
jeffrom
If you agree that there has historically been a disparity between the genders
and you agree that there is currently an gender disparity in the workplace, it
is not much of jump to believe that elevating women could help to correct that
problem.

I see a lot of comments on posts like these claiming that it is sexist or just
reproducing the problem to give women visibility or an advantage in the
workplace. Usually these comments are supported by anecdotal evidence. I think
these comments are supporting the status quo. Given the mountains of evidence
showing gender disparity today in hiring, salary, etc, as well as the
historical fact of women's position vs men over the last few thousand years,
shouldn't we be leaning in the direction of trying things out?

------
cbcowans
Hi! Cadran here from YC. If you'd like to anonymously ask a question, please
email ask@ycombinator.com or post it here. Thanks!

~~~
pmiller2
I'd like to see some thoughts on "unlimited vacation." How many of the ladies
work at companies with this policy, and how do they decide how much to take?

~~~
cbcowans
Thanks for asking! I'll add it to our list of questions.

~~~
chris_7
You should also do "undefined vacation" \- the company that I work has, as far
as I can tell, no vacation policy. People do take vacation, but it has never
been mentioned as a coherent thing.

Another good one would be alcohol and alcohol related events... I really see
no reason for those to be in the workplace, since they're not work. I am male
but I hear so many stories from (non-engineer) female friends about creepers
in bars, so I worry about that sort of thing moving into the workplace.

------
bettyx1138
I've worked at places that allowed many of the flexibilities mentioned.

I sometimes felt that it was more socially acceptable for men and women with
kids to use the WFH and leave early flexibilities than it was for those of us
who are child-free.

~~~
beachstartup
yes, it's a double standard. usually the people who make the rules have kids
also, so this is how it plays out.

~~~
m_t
I've also heard that most of those rule making people were at some point
children themselves. It's a vicious circle really.

------
Trombone12
Honestly I upvote this simply because women get asked and can reply
uninterrupted, I don't actually care all that much about what they say just
that they have been given the space to say it (as none of these engineers are
the one I married).

------
balls187
This Q&A Series seems like it would have the opposite of it's intended effect.

You want to ask woman engineers about family matters? That seems analagous to
giving your wife a vacuum cleaner for her birthday.

~~~
Mz
It isn't ideal, but there seems to be no _good_ path forward. If this simply
makes women more visible and more empowered to talk on HN, that will be a step
forward.

~~~
ng12
Are women not empowered to talk on HN? I feel like it's pseudo-anonymous.

~~~
Mz
I seem to be the most "prominent" openly female member in terms of forum
participation. My research indicates that the short answer is "no."

It has gotten better over time, but there is lots of room for improvement.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
What exactly does 'not being empowered to talk' mean in a place where no one
can really tell anyone's gender and everything is online?

I'm just taking your word you're a woman and you have as much opportunity to
post or reply as anyone else.

~~~
Mz
Women get responded to differently here in ways that women themselves report
is problematic. ([http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/01/oh-my-god-
it...](http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/01/oh-my-god-its-
girl.html))

There appear to be no women on the leaderboard. The leaderboard lists 100
names. The top of it is stable, but, my understanding is that your name drops
off of it if you are inactive for X amount of time. The bottom is not stable.
Names appear and disappear. So there are likely something over 100 members
with enough karma to qualify for the leaderboard, at some points during the
year. I appear to have the highest karma of any openly female member and I am
thousands short of the leaderboard.

I posted a question or two trying to find out who was female here. Some women
created accounts in order to reply. So, there appear to be a lot of women who
lurk and read but do not feel comfortable participating.

I ended up gathering some objective data to the best of my ability because the
social piece is pretty opaque here. I did not have an agenda initially. But I
was experiencing a lot of friction and there was soft social evidence
suggesting I was "prominent" for a woman here at a time when I had something
like 3000 or 4000 karma. I put that data on my blog. For example:
[http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/01/some-raw-
dat...](http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/01/some-raw-data-on-
prominence-of-women-on.html)

I can't prove any of this. If you want to be pedantic, hey, you win. But as a
woman who ended up inadvertently researching how prominent I was because I was
having what I felt was an excessive amount of friction for a "nobody," my
opinion is that a) HN is not very welcoming of women and b) it has gotten
better over time and is continuing to improve.

Do with that opinion as you wish. I don't feel like getting dragged into some
stupid argument where multiple men verbally beat on me while swearing women
don't face challenges here. Such situations never seem to strike the multiple
men engaging in the pile on as either ironic nor as de facto evidence
supporting my assertion that there are issues.

~~~
protomikron
The problem is, that the assumption "Women get responded to differently here"
is just impossible to check, as this is an anonymous forum and you can choose
the login name you want and their is no gender data associated with you (which
is obviously fantastic). In particular I would assume there are many people
here that just do not give a fuck about who writes comments, at least I rarely
check the user name.

> I appear to have the highest karma of any openly female member and I am
> thousands short of the leaderboard.

Although I am not sure how important that is (HN Karma), I would say you can
not know that, as this implies, that you know the gender of the top thousand
HN commenters?

~~~
Mz
I am not the only person who has observed that women get responded to
differently here. You do not have to (in your words) "give a fuck who writes
comments" to respond differently to a population that is likely to have a
different set of experiences and a different way of expressing themselves.

 _> I appear to have the highest karma of any openly female member and I am
thousands short of the leaderboard.

Although I am not sure how important that is (HN Karma), I would say you can
not know that, as this implies, that you know the gender of the top thousand
HN commenters?_

I phrased that very carefully and it is factually correct in the way it is
phrased. No, I do not know the gender of all members.

Like I said, if you want to be pendantic, whatever. But, yes, I can know for a
fact that I _appear to have_ the highest karma of any _openly female member_
and I sure as hell know for a fact that I am thousands short of the
leaderboard. That last detail is very easily checked.

~~~
protomikron
> You do not have to give a fuck who writes comments to respond differently to
> a population that is likely to have a different set of experiences and a
> different way of expressing themselves.

I am not sure I understand your point here, but if I do not care who writes
the post, the only information that would leak the gender is the comment
itself, and I do not think that one could reliable deduce the gender of a
commenter by inspecting the comment (considering the comments in most HN
discussions). Sure there might be discussions where this is possible, but I do
not believe that this is the case for most of HN's discussions.

~~~
vertex-four
The issue isn't that people think "hey, woman, I'll treat her differently".
The issue is that people with different experiences will communicate in
different ways, hold different priorities, and they'll react differently to
the same stories and comments.

And they very well might decide that they don't want to spend their free time
attempting to talk to people who they can't communicate effectively with
because of some combination of the above. Feeling like you're one of the only
people who understands your experiences in a community really sucks.

~~~
protomikron
> Feeling like you're one of the only people who understands your experiences
> in a community really sucks.

Yeah that might be true. It is just hard for me to imagine why a non-male
might be inhibited to comment on e.g. the current dtrace discussion
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12806941](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12806941))?
Obviously this is cherry-picked, and there _was_ (and _is_) discrimination
against women in the tech scene, but I would have guessed that HN is a
positive example and I rarely stumble across discrimination here.

~~~
vertex-four
Maybe. On the other hand, most people lurk and read a lot before signing up
for forums, and they're more than likely going to come across one of the many
political discussions on here, which are... slightly less meritocratic. They
_could_ keep to just discussing tech here and pretend the politics don't
exist, or they could go find other communities where they're more likely to
get along with people.

(Or they could, on occasion, be like me and try to communicate with people who
won't listen and occasionally burn out.)

~~~
protomikron
> Feeling like you're one of the only people who understands your experiences
> in a community really sucks.

Yeah political discussions here are not better than on reddit, but if you go
to HN to discuss politics (which is a broad term in itself), you are doing it
wrong. E.g. I mostly discuss tech here (this discussion being an exception),
and try to be a lurker in shitty politics, economics, feminism, SV-"make-the-
world-a-better-place", etc. discussions and would have assumed that many do
the same.

~~~
vertex-four
Indeed, except that when people are literally talking about you - which they
are every time women's issues turn up on here - it's kind of hard to ignore
it. Nobody is here primarily to discuss politics, but political discussions
happen anyway, and _having_ to ignore them sucks.

------
sokoloff
> That same CEO would go to my house and stay with my kids when we had
> emergency technical issues requiring all of the tech staff to stay late.

Bravo for that CEO! Things like that engender crazy amounts of respect and
loyalty.

------
mcv
The first thing that strikes me is that the first two questions asked of a
female engineer are about kids and relationships. Of course those things are
relevant to some women (though hardly all), but they're just as relevant to
men.

I know tons of male engineers with kids (I'm one of them) who have to leave
early to pick up kids from day care, or suddenly can't come in because their
child is sick. Many work 4 days a week in order to have more time for their
family.

~~~
nsavaaytrev
I think you're missing the point of this series. I think the point is to get
women in tech to answer questions about their experiences (as women). I don't
think it's meant to be limited to them talking about experiences only relevant
to females. But you're right that many of the questions could be asked of men
too.

------
Hondor
I was expecting this to be a complaint that the only questions people ask
female engineers are about kids and dating, instead of engineering. Who can
tell which way public opinion will spin these days!

~~~
Trombone12
This is the fourth instalment of the series, so these weren't the first
question asked to the engineers.

But yes, a lot of comments have been from people not seeing the reference to
the earlier parts in the beginning of the post, or seen the earlier threads on
HN, and reacting like you.

------
dominotw
Small countries which lucked out free oil seem to have the best social
policies.

~~~
Prisen
Denmark doesn't have any oil, you're probably thinking of Norway.

~~~
dominotw
plenty of oil and gas from north sea, second biggest of their exports.

------
bettyx1138
"ladies" is old-fashioned and patronizing. say "women" instead. :)

~~~
67726e
What's patronizing about the word "ladies"?

~~~
BinaryIdiot
So I'm curious as well but I know many female friends who prefer to be called
a lady / ladies so I'm not sure you can necessarily win when you attempt to
converse with someone and you have zero context about them.

I think people need to be more forgiving with most labels when the
conversation happens anonymously without context of that user's preference.
Now if you referred to them as "bitches" that would be a problem but I feel
like we can be forgiving for "ladies", even if a majority of women do not like
it.

Right? At least that's what I think.

~~~
projektir
I don't particularly care for the term "lady", but I would never consider it
patronizing or an insult.

I agree that people need to be more forgiving, this is just not worth the
effort to worry about it.

------
logicallee
[retracted]

~~~
sctb
We ask that you please don't do this because it sabotages the discussion
thread. We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12809769](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12809769)
and marked it off-topic.

