
Seriously? - tghw
http://bitquabit.com/post/seriously/
======
danso
I have nothing to add to this other than what "The Real Katie" said in
"Lighten Up"

<http://therealkatie.net/blog/2012/mar/21/lighten-up/>

>>

 _Every time I spoke up about the above crap, I got some sympathy, but I also
got some guy who didn't understand what the big deal was. If I wasn't in the
middle of being raped or beaten or threatened or fired, guess what I needed to
do?

Lighten up.

How long would you put up with it? Do you love anything that much? If your
spouse subtly treated you like crap every day, how long would your marriage
last? If you saw a friend being treated this way by their boss, wouldn't you
tell them to quit?

Or would you tell them to lighten up?

You, person who told me to lighten up, saw one little thing. It didn't seem
like a big deal, did it? One little line! One joke! One comment! But it's not
just one thing to me: it's one of thousands that I've had to endure since I
was old enough to be told that 'X is for boys!' It's probably not even the
first thing I've had to deal with that day, unless you've gotten to me pretty
early.

That's the main problem with subtle discrimination. It leaves those that it
affects the most powerless against it, quietly discouraging them. If they
speak up, they're treated to eye rolls at the least, and at the worst, are
called oppressors themselves. We're accused of not wanting equal rights, but
of wanting tyranny._

~~~
kevin_06s
The "Lighten Up" situation is quite different in that there was an
identifiable victim of the sexism who suffered concrete consequences such as
being forced to attend an HR meeting. "Every woman in CS" is too broad to
establish an identifiable victim and "this makes me angry" is not a concrete
consequence.

~~~
danso
Sure, but the point of the 'Lighten Up' is that just because someone doesn't
speak up doesn't mean that they don't feel disenfranchised. In fact, that is
the frustrating point for Katie, because by speaking up, one risks being
branded (or, at least, told to 'lighten up')

Hypotheticals aside, the biggest problem with your argument is that you seem
to be saying that if the OP was a woman, then she'd have more of a point...I
hope to think that isn't the case...if the OP's point is flawed then it is
wrong if it comes from a woman.

(in the abortion debate, the "men should mind their own business" sentiment is
also flawed, especially since there are a good number of women who oppose
abortion)

------
RyanMcGreal
I see the usual grab bag of men making excuses for misogyny in software is out
in force on Hacker News:

* Insisting sexism is not endemic to software, it's just idiots being idiots.

* Insisting sexism is not endemic to software, it's just jerks being jerks.

* Dismissive pedantry over the claim that women are deterred from software by incidents of sexism.

* Blaming women themselves for not going into software.

And all of it laced with blithe stereotyping language ("panty bunching
equivalent", "bitching", "drama" and so on).

This predictably depressing reaction hasn't been good enough for a long time.
The reason more women aren't in software is _staring us right in the face_ but
we're too busy being dismissively sexist to see it.

~~~
debacle
> The reason more women aren't in software is staring us right in the face.

Yes, I agree completely. The reason is entirely clear - from a young age, boys
are marketed to in an entirely different fashion than girls, parents gently
nudge their daughters into more passive roles, and the types of toys that are
available for girls that don't reinforce social stereotypes _suck_ in a
fashion that I don't think I can explain to someone who isn't raising a
daughter.

Lego has finally released some Legos (yeah, I pluralize it) that appeal to
girls, and while some of them are lame (a hair salon, for example), others are
cool, but the vast overwhelming acreage of the girls' half of any given toy
store is filled with pink dolls, barbies, kitchen sets, crap to do with your
hair, and the the type of half-assed girl versions of boy toys that make a
responsible parent want to burn the place down.

~~~
marcos123
> The reason more women aren't in software is staring us right in the face.

I'm no node.js wiz here, but I think I have a valid idea... maybe the reason
that most of the women that didn't become programmers, didn't become
programmers because they had no interest in it and didn't want to become a
programmer?

Also, does anyone else get the sinking feeling that the reason so many young
men on HN feel so strongly about "fixing" the fact that many women have no
interest in writing code, is actually more about said young mens' desire to
work in an office where they are surrounded by women all day?

~~~
EnderMB
I agree entirely. A lot of people on here seem to be clutching at straws at
best. They offer a lot of "evidence" into why women aren't programmers without
actually knowing anything.

In my head, positive discrimination is another form of discrimination. I know
plenty of female programmers and they all got into programming because that's
what they wanted to do, not because it was marketed as a career to them and
not because they've never interacted with shitty co-workers.

If there's any problem with Software Engineering as a career it's the idea
that it's a field for socially-inept nerds that sit in the basement and code
away from the outside world. The "evidence" for this attitude is all over the
place and in my mind this is as likely to turn women away from the field as
much as it is men. When the field decides to stop allowing itself to be
further commoditised and demand some respect (and better pay) we might see
more women want to join us.

------
debacle
This trends is so fucking old that it's growing hair out of its ears.

1\. Some idiot (a confirmed idiot, in this instance) says something
potentially offensive depending on your panty bunching quotient.

2\. Someone decries said idiot, flips tables, talks about how the industry
needs to change, and can't believe others aren't as outraged as they are.

3\. Everyone has their own opinion, and the discourse on HN is relatively
polite, but there's also a ton of shadowy downvotes for rational comments that
don't seem all that inflammatory.

Here's the reality - idiots say stupid things. Whether it's denigratory to
women, men, blacks, Asians, the mentally challenged, furries, or yes even
redditors, it will get said. There's no point getting your feathers all
ruffled over something like this - I assume it's not a common sentiment among
the people who don't get fired from Facebook, and there's plenty of self-
aggrandizing idiots out there to give the outragist fodder to the end of days.

Finally, this is just silly:

> start thinking of computing as a professional discipline, instead of a boy’s
> club.

Computing is neither a professional discipline nor a boys club. Historically,
it's been a sausage fest, and computing will never be a professional
discipline so long as there are people out there willing to write PHP for
fifteen dollars an hour and engineers are put out to pasture at 35.

~~~
mediacrisis
Not to be a pedant, but historically computing was considered "womens work" in
its initial stages.

I would address the the actual problematic elements of your comment, but I'm
afraid in this forum such communication usually falls on deaf ears. Suffice it
to say its easy to have a fatalist attitude towards "idiocy" when you're not
the target in question.

~~~
hackinthebochs
>Not to be a pedant, but historically computing was considered "womens work"
in its initial stages.

It's becoming quite fashionable to bring this up lately, as if its inherently
a trump card to the discussion. The obvious follow up to this statement should
be to ask: why did the state of things change? Without any attempt at getting
to the bottom of why things changed, the statement itself seems to create more
ambiguity rather than clarity.

------
spindritf
So out of a profanity-laced presentation with embarrassing audience tricks
what really got the author was saying that entrepreneurs may be motivated by
money, (helping?) people and -- gasp! -- sex? The guy even went back to be
more politically correct and explicitly included women and gays.

How much bad will does it take to interpret that, fairly biologically obvious,
remark in some twisted way to mean "women are not people"?

~~~
ReadEvalPost
_People, profits, and women_ would indicate the set "People" and set "Women"
are disjoint.

~~~
spindritf
No, it doesn't because "people" probably means users or customers or maybe
your team, and "women" is a substitute for "pussy" which means people you want
to have sex with. It would actually be ethically questionable for those sets
_not to be disjoint_.

~~~
ReadEvalPost
_"women" is a substitute for "pussy" which means people you want to have sex
with._

Right. Pussy as shorthand for sex is problematic because it reduces a woman to
her sexual organs, it objectifies them. Would you enjoy being reduced to your
penis?

That he's using women as substitute for "pussy" and that his phrasing
juxtaposes them with "people" (even though that wasn't the intent, I agree)
only highlights the problem further. I understand what he was trying to
convey, but that doesn't excuse the wording and the attitude it reveals.

~~~
funkwyrm
I disagree, IMHO Pussy as a shorthand for sex reduces SEX to the sexual
organs. Not the woman, the sex act. That may be unenlightened (we know sex can
be so much more!) but not necessarily anti-woman.

~~~
king_jester
Um no. Firstly, this is hugely heterosexist, as you are making statements
about normative attraction and sex. Secondly, referring to women as pussy is a
reduction of a person to their body parts. That is a direct objectification:
removing human elements to reduce something to an object. Furthermore, this
kind of statement is directly intended for one audience and one audience only:
straight men. This is hugely exclusionary and sexist.

~~~
funkwyrm
Not true, read the actual quote, he said "and women. Or men. Whatever" he
specifically expanded it to basically include "whatever you are attracted to"
... he is a straight man, he will use what HE is attracted to as a reference.
Also, how do you know his statements weren't actually directed at lesbians,
who are attracted to similar private parts, why assume he was targeting
straight men? ... in this case, again with so little context, I would lean
towards !lighten up everybody!

~~~
king_jester
Sorry I wasn't clear, but my first two points were about what you said about
reducing a person to their body parts as not being sexism or objectification.

Beyond that, what exactly are you supposed to think when Noah Kagan, someone
who has already made hugely sexist statements in the past, wants to tell you
about "the 3Ps of entrepreneurship"? That kind of statement is a lead in, and
that he tried to backtrack when the audience reacted is irrelevant. Reducing
anyone to their body parts at all is a big problem and is a horrifying thing
to say, but women and trans folk suffer much more from this kind if rhetoric
then cisgender men do, so don't pretend that this kind of statement is OK or
is no big deal.

> Also, how do you know his statements weren't actually directed at lesbians,
> who are attracted to similar private parts, why assume he was targeting
> straight men?

The orientation of the folks in the audience is not the issue, it is the
reduction of people to sex objects for conquest that is the problem.

> in this case, again with so little context, I would lean towards !lighten up
> everybody!

Saying that people need to lighten up is a dismissal that says you don't
really think that this is a big deal and you don't care about the issues this
brings up for many people. This kind of attitude perpetuates these kinds of
incidents and makes it harder for people whose lives are directly affected by
this kind of shit.

------
phaylon
There are seven comments here. One says "There's no point getting your
feathers all ruffled over something like this" and two(!) say "Get over it".
That's the reason I keep upvoting these things here. HN seems to be one of the
places that really could use more exposure to this.

------
jplewicke
In case anyone is wondering about Noah Kagan's past sexist behavior at
conferences, [http://sherprog.com/2011/07/10/noah-kagan-and-the-
faceless-b...](http://sherprog.com/2011/07/10/noah-kagan-and-the-faceless-
bitch-slide/) and <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2749858> is another
example.

I'm really not sure why he's being invited to speak if he still hasn't learned
to be so misogynistic.

~~~
debacle
Conferences need to fill their rosters, and if that means scraping the bottom
of the barrel then so be it.

------
jenius
There are between 1 and 3 posts that say quite literally the EXACT same thing
as this post that end up on the front page of hacker news _every week_ , and
frankly it's starting to wear thin. As @debacle said, this is becoming a
really old and ridiculous trend.

Let's stop making parrot posts about this issue and make posts about __what
you can actually do about it __. It's one thing to complain about injustice,
but once there are hundreds of people complaining about injustice and not a
SINGLE person so much as proposing anything we could possibly do about it, it
becomes a waste of time.

Everyone knows that many people think there is a problem. Continuing to state
this over and over is stupid. Propose a solution instead.

~~~
roguecoder
One of the things we can do about it is highlight incidents so that there is
pressure to change. Do people complain when yet another post about a bunch of
badly-hashed passwords getting hacked pops up? Nope, because those posts are
the best way to convince people to properly hash passwords.

As for what to do about it, step one: don't use this kind of crap in your own
presentations. Step two: if you see someone else doing so, protest. Step
three: go out of your way to read works by women, listen to women speak and
otherwise diversify your professional environment.

There are at least as many posts made about things to do about this. Check out
the Ada Initiative, for example. However, if you read through the comments on
this article and every other you'll probably notice that many people don't
think there is a problem. When solutions are proposed, as they often are, they
are routinely ignored because people are unwilling to accept that this
behavior is a problem, is a pattern or is part of a broader social dynamic.

It is not just about shaming individuals; it is about addressing the
underlying assumptions that developers are male, women are the sexual objects
developers desire and it is somehow hilarious to point this out. That is
impossible until people do, as you do, accept that it is a systematic issue
and not an isolated incident that should be ignored.

Have some patience for the people who are slightly slower; when they all come
around, there won't be any more of these to post here, much less one a week.

------
andrewcooke
ok, confused and completely out of the loop here, so apologies in advance - i
guess this is going to be either "how could he think that?" or "how can he not
know that?".

but the 3 p thing. is it supposed to be "penises"?

[edit: huh. so now here's a clear case where number of votes visible would be
a useful feature in HN! my guess is that "pussy" was what was intended (or
misunderstood), in the context of the post.] [edit to clarify the previous
edit: there used to be two replies; one for "penis" and one for "pussy"]
[also, to explain how i didn't get this, i'm a uk english speaker, who left
the country some 20 years ago, so "pussy" isn't really part of my vernacular -
i think back then, at least, it was an american word.]

~~~
chris_wot
Pussy.

Incidentally, I'm just answering the question. The one speaking the original
sentence I don't have much time for.

------
dexen
Linkbait -> flagged.

It's merely another ``There is misogyny in CS, we _gotta_ do something''.

Lacking in OP:

    
    
      - hard facts how it impacts us,
      - useful proposals,
      - *any* insight.

~~~
chris_wot
Here's a "hard fact". There are a lack of women in IT.

Here's a useful proposal - stop making sexist comments in your talks.

The above I hope you can take as insight.

~~~
chikakicks
So what if there is a lack of women in IT? There is a lack of men in Human
Resources and child care. Why is it an issue? Why does our society need to be
specially engineered to reflect demographics in some industries and not in
other.

Having said that, I don't believe such remarks should have a place in any
professional conference.

~~~
chris_wot
I disagree that there aren't enough people in IT. What I makes me annoyed is
that there are many, many talented women who could be in IT or CS but who
don't participate because of sexism or hostility in the workplace ecause of
their gender.

It's not a matter of "lighten up". It's a matter of "stop being sexist and
hostil to women". The onus is not on the victim to change her behaviour, but
rather very much on the transgressors!

~~~
chikakicks
_What I makes me annoyed is that there are many, many talented women who could
be in IT or CS but who don't participate because of sexism or hostility in the
workplace ecause of their gender._

What industries do these women participate in?

~~~
chris_wot
I don't know. Not IT?

------
cousin_it
The only factual claim in the article:

> _You know why there are no women in CS programs? Because they see shit like
> this_

Citation needed.

~~~
chris_wot
Bullshit. As the creator of the citation needed tag, I feel the urge to
disabuse you of your usage of the phrase. It's self evident that if you are
offensive towards women, it's less likely they will participate in IT or
Computer Science.

We need more Grace Hoppers. I didn't create the {{fact}} tag all those years
ago to be used for crap like this.

~~~
SquareWheel

        "It's self evident that if you are offensive towards women, it's less likely they will participate in IT or Computer Science."
    

Of course, but that doesn't change the need for a citation of that specific
claim. For instance we can observe interests in young children well before
they enter our complex world with rampant sexism and bigotry, and even then we
see similar patterns: girls aren't as interested in CS. Sexism is still
obviously a problem in our industry, I'm not disputing that, but there's
nothing wrong with requesting a source when somebody makes a claim.

Quoting the citation needed tag is just a whimsical way of stating it, there's
no need for personal offense.

~~~
chris_wot
Uh you say "of course" (I.e. I know that it's self evident), but then you say
you need a citation? Really?

~~~
SquareWheel
Because it's different to say "women aren't in CS due to sexism" and "sexism
turns women off to CS".

~~~
chris_wot
Fair point. I see where you are coming from and concede that it was reasonable
to ask for a citation. My apologies.

------
Claudus
I guess there are articles / threads like this discussing sexism directed at
men in female dominated professions too.

[http://ajnoffthecharts.com/2009/06/16/do-male-nurses-face-
re...](http://ajnoffthecharts.com/2009/06/16/do-male-nurses-face-reverse-
sexism/)

 _The 2004 federal survey of the RN population found that only 5.8% of RNs
were men. This results from the profession’s use of caring philosophies that
perpetuate the stereotype of women being more caring than men, as well as from
the use of language that isn’t gender neutral and the failure to recruit men._

[http://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/sexism-
nursi...](http://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/sexism-nursing-
male-25956.html)

 _As a male in nursing, I feel that I am sometimes treated differently because
of my gender. I believe that I am expected to carry a heavier patient load
with less assistance from my female coworkers._

------
annableker
In my experience, a lot of boys have acted that way towards me because they've
honestly never met a woman who can code. It takes a little bit before they
warm up to that fact.

After a while, if they're still being a dick, I'll just go somewhere else and
find people to work with that aren't egocentric and dumb.

That's one of the reasons why working with my brother is so awesome--he knows
me well and doesn't assume I'm a "non-computer-person".

GIRLS DO THIS TOO. Some girls also assume that girls are less technically
inclined.

My whole life, I've just had to keep on going and showing people what I'm
capable of. Since I'm a white girl who likes wearing dresses, people don't
expect it, but they find out soon enough.

------
citricsquid
At this point if someone doesn't post a blog post about Noah Kagan being
sexist at least once a week he'll have to have died.

~~~
chris_wot
In that case, people should stop asking him to their conferences to speak.
Conferences about IT are not forums for stand up comedians. Besides which,
people like Eddie Murphy or Sarah Silverman do offensive comedy better.

------
thebigshane
I have such mixed feelings about this being on HN. Yes, I think we should read
it and learn from it. I absolutely agree with the author. It's one of those
things I wish everyone knew but for some reason there are still people who
don't, so maybe showing up on the front page every once and a while is a good
reminder.

But the comments should be turned off. This is such a heated topic and are
there aren't any right answers to this problem besides "keep it in mind, don't
do what they did". What can possibly be discussed here besides emotional
bickering from both sides. It does not seem productive and is not interesting
conversation.

------
funkwyrm
Without being there, I can't be sure, but the way the OP describes this
appears to miss the point.

The way I interpret that sentence, using the very little context supplied, is

profits, people, and sex

yaknow, sex with women, men, whatever

remember that song from the 90s opp = other people's "privates | p __ __| p __
__" or whatever you want "P" to stand for.

Without more context, that's exactly what I get from that, nothing anti-women
whatsoever.

~~~
wonderzombie
And I guess as a guy, you're _eminently_ qualified to determine what is and
isn't insulting to women?

~~~
wonderzombie
Downvotes? Ha! It's true, though, isn't it? I mean, is a Java developer
qualified to critique a reasonably large C++ application? Not really, no. You
can try, but there are idioms, pitfalls, and such that you just won't pick up
on.

So why do we tolerate the same behavior when it comes to men's experiences vs.
women's experiences? This isn't all that complicated. You didn't live the last
N years of your life as a woman. You can try to reason about it. Maybe you'll
come close. But you just don't have the experience.

------
gadders
I wonder if on the HRNews.com website, women there are decrying the absence of
men in HR?

Sexism is bad, and should be exterminated, but I can't help thinking that,
just maybe, some jobs appeal to some sexes more than others (in the aggregate.
I realise there are individual exceptions).

------
MattRogish
For what it's worth: Mark Littlewood, one of the Business of Software
organizers, apologized to the group and took responsibility. I don't have the
transcript but he didn't think the comment/talk was motivated by sexism.

------
cheez
Get over it. Life is too short to spend bitching about little things like
this.

If you really think this is the cause of lack of women in CS, you've never
raised a woman.

Here's a hint: it ain't the men.

~~~
chris_wot
I have a 4.5 year old girl. I'm 100% certain that I want her to pursue a
career in IT, if that is what she desires. Hopefully by the time she's old
enough she not only won't have to deal with the sort of misogynistic crap like
the one pointed out in the article, but the sort of "get over it" responses
that encourage this sort of rubbish.

P.S. What sort of stupid comment is "you've never raised a woman"? What, you
can only be upset about sexism if you've had children? Or, for that matter,
have a daughter?

That there is someone voting you up is a real shame.

~~~
cheez
The logic that men are to blame for the lack of women in CS is mind-boggling.
Take some responsibility for yourself. Stop putting the blame on others.

~~~
chris_wot
I didn't say that "men are to blame for the lack of women in CS". I said that
sexist comments don't encourage more women to enter into computing. That would
include women making sexist remarks or abusing hostility to other women.

I do hope I have un-boggled your mind.

Not sure what sort of responsibility I need to bear here, incidentally. I'm
certainly saying that if you make IT hostile or women you bear some of the
blame for the lack of women partaking in it.

Oh, it might help to note that I'm male, and I'm in IT.

~~~
cheez
I have been working professionally for 10 years. In every single place I have
worked, women are treated with equal respect.

Are there idiots out there? Yes.

But STOP BLOWING THIS SHIT OUT OF PROPORTION.

You're worse than the feminists.

~~~
wonderzombie
_In every single place I have worked, women are treated with equal respect._

You're a dude, right? How the heck would you know? Most of this crap is
directed _at women_. _A priori_ means means you're going to miss out on a
very, very large subset. This plus the fact that you're convinced it's blown
out of proportion suggests mind-bogglingly large confirmation and selection
bias.

Frankly, in the context of this comment, your suggestion that anybody is worse
than the feminists is a _compliment_.

------
rjzzleep
really? i thought women get extra cakes in software roundabouts just because
theyre women. and the dev geeks are usually to shy to say anything bad too.

it's time we stop this annoying let's treat women the same crap. we're not,
when was the last time you saw someone treat a coworker better because he was
a good looking chap? now, when's the last time you or someone else treated a
good looking girl better, just because she was a good looking girl? besides,
how many times did you see a banker get hired with long hair and beard without
suit?

as for this part:

"We’re better than this. Act like it. Treat your fellow developers with the
same respect you’d treat someone you met on the street: basic, common
courtesy. It’s not exactly asking a lot, so quit making it seem so hard to
attain."

if you really treat your fellow developers like you treat people on the
street, maybe you should rethink the way you treat people on the street. i
treat people by merit, and they get an extra bonus when theyre a good looking
lady. but when i see some moron being in a good position just because she's a
good looking girl, you can bet ill treat her the way she deserves. when you
want sometime you have to make sacrifices. I didn't exactly get my programming
knowledge handed to me on a silver platter. my taekwondo teach had to beg his
master for some of his knowledge. I can tell you plenty of stories about this.
you want something, you have to show that you really want it. and no i'm not
talking about sex, or sexism. You asking for free labour.

as for you yourself, you want an extra cake. you want to be able to spew your
feminist nonsense and then expect everyone else to speak in politically
correct terms.

you know what the meaning of the word tolerance is? it means to tolerate ones
opinion even though you might not like it. it doesn't mean that you have to
subdue to someone elses ideals just in order for them to become happy. you got
that part wrong. now I don't like your attitude, but I tolerate it.

here's some food for thought. i've said a million times and i will keep
repeating it. a lot of really awesome software that might strike you as not so
good business, but is actually much more successful than the most valuable
companies was built by hotheaded people, that didn't always treat each other
in the best language possible.

Now here's the part you don't get:

 _How can a bunch of people that don't really like each other build awesome
stuff TOGETHER?_

because of respect. They respect each others opinions, they respect each
others work, they might not like each other by they respect each other. This
respect is merit based. The kind of respect you're talking about is not
respect. It's social conventions that you made up in your mind with your
friends. It holds no real value, it creates nothing.

by the way, even if you don't accept it, you have the same evolutionary traits
as anyone else. men need someone to reproduce with, women need someone to
protect them. the funny part is, most of us will never even notice.

~~~
wonderzombie
This comment says far more about your own collection of biases than anything
else. The logical fallacies alone are enough to render this comment basically
useless:

* confirmation bias * selection bias * fundamental attribution error * backfire effect

There's also the whole "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple"
component here.

------
condensor
Not again this. It started like a good summary of a conference I'd love to
attend to but then it became the usual drama blog post.

"Look, someone said something stupid. Let's call out the whole community for
that. Because white males are literary Hitler or worse."

Yes, there are jerks. It's time to get over it.

~~~
chris_wot
It's got nothing to do with being a white male. That a white male said it is
incidental. In fact it wasn't even mentioned in the article.

As a white male, however, I'd like to say to other white males (and everyone
else) - cut out the bullshit sexism in your tech talk. I didn't come for your
ridiculous views on women when I go to these talks. I care about tech. Your
sexist views detract from your message, and I'll consider you a moron if you
think sexist jokes are funny.

