Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I love how you are demanding evidence and to be explained to, when women who suffer sexist treatment in IT and software communities are under no obligation to do so.

Repeat after me: people you are harassing and oppressing DO NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO YOU why you are screwing them over.

EDIT: Also, there is so much information about sexism in US culture, esp. in regards to tech communities. The Geek Feminism wiki linked to in the article is a good starting point. That you come demanding someone hand you info on a silver platter instead of doing the right thing and reading something to figure it out is really points out how much of a sexist you are.

Right, but then everyone else is under no obligation to modify their behavior for your comfort level. It works both ways. You explain yourself so that your POV can be understood by those whose behavior you want to change.


You are free to not change your behavior. Be a sexist asshat all you like. However, people reserve the right to call you out on that behavior for what it is: oppressive and bigoted.

I find it ironic that you are saying that people should explain their points of view to be understood by others. The article these comments are under is one such piece: an author explaining why what was said at this conference was a problem. Your response to this new information was dismissal: that what the author saying is not valid for you so you won't consider it.

For people that suffer micro-aggressions like this every day, no amount of evidence and explaining they offer is enough, and sometimes attempts to even stand up for themselves results in direct violence. It is not up to those who are being mistreated to make you change or to serve your interests -- you are in the position of privilege and have the means to learn. What you really believe is revealed in your actions: challenging those who reveal an uncomfortable truth and/or talk about their personal experience.

EDIT: I mistakenly thought that hackinthebochs was dexen, so this response is misleading. I'm leaving it intact for context.


First of all, lets be clear: I was responding directly to your statement that one is not required to explain themselves (perhaps you didn't realize I'm not the same person you originally responded to). One's offense does not necessarily require others to change their behavior. To do this requires that you explain how their behavior conflicts with their own stated goals: e.g. to be a good person, or in this case to attract more women to the field.

On the other hand, it is certainly the civil thing to do to avoid causing offense when in public, especially in a professional setting. However, there is still a question of how much one is required to alter their behavior to avoid causing offense. This is why explain the cause of offense is very helpful.


I'm sorry that my response was muddled, I did indeed think you were dexen, so apologies for making direct accusations against you (I added a note in the above comment about this).


No, its my fault. I love a good debate and sometimes I jump into places where I shouldn't. This isn't the first time I've caused a misunderstanding of this sort.


Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact