zlacker

Maybe the response is different because if a man’s achievement is highlighted, the fact that a man did it isn’t highlighted, which isn’t exactly the case for women (apparently a woman in the team suffices for an achievement to be credited to a woman), making these two kinds of articles about fundamentally different things: “X was achieved” vs. “A woman achieved X”. One of these is far more loaded politically and hence of course more likely to elicit strong responses. There’s no reason that indicates misogyny in any form.

>>read_i+(OP)
Studies show otherwise, and I think that the gut reaction of those who read that discussion also shows that at least some developers felt that way, if not in general, then at least in that particular case. Also, that women's participation in software has drastically decreased since the eighties to the point they're now a small miniority is just a fact, and so focusing on them is natural, if not justified. Various causes for outbursts of xenophobia and misogyny have also been studied, and no one thinks they're unexepected, but that has nothing to do with their actual nature. I always anticipate a "strong reaction" on HN when women are discussed, but I'm still saddened by it.

I could only recommend to the curious readers of HN, if they are interested and certainly if they think they should voice their "strong reaction," to try looking at the rather vast scholarly literature that research has produced over the past decades. It's not a matter of a difference of opinions among people with equal knowledge of the subject matter, but usually one between those who have more knowledge and those who have less.

>>pron+f1
> Studies show otherwise

That’s a bold claim.

> the gut reaction of those who read that discussion also shows that at least some developers felt that way, if not in general, then at least in that particular case.

I can’t follow you here.

>>read_i+A2
> That’s a bold claim.

No, I think this is the consensus scholarly view.

>>pron+3a
Wait: read_if_gay_'s claim was:

> ...because if a man’s achievement is highlighted, the fact that a man did it isn’t highlighted, which isn’t exactly the case for women (apparently a woman in the team suffices for an achievement to be credited to a woman), making these two kinds of articles about fundamentally different things: “X was achieved” vs. “A woman achieved X”.

You dispute that claim, and say the consensus scholarly view is otherwise?