Something has to give.
Obviously obnoxious behaviour should be curbed but the usage of mansplaing (and I would argue: the minting of the term when we have an equivalent in “condescending”)
I don’t even know what to say. I know I am rather shy to give advice to women because I’ve been bullied on Twitter for explaining things even when SOMEONE ASKED FOR CLARITY!
I find my gender is a barrier to getting traction and my experience is that it's due to patterns of this sort and not because most men intentionally want me to fail. But the cumulative effect of most men erring on the side of protecting themselves and not wanting to take risks to engage with me meaningfully really adds up over time and I think that tremendously holds women back generally.
I think gendered patterns of social engagement also contributed to the Theranos debacle. I've said that before and I feel like it tends to get misunderstood as well. (Though in the case of Theranos it runs a lot deeper in that she was actually sleeping with an investor.)
Before the Twitter mobs attacked me I would have been more open mouthed, now I’m aware of how sensitive people are and I try to avoid them feeling uncomfortable so I will choose my words much more carefully.
Kind of like male construction workers can take their shirts off if they get too hot and female construction workers can't. (Real case I read about: Two female construction workers decided to wear bikini tops so they could take their shirts off in the heat and the busty, attractive lady was fired because this was a distraction potentially causing more accidents by the male construction workers. The skinny, flat chested girl wasn't fired because it wasn't literally turning heads when she pulled her shirt off and worked in a bikini top.)
Part of this is that I think that men feel they are walking on egg shells. The kinds of male assertiveness that my wife found attractive when she met me also can leave women who aren't into this assertiveness feeling harassed.
I feel that we need to be clear more about what is "desirable" masculinity it "desirable assertiveness" vs its toxic counterparts. Failure to do this will essentially neuter men over the long term - and it will lead to "men clamming up" or worse, a significant surge in the number of men who "go their own way" be it in the job or at home in their personal life.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/aug/29/men-wom...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/men-are-afraid-to-mentor-f...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellevate/2019/01/09/dear-sir-do...
https://kelainetaylor.medium.com/to-the-men-whose-response-t...
And guess what all this talk about "toxic masculinity" and generally vilifying all men leads to? If you said "chilling effect" then you are bang on. It is a bloody minefield. Keep your head down, never talk about non-work stuff, refuse to provide feedback or do interviews, refuse to help people out unless it is directly your job' responsibility to do so etc and hope you don't get fired.
It genuinely feels like I have a target on my back.
There was one black female mentee who I noticed was timid in taking credit for her work. I had recently attended a diversity panel where someone in a similar role as me said that in a similar situation, and her advice to her mentee was "Think about what a white man would do" and everyone applaud such an insightful advice. So identifying such an opportunity, I said the exact same thing word for word, basically "I see you're hesitating to take credit for your work. Think about what a white man would do."
Immediately after saying that, I could tell it wasn't taken well, and she asked "what does that mean?" I couldn't come up with an answer for that which wouldn't be taken in a really bad way, so I backpedaled. She later reported me to an administrative person who luckily felt it was too vague to file a serious report about, but told me to watch what I say.
But I do have a solution (my trick). From that point on, I definitely give more subtle advice unless they have passed my test, which is I see how they react to situations where they could give the benefit of the doubt to others in vague situations. Sometimes, I'll bring up a past story about another anonymous person and see if they are outraged and want to get them in trouble. Only the ones who remark that they probably had good intentions, and don't react too strongly, I'll give more candid advice to.
Which is why this needs to be discussed: So a path forward can be found. Our current default patterns aren't working well.
Anything you say can be taken as offensive and the crowds bay for blood.
I guess you yourself repeating the same woke quite took away the uniqueness of the idea as it would be articulated by a non privledged individual.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-15/carry-yourself-with-t...
I'm 100% tired of all of it, to the point that I almost want someone to cancel me.
Do you believe that people should take potentially career-ending risks to benefit you?
People will say "It's pretty unbelievable that happened, because no sane individual would ever condone something so extreme."
But I believe I shouldn't have to literally starve and be homeless for years for the crime of being born with girl bits between my legs, which is more or less part of my back story here.
What was wrong with a "be bolder"/"be more assertive"/"don't be afraid of taking credit for your work"?
On the bright side, this is hopefully a healthy opportunity for us all to find some friends outside of work.
Even if "what a white man would do" wasn't emotionally charged (and it is), it's not a good way to make the point.
"How do you feel it went when people were talking about the work done on the project?" Allow them to chat ..."Do you think the credit was equally shared out?"
But that’s beside the point of the article. Ultimately I think it’s on men to learn how to handle giving candid advice in a non-sexist manner. This investor just considered his investment not enough to be worthy bothering to try to find a way to give the same advice in a non-sexist way.
My final take of the article is: founders, don’t listen to advice made by investors who invested a small enough portion of their portfolio to even care if your chances as a company to be successful improve or not.
Companies with an explicit diversity and inclusion statement on their job applications get more minority applicants but hire proportionally less minority candidates, speculation range from smug interviewers to interviewees being too concerned with being themselves.
Everyone playing the suppression olympics loses in the end.
I don't see those as useful since it doesn't provide the person any actual guidance or reference point. What does assertive mean? What should I exactly do? How do I do it? "Act like X" provides a well known reference point that they can use to adjust their behavior based on. They can remember all the times they've seen X do something in a similar situation and then just act like that.
As I understand it, she's saying that the current "politically correct" environment is hurting women more than it helps.
I appreciate the effort to think of a better word than sexism. My question is, is this even sexism at all? How many men can get publicly denounced as “sexists” and have their life ruined because they didn’t speak carefully enough, before it is simply just “smart” rather than “sexist” to be extra careful with how you speak to women.
To take the example to an extreme just to illustrate the point: If, in a hypothetical world, men served jail time for making eye contact with women, would it be sexist for men to stare at their feet when women are around?
I am 100% convinced that sexism does exist and is not all that uncommon (I’ve seen my wife deal with it a bit in the workplace). I’m just not convinced this is an example of it. Seems more like it’s the “safe” choice for a man in 2021. Both men and women would benefit if we worked to make it not that way.
Seriously, we are now asked to treat everyone with respect and that is a problem?
Edit: No I don't mean eye for eye. I am merely pointing out, this is a male dominant industry where women didn't even have a chance for a long time. The moment we face little uneasiness, we are complaining and throwing temper tantrums.
There are any number of ways person B could be more qualified than person A to be the CEO.
If an investor is going to give good-on-average advice in one case but not the other almost identical situation, the author is right to be concerned.
So, no, it isn't a problem to respect everyone.
Over recent years I've read so much about women being passed over, cut off, terms like "microaggressions", women getting less talking time in meetings, etc., that's it's made me extremely self conscious.
It's not even that I'm afraid of getting in any actual trouble if I say or do something wrong, it's just that I'm generally already somewhat anxious about how I behave around others and this has made me extremely aware of any time I might be too harsh, not really listen to someone, etc., that I've probably gotten overly sensitive.
If you want to make it super explicit, come up with examples. "Be bolder, for example for this project I saw you doing 80% of the work, you should get to headline the presentation and have top billing on the authors page".
"Act like X" is also potentially useful, if you make it explicit. Explicit is not "Act like a white man" (whaaaa?). Explicit: is "Act like Bob, for example do you remember when HR said he couldn't have a new screen and he insisted"?
> I see you're hesitating to take credit for your work
Could easily be followed up with actionable items to take credit for her work: do a company/department wide presentation for instance. Instead you gave her vague non-advice. I'm a white man and I have no idea what a white man would do because I know a ton of different white men who would all do very different things.
The "progressive" cause is just as capable of doing wrong as the "conservative" cause; there is this general perception that being "woke" is the moral high ground and if you're against the "conservative" people who are jerks then you and your peers do no wrong.
In fact it seems like the conservative jerks and the "woke" jerks are doing the exact same thing - abusing groups of peoples and behaviors in order to show off their moral superiority.
A bunch of young people in the past generations left the church because they saw church people hating on folks who didn't fit their definition of "good people" and saw that definition distorted into abusing folks that deserved to be who they were. The exact same behaviors are showing up and getting stronger in the "woke" community, just with different targets. I'm still waiting for the popular backlash against the "woke" agenda - probably just the next generation of kids rebelling against their parents' ideals.
I have a target on my back too and occasionally am treated like a predator, but I also have the privilege that though it isn't harmless to me, I usually have the ability to get up and exit the situation treating me poorly. This is what everybody should try to cultivate - the freedom to quit a bad situation and not be a slave to a particular job, group of people, life plan, etc. When you can say "I would like to do this but I have other options" then it becomes a whole lot harder to be abused because when bad things happen you can just say goodbye.
I'm not super worried that we'll be crushed under a matriarchy. Heck, in some regards a matriarchy might be a bit gentler than a patriarchy :-)
Edit: I seem to have touched a nerve, a lot of weak/sensitive men around here, it seems.
Look at how often people tweak, clarify, and edit their comments even here on hacker news. So you'll probably just end up with "stifled" advice (using the terminology from the article), as you can see with all these suggestions in this thread.
I believe my gender is a factor in that failing to become what I desired. Every single time I comment on that, without fail, someone acts like I am utterly full of shit and I get really awful and dismissive replies that completely fail to acknowledge that maybe I have a point and maybe my gender actually was a factor in my low income. (And still is.)
Yes, many time the distinction in the margins between toxic and desirable masculinity is partially based on the attractiveness of the person in question.
For what it's worth - men and women are equally bad in regards to lookism. I think we need to simply start explicitly saying that we shouldn't discriminate because someone is ugly. If RMS were as attractive as Micheal foucault, he wouldn't get in trouble for those age of consent beliefs (foucault, an attractive leftist, famously defended lowering the age of consent)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_...
No one wants to cancel foucault because him and other french post modernists are the intellectual foundation for today's "wokeism"
A lot of the double standard is due to RMS being fat and ugly. No other explanation.
Either parent and 'other side' have been both victimised (by him now knowing how they felt) or parent isn't a victim but since you claim he is experiancing what 'the other side' did neither were they.
Maybe try listening for a change.
You cannot simplify the problems of "woke culture" as "asking everyone to treat others with respect", because that is not what is happening on the dark side of "woke" and you can't pretend that the dark side doesn't exist.
Are they implying white men are smarter/better so they always take the right decisions? If that's what they're doing, they're also implying, in this case, she, as a black woman, is not as smart as a white man.
I'm a white man surrounded by mostly white people working on a field with mostly white men and I can't say what a white man would do in certain situations because we're all different and we all think differently.
Of course everyone should do their best in being sensitive in their ways of expressing themselves. But many people could definitely show a little bit more generosity in their interpretations and not jump on every chance to interpret something like racism or sexism.
Imagine what it's like being the intended target and not just "collateral damage". It's not a problem that men are nervous to be candid but it's a problem that women are feeling the secondary effects of that?
As we increasingly see, witch hunts are already possible by deliberately misinterpreting written statements like mails or bug tracker messages.
I would not want to get into a he-said-she-said real life situation. Mike Pence understood this early.
I have been told that I can’t do my job which includes negotiating with LGBTQ+ companies because I am an “old, white, cis guy and there is always an unfair power dynamic there” just because of my identity. It is discrimination plain and simple, but I literally stand to have my career derailed if I fight back. One accusation and I don’t get hired again.
I joined the company because I believed, and still believe in company mission which is LGBTQ+ focused.
There is no room for allies at some companies and they silence opinions they don’t like. It hurts everyone.
This seems to fit the definition of cargo cult.
You clearly had good intentions, but you can't go around saying phrases without being able to back them up. This should be familiar to you from technical situations - consider: "prefer composition over inheritance" - reasonable advice, but be prepared to explain yourself, not just parrot it.
I find this a little frustrating, they’ve noticed a pattern of behaviour that concerns them in an area they are clearly invested in - yet they have no thoughts or suggestions on how to address this? Is it possible they are not offering such thoughts because of the same issue they have highlighted in the article?
Please omit personal swipes from your HN posts, no matter how wrong another comment is or you feel it is.
Wouldn't someone talking to someone "lower" on the "oppression hierarchy" just be what we basically have today? That sounds like "privilege," or an "imbalanced power dynamic." I think you'll only be able to talk to equals, whatever that is, and by whatever metric is en vogue for that day.
This is not to say that sexism or racism isn’t or hasn’t been a large problem, but the correction pendulum has really swung way too far for some people and that is actually not at all helpful since it only builds up resentment among people who actually are supporters of the cause of equality.
I do wonder if some boss in the future will only employ straight white males simply to avoid people "offending" others (it's hard to offend a straight white male in this new woke ideology). Of course this has the opposite effect to what the woke seem to want, but this is the world we have built ourselves.
I wish you weren’t getting downvoted because I think your comment reveals so much.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
I doubt anyone out there will have a similar visceral reaction to discussing code architecture.
Maybe the problem is real but they just don’t have as solution?
It's just an extension of the classic "show, don't tell".
And how would that be in this case?
Yes, a guy could screw it up and say something potentially sexist or just dumb — but for success what someone is doing wrong needs to be expressed.
"Be bolder" is different than "what do you think a bold person would do?"
I have had many conversations with people going through a tough time and unsure of what to do or how to feel in a situation and there is this trick to getting people to think differently that almost always works... ask the question
"What would a reasonable person do in your situation?"
Suddenly the person having trouble coming up with the answer "What should I do?" has a perfect answer to "What would a reasonable person do?"
It's a psychological trick that goes after how one thinks about one's self and how one thinks about someone else being quite different. If you refocus your attention to view yourself from an external objective, you often end up with much better judgement.
Regarding why you can't just say the same thing word for word, that's because shared context matters.
This is basic social skills. If you don't have the same shared background and context, then it's unclear if you mean one thing or the other.
So when one woman says "Think about what a white man would do", to another woman, there's the implication that they're talking about their shared experiences regarding society's expectations around women.
When a man says that to a woman, especially it's a white man saying that to a black woman, your contexts and backgrounds are so wildly different that surface area of what you could mean is quite large.
So when you had the chance to clarify yourself and you backpedaled, that made it look even worse because it implied that you had bad intentions and were trying to take your words back.
So yes, it's true. You can't say the same thing word for word as one person say to another if you and the other person do not share the same contexts.
> A cisgender person (sometimes cissexual, informally abbreviated cis) is one whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth. For example, someone who identifies as a woman and was identified as female at birth is a cisgender woman. The word cisgender is the antonym of transgender.
We don't have to walk on egg shells when speaking. Men and women can still interact like it was before I started reading about such insanity.
That's...horrible advice generally, though there are specific circumstances where it might be useful, and it is tragic if it was an example used in a diversity panel as anything but a negative example without a whole lot of context because it (1) appeals to race/gender stereotypes, and (2) requires, for it to even approximate actionable advice, for the mentor and mentee to share race/gender stereotypes. In fact, I've been to lots of such panels/trainings, and fairly commonly seen exactly that used as a negative example.
What would be more useful if your first instinct is to give this advice is to first unpack what behavior you are stereotyping as white/male behavior that you actually want to encourage, and then just advise that behavior without appeal to race and gender stereotypes.
You’d generally only talk candidly to those who were not just peers, but you already had a deep seated existing rapport with and trust. Friends?
Everyone else gets the politically safe story that is supposed to be told. I’ve seen it in action, and it makes me sad because it becomes fundamentally corrosive.
And if you think for some people that doesn’t include the right kind of outrage discussion or telling the right stories to the visible oppressed minority they’re mentoring so they can get the right checkbox when they hopefully get considered for SVP (or as plan B, their mentee does) - I’ve also got a bridge to sell you.
Sexism all the way down on both sides.
I've come to understand in life through experience there are a very thorny class of problems that I don't know of a proper name for, but have formulated my own concept of the "non-native speakers dilemma". It goes as follows:
You're on a bus and while listening to two strangers conversing you realise you can't quite understand what they're talking about. As a native speaker you feel perfectly confident that you know the language and you are simply missing context shared only by the individuals talking and hence it isn't possible for you to understand the conversation, and not because you don't know the language. If you are a non-native speaker, and depending on your level, you often start to doubt your abilities, and can never be fully sure if you simply don't understand because you're missing context that's not possible for you to obtain or there are gaps in your language skills that still need to be filled.
I had this realisation on the bus about a decade ago when learning Japanese. But I've often thought back to it in certain situations and these kind in particular seem to crop up a lot.
One example I overheard was a female engineer talking to another female non-engineer outside their workplace just about their experiences in their jobs. I heard the female engineer remark something along the lines of "the Architect often shoots down my ideas because I'm female".
I sat thinking to myself... That's interesting because the architect shoots down my ideas too (different workplace, so I don't _know_ her situation) but it's certainly not because I'm female, because I'm not female, but it's probably because I'm an intermediate level Dev with lots to learn and the idea has some flaws in it that he can see that I can't.
In this case I'm a "native speaker" so to speak, so I can be perfectly confident my thinking is accurate with respect to the reason why it's getting rejected. The female engineer is the so called "non-native speaker" where this pernicious dynamic exists making it nigh on impossible to confident that your assessment is accurate.
Curious if that metaphor makes sense to others, or if others ever noticed the same thing?
The ironic thing is that this social behavior is what drives corporate culture to stronger conservativism.
My advice to you: "Think about what you would have told a white man"
Polishing resumes and website work don't sound like highly paid jobs, regardless of your ranking on HN. This is probably bigger issue then your gender in your income.
Were already there. And it's not gonna get better.
The problem is that our system and society will not reward companies which do right things (hire, promote, etc.) but it will punish companies for slight irregularities.
It might be witches in one generation, flying saucers, communists in another, Jews in another, or blacks; the possibilities are inexhaustible. We don't know what the next Insanity will be, only that there will be one.
I have a hunch that, roll on a hundred years, everything will turn full circle and we'll be back to segregation of the sexes. "Of course the whole thing was a folly," future generation will claim, "what absurd notion led them to the idea that men and women were the same anyway?"
Each generation has the conceit that it is more enlightened than the last, little realising that they are no smarter than the one before.
As a white male from a poor southern family (not very tolerant) I've had to learn a few hard lessons on similar fronts. I know I don't have a good gauge for what is and isn't ok, even now. Given that in many occasions even mirroring words or behaviors can be a no-no, the only way I've learned that is 100% effective at not causing problems is shutting up, which I'm generally pretty bad at. Luckily I've had mostly understanding and light hearted coworkers, so I haven't been outright ruined yet, but I can think of more than one occasion that likely would have turned my life upside down if the audience was less sensitive to my intent.
If you're cool, I'm candid around you. If you're not cool, I'm treating you like you're radioactive. Everything I say is carefully considered. Controversy of any kind is studiously avoided. Most likely I avoid dealing with you at all when I can, and certainly avoid being alone with you with no witnesses. If that's sexist or racist I really don't give a damn.
Well that leads to something like "Toughen Up, It's Part of the Job".
I don't think it helps to activly missunderstand people, when they are trying to be helpful EVEN if their trying is in the wrong. Try to think about the intention and maybe ask what they really meant by that.
I don't mean 'good' and 'bad' absolutely—that's above my pay grade. I just mean good or bad for HN, relative to what we're trying to optimize for: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... If you want to smite enemies or fulminate snarkily, that's your business—just please don't do it on HN. It's not hard to find platforms that welcome that sort of engagement; we're trying for something different on this one.
Edit: this thread has over 1000 comments now; if you want to read more of them, you need to click More at the bottom of the page, or like this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26612918&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26612918&p=3
This supposed hierarchy of oppression, based on identity characteristics such as race, gender and sexuality, really is the biggest scam going.
Almost all of the oppression we see around us can be explained by wealth disparities, corruption, and abuse of power. Yet, identarians insist on shoehorning everything into their flawed worldview.
The Black Lives Matter movement was a telling example of this - police brutality is indeed an ongoing problem in society, but it doesn't just apply to black people. It's anyone the police feel they can get away with abusing. Just look at how they treat homeless people, drug addicts, and so on, regardless of race.
Another is celebrating people as tokens regardless of their actions. First mixed-race female Vice President of the USA - okay, but what sort of shitty role model is this? Rather reminds me of: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co90umqUsAAdgQI?format=jpg
We would all do well to be critical of how identity politics is being used to mask the real root causes of oppression in our society. The so-called left wing of politics is the worst for this too, and I say this as a life-long leftist. Why make everything about identity; where has the traditional focus on class gone?
The entirety of everything leading to this point is complex. That said, half the reason for twitterized scandal politics is hyperbole. It's too easy to think in dichotomies and extremes. This stuff can be true without doom being upon us.
I think twitter mob problems will improve in a few years, or move on to other areas.
On a lower profile scale, bullying-related HR processes and associated cultural dynamics can and do "flare up." Many bullying claims. Fear of bullying accusations. Threats. First strikes. etc. It often happens in environments with a lot of bullying. Unpleasant, but it usually passes eventually... I think.
If I was giving advice to someone who was too assertive and taking too much credit, I would never say "Think about what a black woman would do." Things like this are so transparently racist it shouldn't even need to be explained. You are simultaneously characterizing a race and gender of people and also telling someone else to act like a different race and gender.
The reason the advice was poorly received is because it is nonsense. The recipient of the advice asked the perfect question - "what does it mean to act like a white man?" The OP, when asked, also doesn't seem to know what it means. I'd say there is a lesson there - don't repeat something just because it was will received when you originally heard it. You may not understand it. It may be something of an emperor's new clothes situation where nobody can question the person who gave the original advice, but that doesn't make it good.
IANAL, and I don't know what "LGBTQ+ company" means, but if you believe that you're not being allowed to negotiate with other companies because of your age, race, and gender, you can (and should) sue for discrimination.
Presumably this doesn’t occur if a female VC is giving that advice to females founders; maybe this will be an additional incentive to actually promote some women to be partners. VC is one of the most male-dominated professions around.
More generally, it’s easy to look at just the costs of a social change, without remembering to weight against the benefits. If this issue is one of the costs, and reduced sexual harassment of female founders is the benefit, then I would ask women who have been in this position how they weigh the two (having not experienced either I wouldn’t presume to know how much the benefit is actually worth to female founders, and since the costs and benefits are both incident on them, it’s not really my place to choose).
But I’d hazard a guess that most women would prefer not to get hit on / harassed as they fundraise, at the expense of sometimes not getting fully candid feedback.
Yes, and almost none of the people founding startups in Silicon Valley are oppressed by any reasonable understanding that concept.
I'm curious: do you have a source for that?
Yes, the observation's valid, but... I don't know. When the conversation keeps happening the same way, over may topics, you have to figure there's something deeper going on.
I ask because if you took that same attitude towards race, you could easily be accused of colorblind racism.
I think there is a lot of pain brewing, and whether or not people come out the other side of it more entrenched in their worldview, or with more humility after having learned from the wild ride we are currently on.
Heck maybe I’ll come out the other side finally believing that there is only one true way to look at people and relationships and power differences, and any deviation from that is violence.
Maybe doing it the first way works, too, but I think it is poor, lazy communication that used the zeitgeist as a crutch to make a difficult point. That doesn't mean it can't be done well and respectfully, which the given example perhaps did not.
"It Hurt Itself in Its Confusion!"
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/it-hurt-itself-in-its-confusi...
Also in my life professional and personal connections are not totally separated, as I view a person as a person. As an example helped my ex partners very significantly in their professional life (while they helped me in other ways).
When I was young I had something similar happen. A woman went around telling people she had slept with me. We hadn't. Nobody believed my side of the story since "why would she lie?". This caused a rift with my best friend, who had a crush on her. I lost my best friend due to a lie I couldn't disprove.
Why not just say what you mean without the racial stereotypes?
A lot of people might not just be that good at what they do but manage to advance by way of their gender/race and scare away any negative feedback. Thus, given that their skills themselves won't save them, leveraging mob justice to do so is a viable strategy for them.
I sat thinking to myself... That's interesting because the architect shoots down my ideas too (different workplace, so I don't _know_ her situation) but it's certainly not because I'm female, because I'm not female, but it's probably because I'm an intermediate level Dev with lots to learn and the idea has some flaws in it that he can see that I can't.
One of the really good things for me about hanging on HN is hearing "X happens to me too as a man because (reasons) and has nothing to do with gender." That's been enormously helpful to me in trying to find a path forward in my own life.
I hope you get constructive engagement of your points. I don't like the characterization that it's sexism on both sides but that's not intended to be a big attack or something. I think we don't have good language for talking about these issues that acknowledge in a non-blamey fashion that "Gender is, in fact, a factor in outcomes and it's complicated."
So far, we mostly do a sucky job of trying to discuss this at all. It ends up being people on both sides pointing fingers and even if you are bending over backwards to not point fingers, it will get interpreted as such by a lot of people and that tends to go bad places, not good.
But let’s be clear here. That’s not the root cause. The root cause is the undeniably real treatment of women and minorities that created that reactionary mode.
A number of people I talk to (curiously, they tend to be production engineers) think we live in a meritocracy where racism and sexism have virtually been erased. They usually believe a calvinist work ethic and capacity for enduring suffering creates an equal opportunity for everyone. But that’s just not true. I’ve seen cabs skip Black people hailing them to stop at me. I have heard the n-word used disparagingly, liberally and freely at informal gatherings in central Pennsylvania or by drivers for car dealership service centers.
I am very close to a woman lawyer who is regularly challenged about her school and where she passed the bar in a way that doesn’t match the experience of her male colleagues. I have seen video clips of a professor making inappropriate remarks about a student’s looks during a review of her work. It’s anecdotal, but not hard to find.
So, when you are upset that everyone is holding statements up to the light and wondering if someone’s ethnicity or gender is behind them, blame the people who actually caused it. It’s not the fault of ‘woke’ people or those who ‘virtue signal.’ It’s people who are actually, consciously or not, discriminating and perpetuating discrimination. They are at fault.
"She has internalized misogyny". Being a woman doesn't exempt you from being targeted by the woke mob.
Sadly if you're concerned with these overreaction, and voice those concerns, you will be labelled as being against the chance. You quickly learn to shut up and just wait it out.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender [2] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=cisgende...
I actually fail to see how you can respectfully tell someone you think they should swap roles and be sexist. Sure, if your whole argument is that "XXX isn't coming of agressive enough to survive in this boys game" then you might be accused of sexism...for some reason
And in both cases, the extreme isn't particularly rare. Discussing which side has a worse distribution isn't easy to do accurately or particularly helpful
That's beyond the pale. I've banned this account for reasons explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613795 above, and everywhere else you'll find moderation comments on this site.
Creating accounts to break HN's rules with will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't.
Do they? I don't think I know anybody like this. Most of the people I know think we live in a flawed and complex world. That's why so many of them are less forthcoming with casual acquaintances, in "mixed company" as they say, as this article describes.
Not to doubt too agressively, but are you sure those people you know believe what you think they believe?
In what way can someone disagree with you about the offensiveness of something you say, without you labelling them as "intent on outrage"?
I mean, why not, right? If gays can allegedly have "internalised homophobia", then why can't women have "internalised misogyny".
And so it goes. When we jettison reason, everyone gets to say what they want, and no-one gets to say that one conclusion is more soundly-based that another.
(it's not at all a given that the situation would blow up in his face…)
I'm glad someone said it and I'm glad that that someone is a woman so that there's a chance this message won't immediately get drowned in sexism/male privilege accusations.
Another important ingredient in that is saying, "I don't know" a lot. Then when you tell them something, they know you're not bullshitting them. So again, there is no reason for someone to think something is anything other than what you say it is.
If the potential employer rejected your job application with a reason you could fight him in court for discrimination and get compensation even if the employer.
Great intention, but it backfired ... after some companies got sued for legitimate and illegitimate reasons NOBODY answers with a reason why your application was not considered. They maybe hint what was wrong or not ideal.
I also think the amount of overshoot is proportional to the amount of sexism that was present in a society thirty years ago. I believe Northern Europe has been trending slowly towards gender equality since the 90s, and thus the amount of overshoot here is much less from the recent rapid changes like #meetoo.
Also our kids roam around the neighbourhood freely. We're thinking of giving our 9-year-old a cellphone soon, for now she just has an analog watch and we agree on what time she has to be home by.
If you look at statistics, the rate of women murdered per capita, and the rate of women who experience sexualized violence per capita, are around 5x higher in the US than in Northern Europe. The murder rate here for children (excluding by their own parents) is below 1 per million children per year.
We're definitely not perfect, we have a long way to go still, but we are starting from a more equal place if you look at the status pre-2017.
Btw, I still have not met a female VC: after 22 years in SV.
We sometimes close threads to new accounts when the situation is overwhelming, but I wouldn't want to do that in a case like this. Generally on HN, we try to err on the side of privileging positive contributions rather than filtering out negative ones, and we rely on community moderation and moderator moderation to try to dampen the latter. It only works partially, but it's better than punishing the positive contributors, and definitely better than being a closed community.
What you described might just be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the moderate right routinely gets bundled with the far right extremists (and often anti-vac, conspiracy theory and whatever) for voicing out their right leaning (but moderate) opinions, then they might just choose to censor themselves instead.
I recently talked to a mom who visited her adult foster daughter with a different skin tone. Her daughter reminded her to make sure she doesn't forget her ID in the hotel.
The mom was confused. They were just going to take a walk in Munich. Why would she need an ID? She never has an ID on her when she goes for a walk.
The daughter said, because the police, they stop you and ask to see your ID!
Mom couldn't believe it that the police was so different in Munich. Then it dawned on her. Foster daughter had brown skin, so she was randomly stopped by police and asked for ID because she looks like an immigrant.
Mom was white and has never ever been stopped by police before.
The police absolutely treat people different because of race.
And a core premise of the Black Lives Matter movement is that Black people are generally an easier target that the police can get away with abusing, and police know this. Police can also typically identify Black people easily on sight, putting them at greater risk. Class is a valuable lens through which to view systems of oppression, but we shouldn't neglect these other dimensions of race, gender, etc... that are clearly a part of our society.
Men and women will get along as they always have, with ups and downs. There are no "identity groups" because we aren't and can't be enemies. There are just a few loonies on both sides making a ton of noise, and they're getting amplified by the internet. They'll either get boring at some point or just be ignored completely from the outside of their circles.
In my experience, one good example of how to do it right is vastly more powerful in solving social ills than any number of people being hung high and scapegoated for getting it wrong.
In fact, I generally feel that scapegoating people in a system where there are no good answers is actively counterproductive and helps keep things stuck. Hanging someone high for not knowing "the right answer" in a system that gives zero good options for how to handle X implicitly suggests that good answers exist and implicitly denies the reality that "We don't know how to do this dance. We don't have an answer for that."
It implicitly suggests there is a means to get this right when the reality is there isn't. So it actively distracts from real problem solving.
I would like to see more real problem solving in this space. As a dirt poor woman, I have a vested interest in seeing a world where there are answers for how to do this dance.
So far, I am mostly coming up empty under circumstances that suggest to me that my behavior is not the problem. The problem is the lack of good answers for how to do this dance.
I have chat logs with a PE at a FAANG who starts off by declaring that diversity is bullshit, not just efforts but the goal itself, and that race or gender is no impediment to success.
What’s even more demonstrative is so many here saying they are afraid to comment without making a new account because of ‘woke’ culture, but those are likely the people downvoting me to oblivion for suggesting that racists and sexists are the root cause of the situation.
Well gee how about people stop blaming white males for every problem in the world, cancelling them for the slightest "microaggression", etc. Maybe that would make society a bit more equal?
It should would be nice to talk openly with coworkers and peers without worrying about offending someone over the slightest thing.
Some situations were clear to me that I was being treated a particular way because of my race. But then others were not so clear cut.
For example, one time I was talking in Japanese with a group and someone kept repeating what I said like "He said...". I was getting angry at that as I took it to mean that they were basically "translating" my Japanese for others. But then later, I was watching a Japanese TV drama and the same thing happened on there (with only Japanese speaking). That made me think that maybe this was just a cultural thing that people do and didn't have any reflection on me personally.
Having mentored a female engineer, I've seen that if you are constantly on the lookout for signs of discrimination against you, you will find so much of it. You'll go crazy thinking the whole world is out to get you because of your sex, race, etc. It's tough because there are no doubt situations where that does happen. But there are also situations where a white man would have been given the same feedback or treated in the same way. As a minority though, you only have your own experience to go on. It becomes tough to recognize what is legitimate discrimination vs what is just ordinarily communication.
This is a smart move for any kind of group/mob move/reaction, by the way. In much more extreme cases you'd be the smart, polite, but dead guy in the crowd, otherwise.
Crowds as a whole are rash and emotional, you can't reason with them. There's a reason Animal Farm had 10 word slogans, at most ;-)
"You must beware of shadows."
page 109 of The Little Schemer
"Graceful interpretation" does not mean that you ignore the advice and substitute for it what would have been good advice.
I’d say these situations show that we must have more diversity, not less, in all our interactions so that we learn to become more used to differences (insert race/gender/whatever else some people trip over.)
However idiotic it may seem, in a non-safe, litigating environment one can, sadly, expect these knee jerk reactions. The only way forward is to make our society a safer place. This probably relies on all parties becoming more aware of the effects of their actions as well on the receiving side having a buffer and being tolerant such that we don’t get a cascade effect.
Edit: I mean the above paragraph in the sense that just like aircraft investigations are about finding a root cause instead of blaming, discussions should be more about achieving harmony together or to agree to disagree.
I even had married women behave extremely inapproriate, with some groping me in various places, getting me drunk at work parties and trying to get me make a first move if they felt bad about doing it themselves.
It's not like all women at work acted unprofessionally with me, but there was enough inappropriate behaviour that everyone knew about it and guess what, not a single women told another women that this behaviour was not ok.
Interestingly, after I got into a serious relationship and stopped to accept such behaviour I have had many women above me to turn on me and treat me as if I offended them by not flirting back.
All I know is that all humans are the same. Let's pay women an equal wage but please let's not pretend that women in power are any better than men.
I hope we can all agree that in 90% of the cases we can hear on the tone in the voice what the poster meant. If unclear ask and if racism occurs report the ** out of him :D
They have had decades, minimum, of this just being how things are. And things have not found a way to change to a more easy going society. If anything things have just hardened up as information and media have become more prevalent. In comparison, powerful people fearing being potentially (mis)interpreted not being worth the risk to their entire career is a relatively new phenomenon. I wager that the OP of this article doesn't have a solution to the problem of trust by investors, because women have yet to discover the solution to their own generalized mistrust of men outside their direct social circle despite how long that situation has gone on for.
Until the risk / reward dynamic changes (and I do not see how it could without making people less accountable), I fully anticipate that this self censorship in society will not only just continue, but will yet increase further in an information society where powerful people can be made accountable by the public as stories of people being held to account to their actions, regardless of whether those actions were deliberate, accidental or misunderstandings.
The cancel culture crowd today seem to think yes. They look to him as an idol and see his only flaw as his unjust cause.
I don’t think I agree. Extrajudiciality should be shunned in all its forms even if it leads to bad people meeting bad ends.
There is a danger of getting overly semantic, but also a danger of ignoring the importance of semantics to perspective here. Sexism as opposed to sexists. Sexism, using the term as the the GP does, is how they behave towards or speak to her. That's what sexism is regardless of why it is. It affects her or the workplace the same way whether it is because of "exclusionary assholes" or unintended chilling effects.
Gravity in a box is equivalent to acceleration.
That said, you have a point too. From your (me also) perspective, there's a snookered conclusion to this story. Inasmuch as Twitter mobs are scary, some people are opting out of joining the girls for a drink.. sometimes advisably.
This is not an intractable problem.
I’ll be completely candid here: I have some kind of problem with women. This isn’t to say that I don’t like women or don’t want women to succeed. I just don’t want to associate with or be seen around women. I’m sure there’s some kind of deep reason for this, but I haven’t exactly been looking for it.
On the other hand, I’m a huge believer in the “live and let live” principle. I found a good way of reconciling these two sides of my personality. Whenever I’m thrust into a situation in which I must interact with women, I gracefully extricate myself from it.
I’m very sneaky about this too. Sometimes my departure can be performed swiftly, but other times I must maneuver over a period of days or weeks to get myself away from an unpleasant situation. I’m never overt about it, I never hurt anyone in the process, and I’m pretty confident that no one has any idea that I’m like this.
In the past I’ve had to abandon projects I was working on, and even ditched maintainership of a popular open source project because a female coworker started contributing to it. Given that I’ve been doing this for a couple of decades, I’m willing to say that I’d do more or less anything to get away from women, as long as no one gets hurt. Yes, it might take a while, and I might need to make some sacrifices, but I’ll eventually get away.
Of course this started way before Twitter mobs and cancel culture became a thing, so I can’t claim prescience. But I do permit myself a little smugness at this point in time. I think I’m pretty much cancel-proof.
Just like how these people are seeking someone to blame, you are seeking the same when you blame the media. It's not just the media, what's going on here is something we're all responsible for.
I have written about it -- quite a lot over the years, in fact. I did so to manage the situation as best I could under difficult circumstances and those many posts have been pretty consistently redacted over the years.
I'm frankly really freaking tired of writing about it and don't really feel a strong desire to try to find some means to write about it as some kind of edutainment for random internet strangers, so don't hold your breath waiting for me to do a write up. That's probably not really in my best interest and I'm just amazingly exhausted with the whole thing at this point.
This article is clearly about how all of these false accusations and woke mobs ultimately harm minorities.
And the consequences of being accused of sexism by an
online mob have now become so extreme that many investors
don’t want to risk it anymore.
Has it always been this way or was there a time long ago where it's common to receive feedback? (I've only been working professionally for ~5 years)
Instead my head is somewhere else entirely, and I might have been annoyed at myself for forgetting to pick something up at the store or whatever.
We've gotten better at handling it, I try to remind myself to immediately tell her it wasn't her, and she asking me what it was if I forget. But there has been a lot of unnecessary bad times that originated from such episodes...
He told me he felt cut off, etc, even though we were sharing the same experience. If we had something similar happen, how can he definitively attribute that experience to racism? Even if it was, that was not the point of the conversation. We were all sharing our experiences on that topic and no one mentioned race. Why do we need to bend ourselves backwards to make sure all minorities feel comfortable all the time?
The point here is you can't talk to minority groups about anything these days, if you are white.
Either a person accepts extreme, but very unlikely, risk by exercising perfect candor with everyone or they decide to clam up around people lower on the 'oppression hierarchy' which costs them almost nothing to do.
Why would any rational actor not choose option B unless they're getting some reward great enough to offset the risk of option A?
As always, context is everything.
> after I got married and stopped to accept such behaviour
Man should never stop accepting such behavior ...
But the issue is that I get told, both implicitly and explicitly, that my gender isn't really an issue at all. Even your comment basically hand waves off my gender as a factor.
I appear to be the highest ranked woman on HN. I appear to be the only woman to have ever spent time on the leader board.
I don't even need that much income. If I could just get enough resume work, I would be content to do resume work part-time at $50/page. That would work for me and I can't even arrange that.
I believe my gender is a factor in my failure to adequately meet my financial needs. It is not at all constructive for people to keep telling me the many, many other reasons I am poor as a means to implicitly say "Sure, sexism is a factor, but it's not the only factor, so quit pointing it out because it makes the guys uncomfortable."
That practice is exactly why so many women (people of color, etc) are so very angry. If people would simply acknowledge that my gender is actually something complicating my efforts to network and establish an adequate income and then spend time wondering what would work for me instead of dismissing it as "not the real reason" I'm poor, I would probably be okay financially.
I'm not asking to get rich overnight here.
If you're falsely accused of being That Guy, you can just hire them to fill your twitter feed with glowing reviews of your character from "women".
Or crank up the Ashley Madison fembots to do it.
In that circumstance, I think it is clear that my sexual orientation is the basis by which they are judging the authoritativeness I have to speak on the topic. Never mind the formal qualifications, or the logic or veracity of what I am actually saying. Like, I know we all have little unconscious checklists like that for judging whether someone is credible, but it is uncomfortable to see the effect live.
Are you sure those people weren't saying that it was best to _act like_ a meritocracy (as opposed to one actually existing today)?
I posit that it wouldn't have gotten so crazy overvalued if it hadn't been headed by a pretty young woman. But trying to explain that is probably "off topic" and just thinking about trying to explain it makes me tired. I'd rather not.
First choice, I remain silent. Best case, the female CEO kills it and I make some money. Worst case she flops and I lose my investment. Potentially great upside, relatively minor downside.
Second choice, I suggest a change. Best case the company does well and I make money. Worst case I’m labeled a sexist and I’m effectively ejected from the startup world. Potentially great upside, but unlimited losses.
Easy choice. I stay silent.
In this case a simple followup of "you deserve more credit and I want you to feel able to advocate for yourself" would have cleared up the confusion and avoided a lot of trouble, and you wouldn't have had to invent a story-telling system in order to filter out people who believe in accountability.
Smugness makes no sense when what it appears is you have some deep rooted psychological issues that need addressing.
The fear of a hypothetical "someone" taking something "totally reasonable" out of context is, in my experience, held mainly by people who have a private definition of "totally reasonable" not held by the majority and who'd like to continue holding it without consequences.
A much more realistic and likely outcome, and a far less hysterical perspective than yours, is that the needle was way too far one way, now people are learning to cope with it shifting, and if we try to be more empathetic, perhaps getting help when we need to, we can shift it to a better place than it was before.
How do I know this? Because identical dynamics play over and over, change is scary, even if it is for the better, and people have opposed it on similar grounds -- it would lead to absurdities and worst outcomes for everyone involved -- since time immemorial. For example, see some arguments against women suffrage from just over a hundred years ago [1]:
> Because the acquirement of the Parliamentary vote would logically involve admission to Parliament itself, and to all Government offices. It is scarcely possible to imagine a woman being Minister for War, and yet the principles of the Suffragettes involve that and many similar absurdities.
> Because Woman Suffrage is based on the idea of the equality of the sexes, and tends to establish those competitive relations which will destroy chivalrous consideration.
And, of course, women do not want the vote [2]
The belief that we can -- and must -- work tirelessly change the world by, say, allowing humans to fly and even reach other planets, but when it comes to how people should speak to one another, well, that's too difficult to change, there's no point in trying, and if we try then the outcome will obviously be bad, just seems so bizarre.
[1]: https://www.johndclare.net/Women1_ArgumentsAgainst.htm
[2]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1903/09/why-wom...
I do question one of the examples a bit. The idea of giving advice to female founder to step down as CEO in favor of a male cofounder sounds like bad advice. It's pointing out one rather drastic solution, rather than the actual problem. Better advice would be to lay out the observed issues and help think through a range of possible solutions, if everyone can get on the same page about the problems. Maybe the solution would still be a change in roles, but there's a lot less chance it would seem sexist the advice were predicated on a lot more information.
I can't say that I have ever in my life noticed much of the Anglo-Saxon gender, race, and other such politics in real life and I remain sceptical as to what extent it is actually true within Anglo-Saxon offices, for I find that all “sides” of the issue seem to offer very different, contradictory experiences, and mostly reads as a rather exagerated an implausible story of how bad it is for one's own side.
Though there might be a kernel of truth behind some of it, most of it reads as though the writers see boogymen, and unreasonable fear, and I will say that when actual hard statistics be available, they almost always paint a very difficult picture than what is complained about in all these “culture war” discussions, and that certainly goes for all sides.
And if you actually stuck around in leftist circles you would see how the "indentarians" as you so called them are in opposition to those, too.
> First mixed-race female Vice President of the USA - okay, but what sort of shitty role model is this?
Everyone I know in identity politics circles was critical of her too! Indeed!
I think you've essentially misunderstood why there was a push against solely class-based analysis, and why identity-specific systemic oppression was introduced to this concept -- the two are not in opposition. The reason it was brought in was because measures to deconstruct and eliminate class-based oppression, often kept systemic inequality between identity.
For example, the push to eliminate sexism has for the most part only advantaged white women (You'll have to trust me on the proof for this since I'm writing this while on the go -- however look up books like Carceral Capitalism and "Why I Don't Talk To White People About Race" for examples). The introduction of how your identity impacts how class boundaries affect you was necessary to better understand the dynamics and better shed and cast off systems of oppression
I didn't pay too close attention to the story. If they had managed to produce the tech they claimed for the price they claimed, would $10 billion be crazy overvalued?
https://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-...
"Clamming Up" because of power dynamics is inherent to hierarchy. This is why relationships with co-founders and employees need to be nurtured carefully. It's the same set of dynamics that happen inside a band.
If you always want candid advice, honest feedback, and critical though unpleasant information to flow freely and undistorted, then you must remember that actions speak louder than words. If someone tried to tell you something you really need to hear, though you may not have wanted to hear it, what did you do? How did you react? It's not enough to just say that you're for honesty and openness. It's not enough to say you value someone's opinion. You have to actually do that!
Did you counter-attack? Did you order your underling to never speak of "it" again? Did you use the differential in power to just shut-up and shut-off? If you were asked to give a detailed account of what the other person had to say, would they be satisfied that you gave a full and fair account of what they were trying to convey? Would you even be able to recall such details, or would your account be sketchy and vague?
Paying your employees well and having a great environment is actually a double-edged sword, here. What happens, if one day, your early employee comes to you with something they know you don't want to hear, and you react badly? What if you raise your voice and manage to make them feel threatened. That employee will get the message that, despite your lip-service, you don't want to hear it. What's that employee going to do? It's not too unlikely they will "get the message" and clam up, go with the flow, and play it safe to keep their cushy 6-figure job. The flow of candid information from that employee will drop by a lot!
Now, to bring things back to the semi-political: If just having hierarchy/authority, period, can raise such sticky problems in communication and corporate epistemology, then let me ask this: What effect would granting power to accusations without evidence have? This is not an argument for the blanket elimination of accusations. Rather, it's an argument for the importance of *evidence."
If true this could explain the differences in attraction of various fields.
Ah yes, this always works for calming woke mobs
If the resulting cultural is permanently clammier professional relationships between men and women.. I have a hard time believing it's things going right. OTOH, I don't really think there is a permanent "clamming up." Hopefully it passes. It's not like everyone was gender blind in 2015 either.
Regardless of what we think of wider issues, I think Femfo is probably observing something real.
Kind of says something when this is seen as an exceptional case, given that a significant majority of people aren't white men...
> Why not just say what you mean without the racial stereotypes?
Nothing is going to win cheap applause at a diversity panel than saying "white man bad".
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please note these guidelines also:
"Don't be snarky."
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
My point is that if you have low income, it would be better to focus on improving skills you are offering rather than try to solve "women are paid less" problem. For example, just presenting yourself as a website builder sounds more profitable than someone who edits resumes.
By the way is HN rank really that useful? For example I never knew there is a HN leader board or how to access it.
Thank you for the explanation, I wish you all the best.
It takes a stance based on the parent comment and gives an example where they believe looks had considerable differences in the behavior of society towards somebody. The example is not perhaps the best, but the fact that society actually shows favouritism towards attractive people should not be controversial.
Once one moves from a position of effective prejudice (“he will criticise me because I’m a woman”), any critical statement can be read from that perspective. It’s a bit like with conspiracy theories, where every debunking attempt can be turned into “of course THEY would say that!”.
It seems like many non-Americans simply do not make the context switch and once they leave the Ameri-sphere (e.g talk to fellow non-Americans), they talk about American topics as if they were happening locally - and is if they were directly impacted with a major stake in the issue.
Remember where you are, who you're talking to, and the context. Since non-Americans seem so eager to copy Americans however, it can be prudent to be aware of what's going on across the pond without being heavily invested. The USA is now acting like a looking glass into the future of what successes and mistakes are going to be imported wholesale by other countries and their citizens.
The issue is this: Would a man have gotten a $10 billion valuation based on hot air and zero results for years and years? Or would someone have called him on his shit a lot earlier?
She was literally sleeping with and living with a much older male investor* while publicly claiming to be celibate in her twenties due to her extreme devotion to her career and business. I always figured that was bullshit and she was probably sleeping with someone and "I'm celibate" was probably a cover story.
And no one went looking for that because of fear of being called sexist, I guess. I hesitated to give that opinion on HN for fear of back lash.
But as a woman with six year of college and yadda, when I meet accomplished men in positions to open doors for me, a lot of them find me attractive and this actively closes doors in my face. I'm not willing to sleep with a man to open doors, not because I have some kind of moral objection to that but because I don't believe it actually works.
It didn't actually work for Elizabeth Holmes. Sleeping with an investor did not, in fact, help her succeed in the world of business. It merely helped her cover up fraud while her problems grew larger until it resulted in both criminal and civil suits and her name is mud. She will never really recover from this debacle.
So I don't think sleeping with men to open doors works. I think sleeping with rich and powerful men would get me sex and maybe would let me be a "kept woman" but it wouldn't get me taken seriously as a business woman and it wouldn't teach me how business is done and it wouldn't have some men giving me meaty, constructive feedback.
* Edit: To be crystal clear here, I mean someone who invested in Theranos, I don't mean "Someone whose job title was investor." This was a clear conflict of interest.
I do not live in the Anglo Saxon world; know this well.
I would say so, and the thought that anyone would level some of these weird gender arguments I've primarily seen from Anglo-Saxon news sources wouldn't cross my mind, for it has never happened to me in my life. — and I am not entirely sure as to how much I should believe such stories I read on the internet that speak of how seemingly every single issue in Anglo-Saxon culture is phrased in terms of an imaginary gender war.
I have never in such professional disputes in my life felt as though gender were used as an excuse, or reason, I have never in my life been accused of sexism when I criticized female staffmembers, and I have never seen it happen to anyone else either, I have never seen anyone go that route as a matter of defence.
Perhaps, a difference is that Dutch professional analyses ten to be more numerical, and that the Anglo-Saxon more often wings it based on feeling rather than numbers. It is o course far harder to argue with numbers.
There is a very real problem with “oppression olympics” centered on racial identity, in this country.
When 4chan did this, they were investigated by the FBI. Reddit received a lot of flack for its own vigilante brigades after a mistargeted attempt to "catch the Boston bomber", and had to take action (still incomplete) against raiding.
Facebook and Twitter with their multi-billion market caps have just barely begun to wake up to what their platforms are capable of producing. The effects observed with these investors are not exactly unique to tech finance.
I think something like Wikipedia's protected article policy could help. When something becomes problematic, discussion can be limited to confirmed users, who in turn have more to lose by being banned. This allows Twitter to respond before "censorship" is justified.
It also dates me, but I had a blood transfusion in 1982. At that time, it was a Russian Roulette if I ended up with HIV blood or not. I didn't. Had I been innfected, I would have ended up like Ryan White.
What is the mechanism for this? The majority of the "woke" twitter mob is 30 or younger.
This is incredibly flawed. It can never be behaviour observed in a vacuum. A behaviour's motivation in context is the only thing to observe and - potentially - classify as sexism.
This is not a dig at you, btw, it seems clear that you’re making the best of the situation.
Then, no, you're describing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynophobia
> Gynophobia should not be confused with misogyny, the hatred, contempt for and prejudice against women
Ok. That's sad. Best wishes.
But then, finally, your admitted smugness bothers me, as it reveals a deep lack of empathy for woman and why the culture is necessarily going through these fits and throws.
To what degree is your “live and let live” actually “live and let live or die, it's not my problem”?
"Underdamped system" is very apt here. There are some positive feedback factors which exacerbate the situation in the "underdamped system." If you give over power to a mob, then the very principles which act as damping can be completely abandoned. Things like "innocent until proven guilty," and the valuing of evidence.
The answer to unchecked, abused, one-sided power is not more unchecked, one-sided power with the vector rotated 180 degrees. That's just welcoming more dysfunction and abuse.
we are starting from a more equal place if you look at the status pre-2017
We are starting from a place where typical middle-school, high school, and college kids are likely to answer with expletives towards the principles mentioned above -- depending on the context in which you ask their opinion.
EDIT: Way back when, when I was watching that Vice report about the Evergreen State College activists, and one of them said, "...then f#ck your Free Speech!" I became very afraid that our society was in for a world of hurt. I'm pretty sure Gandhi and MLK were for Free Speech and the other principles mentioned above.
To be clear, I'm not saying that I do treat all people equally, regardless of their race, gender, sexuality, etc. I grew up in an environment filled with stereotypes, and they do seep through. I can only strive to avoid having that bias affect how I treat people. If it does leak through, I try to recognize it and do better in the future.
"I’m not going to suggest a solution to the problem of men clamming up." If not, then perhaps that's the wrong problem statement, and solutions will become more readily obvious and suggestible when not coached as the problem of men.
That's as candid as I can make it, and I feel that I have to use a throwaway account to do so.
A common theme I’ve noticed in these groups is their penchant for using the term “cis male”. Doesn’t matter if you’re straight or gay, the hate is still the same.
It’s better to just walk away from these situations and groups.
ON AVERAGE, men and women differ in biological traits and desires. We see this in massively egalitarian societies like in Norway who have huge sex based gaps in employments yet the most effort to be egalitarian. Interesting.
Imagine if we had specific terms for someone who doesn't shoplift, or who doesn't eat other people's pets.
> And, of course, women do not want the vote
Please keep this sort of flamebait out of your HN posts. It's guaranteed to make everything worse, and you can make your substantive points without it.
I don't present myself on HN as "a website builder" because I do little plug and play websites (blogspot, wordpress) and I'm not really a programmer. My knowledge of how to build a useful website is potentially of value to people in the small town I live in where local talent is sorely lacking. It's not anything people on HN are likely to want to hire me for.
I'm amazingly, desperately tired of discussing this. Thank you for acknowledging my point. I don't really want to dig into things like the value of HN rank further. It doesn't do a helluva lot of good.
I bring it up to make the point that "If I am doing it wrong, show me the woman that is supposedly doing it right so I can take pointers from her." and that seems to not be what anyone ever hears.
I appear to be the highest ranked woman here, ergo I appear to be the woman who has most closely "mastered" successfully talking to the guys here and I remain frustrated as all hell and dirt poor. So there doesn't appear to be a good answer here.
When I was younger I learned so much and established many valuable relationships by having discussions on public services/websites. Many legends in the field were quite accessible on public sites and mailing lists. My life would be much worse if I hadn't had those experiences and it feels like a lot of younger people that don't have connections to the SV bubble are now going to miss out on similar experiences.
This isn't to say that we should be tolerant of everything but it definitely feels like we've swung too far in the opposite direction.
Feedback is best received when you relate to the person who is giving it and you trust the giver has your best interest at heart.
While the "current environment" may make it so women are more weary of men (and thus less likely to receive feedback) - I think there is a stronger current.
White male investors see people outside of their social group and realize that their advice might not be well received- not because of a flame war, but simply because they don't look like them. I'm fully convinced this effect is visible with all mixes of social groups (race, gender, religion, national origin, job family).
This effect sucks, and we should be looking for ways to unite ourselves to other people so that we can receive hard advice and also give hard advice.
The risk of an unpredictable, catastrophic event for a man is higher than it has ever been.
I don't think that's a good analogy.
I made that point earlier but it does not go over well with the gender is social constructionism folks.
Diversity CAN BE a competitive advantage if everyone else is carving out a strict path. But if everyone is extremely diverse then heterogeneity could actually be the competitive advantage, allowing a business to specialize more or take advantage of certain economies of scale etc. etc.
Also, I find that more often than not, too much diversity leads to internal conflict because ideas differ too much, which can turn into a competitive disadvantage.
Before you get outraged I just want to caveat this by saying that what I'm about to say is just controversial and anecdotal. If you share a different opinion than fine, this is just my opinion.
The general fear women have of men that permeates all of their behavior is more of a biologically programmed fear than it is a an environmentally programmed one. What makes me say this? Because, anecdotally, women have this fear even when there is ZERO prior trauma. Although they can train this fear away, practically all women are naturally more guarded when among unfamiliar men, even with No prior Trauma.
I've been been in tons of fists fights when I was a kid. There are many times where I've lost and was beaten until my face was a bloody mess by other dudes. This is 100x more trauma than an average woman will ever go through and even I don't live in fear of "men."
Now this is not scientific evidence but anecdotal evidence is not invalid. It's the only way to talk about such subjects short of doing a 10 year scientific study. So you may have a different experience and I respect that but I also respectfully ask anyone who replies not to start a gender flame war and get outraged at my viewpoint.
>They have had decades, minimum, of this just being how things are. And things have not found a way to change to a more easy going society. If anything things have just hardened up as information and media have become more prevalent. In comparison, powerful people fearing being potentially (mis)interpreted not being worth the risk to their entire career is a relatively new phenomenon. I wager that the OP of this article doesn't have a solution to the problem of trust by investors, because women have yet to discover the solution to their own generalized mistrust of men outside their direct social circle despite how long that situation has gone on for.
You used the word "decades," and this is what the wrong part of your statement. It is actually factually wrong and there is tons of anthropological research to back this up. The word you should have used was "centuries." Practically all of human civilization has been patriarchal. They have never identified in the history of archaeology and anthropology any human civilization where the dominant sex was not Men. This fact flies across time and across geographic boundaries of countless cultures. There is not a single exception. There are civilizations where women took on roles that are traditionally "male" but there has never been a civilization that has been consistently matriarchal. Thus from this perspective it is arguable that patriarchy could be biologically ingrained and that modern civilization is currently trending beyond out biological imperative.
The additional rights afforded by women today is largely a modern and very unique phenomenon. According to the current school of thought in academia much of it is attributed to changes in technology. Sewage, tampons, etc.
I don't think that treating people poorly because you're worried that not doing so could hurt your career is the right thing to do. It might be pragmatic in your case, but so is taking money out of a wallet you find on the ground.
> I lost my best friend due to a lie I couldn't disprove.
You lost your best friend because your best friend didn't trust you and because someone lied. None of that is your fault. Sometimes the world is a shitty place with shitty people. That isn't a reason to add to that shittiness by refusing to treat women in the workplace as you would men.
> Everyone I know in identity politics circles was critical of her too! Indeed!
I'm quite skeptical of this claim. For the most part the people pushing race and gender identity narratives in the US had at best mild criticism of Ms. Harris, and were mainly focused on her multi-racial identity and its historical significance. Almost as if her terrible politics simply didn't matter because of her identity.
E.g. the cancelling and uncancelling of RMS seemed to me mainly...reasonable? Like, he says some weird stuff and defended ~~Eppstein~~ Minsky (sorry, memory got messed up, thanks skissane) in a tone-deaf manner (I have had the joy of exchanging emails with RMS and interacting with him at talks he gave at my alma mater, and he always seemed like a thoughtful and kind person whom I respect and admire, but I feel like "tone-deaf" is a fair description), maybe that's not a good thing to do if your job is to be a public figure? And very little twisting was needed to make his discussion of what really is rape reasonable? So if this is an example of what people are afraid of, it seems a very...specific fear
For medicine, it's easier to balance the ratios when you can fully control the pipeline, and also control the total number of new practitioners entering the workforce regardless of demand.
If you only have 28,000 residency slots a year, institutions can pick whoever they want, and get the diversity numbers that they want. They decide who eventually gets to work in the field. Employers and customers don't have any real choice. They're going to get whatever the schools provide, and if they don't like it, they can go without doctors.
Modern tech is nothing like that, but it could be someday. Imagine if schools decided who could be professionally employed as a software engineer.
that's the point of identity politics, to take away that focus by distracting and dividing the working class
No I don't think it's this. I think it's the advent of the internet. The internet changed everything. What you will find is that the internet is responsible for making everything look like an "overshoot."
Basically, to over-simplify severely, instead of taking criticism as a way to improve, she took it as an attack, which I think was part of what made Theranos insular, overprotective. It would be a bridge too far to link it to the cheating.
That's why you see people looking for smaller, more trust-bound online communities to associate with.
That it is unclear is obvious in that the person using the stereotype couldn't identify the concrete, actionable behavior they intended to encourage when directly questioned.
Curious conversation is good
I do not subscribe to the belief that patriarchy is biological because there is numerous empirical examples of historical matriarchal societies in places such as South America, Asia, Native American Hopi tribe, Celtic society, Germany and Estonia including in the recorded history of my own non-American society.
They're called cars. Houses are packed tighter and there's more cars per household than when I was growing up (maybe due to everyone being double income now). Streets are also narrower and most have street parking, creating visibility issues. Go check out a development than went up 40-50 years ago compared to one that went up in the last 5 years. The difference is pretty stark and pretty hostile to kids running around doing kid stuff.
I don't think media's focus on bad guys has nearly the impact that the enormous increase in cars has had.
I suspect both elements play a role. How big a role I have little idea.
Resorting to advice that consists entirely of race/gender stereotyping isn't “mature, respectful language”.
What do you mean?
> show me the woman that is supposedly doing it right so I can take pointers from her
There are successfull women everywhere. What are you on about?
As for how shitty this thread is, I've spent the last several hours posting dozens of comments, feebly trying to do something about that. All I'm asking you (and others) is not to make it worse yet. Gratuitous provocation takes discussion straight to failure modes. We're all worse off if that happens.
How that's a reason not to make substantive points, or what it has to do with SV, I'm not following. The vast majority of HN is far away from SV, all over the world, and I've never seen a correlation between posts being shitty and posts being from SV. On the present topic there is probably a mild negative correlation, just because people in SV have been through so many iterations of this discussion, for so many more years than most places, that they're less likely to get activated with naive outrage.
This does contain the essence of your advice; namely, to take credit for work more often, and or more clearly.
My approach is very different.
And I have had the pleasure of mentoring women into male dominated roles a time or two. Fortunately, we were able to establish trust and another male coworker involved in mentoring worked in a similar way. There were challenges, but we made them team ones, not just hers. That made a big difference, IMHO.
What we did was take gender out of it early on, unless it made sense.
In this case, the advice would be, "you should take credit more." And the follow on would be ways to do that and to support the person who will benefit from doing it. That can be as simple as some recognition and sharing later:
"I saw you go for it. Nice! So, how do you feel about it? What happened? Will you do it again?" Etc...
Where gender does come up, that discussion almost always involved a telling of things. And the reason, explained if need be, is just simple understanding.
"How is it for you?"
And that helps with, "what if it were me?"
And then advice makes sense, because there is context, a shared basis.
That is not always needed. Hard to say when it is. But when it is, having it really helps get past or through whatever the challenge is.
I have been fortunate to have women in my life who will share, who I have worked with, who I have helped, and who have helped me. And the things they share have highlighted the fact that their experience is different. Same goes for many attributes, race, beauty, etc...
Often, the barrier to sharing and understanding boils down to some shame, or blame, or admission of weakness, or the perception of making excuses. And while those things can be part of the discussion, it is unhealthy to presume they are, and my experience shows me that presumption happens more than it should.
And that all contributes to how hard this matter is, or can be.
I am a guy, and have found myself discriminated against for seriously considering, "what if it were me?" Or for asking, "How is it for her, or them?"
It is almost like a betrayal, or threat... something I am expressing poorly. Sorry for that, I just do not have precise words.
Often we are asking people different from us to see things from a more familiar point of view. More familiar to us, but what good is that when it simply is foreign to them?
I resolved it this way: we should be seeking a better perception of what it is like for people very different from us. Mutual understanding and respect, consideration.
In my view, there should be no shame in any of that. But there is! And all this is harder.
Since that time, I have paid a lot more attention to these dynamics. Barriers to understanding one another better present real costs and risks that can be avoided, again in my view.
Most of what comes after when discussing the issue is "how to 'fix' this 'problem.'" by encouraging men to speak anyway. But that is the wrong approach, because it relies on people changing their behavior back like hurling themselves on grenades -- you can't count on it. Still high-risk, low-reward. Perhaps even no-reward. Making plans on people (well, men in this instance but it could be anyone) being irrationally drawn to self-sacrifice is not going to pan out, especially if your reputation is destroyed in the mix after. Leaping on grenades typically earns a medal, but here it gets you vilification.
What do you mean?
I have more than 32k karma under this handle. I had like 25k karma under a previous handle. That handle appears to be the only openly female handle to have ever spent time on the HN leader board.
Is Modern Feminism starting to undermine Itself? | Jess Butcher | TEDxAstonUniversity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIgytWyo_A
Unfortunately, I think those kind of videos do no reach their required target: new age feminists. It doesn't help either that the comments on the video are mostly made by men, who are angry at the current social situation in the anglophone countries.
IMO, these social issues are pretty inconsequential compared to the bigger problems we face: climate change and wealth+income inequality worldwide. I believe that social inequality would drastically improve if we concentrated on those major problems first.
Education is the linchpin, imo. Were we to work backwards from that, our world would radically change. You can't concentrate on education if you have to worry about housing, food, transport, and access to education. So, those should be as cheap as possible for every citizen.
Educators should have amongst the highest paying jobs in the country and competition should be fierce to become one at any level.
With an educated populace, there's no telling what we could achieve. We could think and reason for ourselves instead of listening to pundits. We could actually discuss things instead of scream at each other all the time.
But eh... y'all would rather fund another war on some poor country over oil, support another big corp to underpay people you don't care about, huddle into groups and be belligerent against those your group deems the enemy, vote for people who wield fear as a tool, or just be indifferent to the world around you as long as you're doing fine...
At some point I had to stop the conversation because I realized that what I was doing was giving her the first honest conversation about her business she'd ever had with anyone and to be honest I wasn't really the person to be giving any advice. Mostly I just asked questions and shared some lessons from similar experiences.
tl;dr: somebody lied to this gal (perhaps through omission) and she's going to learn some hard lessons.
Apologies for any typos.
Yes, but in the same way that a company that promises faster-than-light travel would be worth $10 billion dollars.
Theranos' tech was so far beyond the realms of any reasonable science, yet people still invested.
The main point is that, unless you’re talking physics (maybe), nothing is so “fact-based” that it cannot be perceived in the “wrong” way by someone sufficiently determined to do that.
Someone wants to disagree with whatever nonsense the hivemind is raving about in the moment, but in order to do so they have to prostrate themselves and make it clear whose side they're on before they make their (often very valid) point.
e.g. "I hate Trump just has much as the rest of you but..." or "Look we need to be super supportive of X group and my dad is actually X but..."
I really don't know if this is a positive change for how policy gets made, but it is happening actively right now.
This is a very real issue. It's already gotten to the point where the people behind the movement are hysterically unreasonable and irrational. Literally even feminists who are integral parts of the movement itself aren't safe from their own vitriol.
Below is an TED talk about the story of a activist feminist who had her entire activist career destroyed simply by saying something that the cancel culture disagreed with:
Doing things to solve the real issues would run into difficult real-world problems both symbolic and logistical/physical. Overcoming them require having conversations where people
1. Do creative problem-solving
2. Say “well, actually...” about practical implementation details.
3. Speak honestly about the real difficulties and risks of unintended consequences.
4. Admit to failure and error and even inattention.
All of which is blocked by similar social dynamics to the ones discussed in the article.
It's worth saying that people who have no capability to betray you in a certain way are easier to do business with. It limits downside. I'd prefer to have a reputation for defending my friends, but not being credible for a certain attack is an interesting advantage. Perhaps vulgar and obnoxious people will be easier to work with too. I will look for a way to get mobbed that doesn't violate my moral code, might as well break the seal on that so I never make anyone nervous.
I'm a pretty active person online and I genuinely do not understand your concern. If you want to say something controversial online, just do so anonymously like you are doing now. If you want to give somebody candid advice I'm not sure why you'd do that in public anyways.
It also seems like investors are more concerned about reputation than founders.
I can count on two hands the number of women I would feel comfortable giving the exact same feedback to as I would a man. Women I can be candid with are women that I have 5+ year relationships with, have backed in some way, and who know I am truly looking out for them.
And the solution is blatantly obvious, but completely unpalatable. Let men grow the same way we believe women and minorities should be allowed to. A male engineering manager being too harsh with a female junior dev is a learning moment for the director of engineering to help the manager, not fire them.
And crucially the line is shifting more and more about what's "obviously fireable." Turns out harsh criticism of the quality of someone's work and the lack of improvement are rational, not an ad hominem. Those things are fixable. But criticism from powerful parties is now scrutinized as dangerous based on identity rather than for the content of the criticism.
1. An observation that you are arguing from a position of assuming malice from the other side. "They" are trying to twist everything, therefore evidence is not required since "they" won't listen anyway
2. You can point at any public twitter mob where the real conversation was made public afterwards or where you know the inside scoop and with the caveat of anecdata it could strengthen your point
3. You seem to be dangerously close to resting on a "what even is 'fact based'?" argument repeating that "they" are determined to misunderstand statements in malicious ways
People who feel strongly on topics routinely use language like "putrid horror show" to justify their own breaking of the site guidelines and making a discussion even worse than it already is. This sort of "why bother" / "fuck it" attitude is a big part of why things are so bad to begin with; it leads people to create the situation they deplore. No one wants to look at the "putridity" of their own contributions—the problem is always caused by other, never by self.
The only solution I can see to this is to prioritize taking care of the commons, regardless of how bad things are or you feel they are.
A lot of politicians or executives will only say carefully scripted sound bites to the press because they can't count on a reasonable portrayal. They give them a sentence or two that's difficult to twist into something offensive.
Here it's similar. They're afraid reasonable behavior will be portrayed as outrageous in some blog post.
If you're not from the U.S. you have to understand the background of mendacity that flows through nearly the entire culture. That's a big part of the backdrop for fairly deep levels of distrust, whether it's of a company, one's colleague, the gov't, etc.
For example-- I was watching a political show where the question was something about global warming. One of the guests gave a reply that sounded vaguely reasonable but wasn't clear. The host tried to rephrase the question, and the same respondent again gave a suspiciously confusing reply. This caused the host to drill down on a simpler question-- did the guest believe that global warming was real and that human activity has contributed to this global warming? This time the guest answered a different question, addressing the reality of global warming but ducking the issue of causes. This went on for about 45 seconds before the host finally forced the guest to give a response that revealed the guest was in fact a climate denier. Honestly, it was like watching that scene in Blade Runner with the Voight-Kampff test, except on humans.
Being an American myself, I could immediately tell what the guest's purpose was: to sound like they agreed with the other (sensible) panelists, in order to give more credibility to a climate denial talking point that their job depends on. It's a planned strategy essentially of "denial-in-depth"-- try to sneak FUD into an otherwise good faith discussion, and if that doesn't then reveal your crude talking points for what they are.
In a weird way, the process of figuring out someone's level of earnestness makes me think of the "Sie" to "du" journey in German. Except here in the U.S., it's a slow slog of figuring out exactly how a friend spouts bullshit and under what circumstances, and then figuring out if there's enough earnestness left to become close friends.
What I hear you saying is that it's already gone to hell, so it doesn't matter what you do. Actually it matters a lot what you do. Every user here needs to abide by the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Bringing up "Jewish Question" is singularly unhelpful and more gratuitous provocation. It seems to me that you're the main person framing this thread as "Woman Question" to begin with, then using that to justify pouring kerosene of your own. That's not cool.
What I've noticed is that users with strong ideological passions tend to describe as "putrid" and "cesspool" and so on, any discussion in which their own ideology isn't imposed as the dominant one. That's understandable, but it's not a realistic demand. HN is a large forum which is as divided on ideological topics as any other large population sample—moreover this population sample is all over the world, which unfortunately makes people far more prone to interpret others' statements as "putrid" without it even dawning on anyone that that's a factor.
Much as I might wish it, we don't have the power to change how divided this community is. All we can do is look for ways to nudge users into having thoughtful discussion despite divisions. Everyone has a different sense of what that might look like, and we can talk about how to do that, but we don't have the power to make people agree.
Yes things can be improved. But at some point will critical thinking and the benefit of the doubt be encouraged in society?
Or are we doomed to the media/twitter blowing up things out of proportion and people looking through prisms of victimhood.
I don't self identify as a feminist. I never have. I generally agree with this criticism.
Furthermore, isn't this an issue of long-standing that for some reason is still a big enough problem to raise complaints? How many decades have there been women in upper-management, let alone the C-suite? Why aren't VCs, people who are rumored to be good at analyzing businesses across their field of expertise, already aware of this weakness? Is rooting out inefficiencies only for the businesses in which they invest?
This is to say, why is this essay still necessary? I'd say it's because many men are trying to keep the old world going. Status quo.
I suggest that a VC who can't have the conversation about swapping for CEO in both "directions," who is aggrieved about the present state of business demographics enough to clam up in fear of raising controversy, is not a competent investor.
This is a Continuing Education topic for those who need it, just like RNs have to take a certain number of class-hours each year to stay up on current techniques and technologies. This essay is about and aimed at guys who don't think that their attitudes toward women need changing.
Practice your communication skills. If you can’t think of a way to phrase advice that might be offensive, you are failing in intermediate communication skills.
If you think it might be offensive, ask a close female in your life, your sister, your mother, grandma, etc.
It’s in everyone’s best interest to treat others with love and respect.
For extra safety, if you really think there is a risk, actually record the audio encounter for back up.
If you actually go through these steps for building towards good communication, it’s highly unlikely you would ever have to use the recording in defense.
This happens in the media a lot too (left and right). A single sentence (or even part of a sentence) can be plucked out of an interview, shown out of context and boom - the person seems like a monster. Someone might have best intentions, but not be very polished in expressing them. So why risk talking at all, unless we are 100% sure it cannot be misconstrued in any way? It is just easier to keep quiet. Which results in loss of lively, valuable discussions.
Some comedian (forgot who it was) mentioned that they don't like performing in colleges anymore as the audience is too sensitive. That is the situation we are in.
Well, sure, but then you are displaying a clear and verifyable pattern, and my original point of candor that can't be twisted into sexism remains no? You had to add a separate sexist pattern ("treats men and women differently").
Your point of high level of distrust is appreciated and one of the reasons why I'd never move there (no offense intended, most individual americans I know and read about are lovely people, but this culture of hidden BS is too much for me). But then, this is an issue in general no? Why are people only concerned about women/feminists twisting words against them? Why not christians, or veterans as well? Or men for that point, last I checked the protected group list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group does not specify women, and there are conservative mobs on social media just as much as "woke" ones. So I'm just a bit confused
Can you give some specific examples?
> As an investor, of course I clam up. I spend my days looking at the world in terms of risk-adjusted returns and cost benefit analyses, so why would I take a human capital risk? My entire business is based on my reputation and I've seen what happens to the people who get comments like "not the best with Jews at conferences" ... I can count on two hands the number of Jews I would feel comfortable giving the exact same feedback to as I would a non-Jew.
> I appreciate the effort to think of a better word than antisemitism. My question is, is this even antisemitism at all? How many people can get publicly denounced as “antisemites” and have their life ruined because they didn’t speak carefully enough, before it is simply just “smart” rather than “antisemitic” to be extra careful with how you speak to Jews.
> Imagine what it's like being the intended target and not just "collateral damage". It's not a problem that non-Jews are nervous to be candid but it's a problem that Jews are feeling the secondary effects of that?
Even a single comment made with ill intent I don't think would push me all the way to pursuing professional recourse, not without me trying to 'fix' things on my own first.
> Wasn't most "legitimate discussion" already happening in private already?
Probably, but I think there was still much more interesting discussion going on publicly in years past. It's anecdotal but I've definitely seen a huge spike in how many of my colleagues are retreating entirely to private communities and most of them never make public comments anymore. That's disappointing to me because I think there's a lot of value in having these discussions in the open with respected and accomplished names attached. It also gives a level of perceived accessibility that I think is important.
Putting people at ease around you (especially customers) is a critical entrepreneurial skill.
You can't blame people for being cautious when a lot of people are buying into victim-narratives and convinced to act against their "oppressors".
You are free to not believe me and continue to live your life as you were, I honestly don’t care. Take my statements as anecdata and move on. Just don’t come crying to me when you’re cancelled because of some “fact-based” statement.
It feels like Twitter's user base is much more radical, and the focus of the product on instant public messaging might add fuel, while Facebook's group system generally limits the spread and seems to be more geared towards asynchronous sharing (+messenger, but that's more of a chat, not public).
If you are already invested? I find it's pretty easy as I really am only looking to back people who are open-minded, receptive and coachable in the first place as I hope I am. One of the most common criticisms I make is that someone backed the wrong head of sales, head of growth, etc. and folks almost always hear me out because I can be quantifiable (sales metrics) and bring a solution (someone better).
But when we evaluate how sexist a comment was, it's much simpler to label it as "sexist" or "not sexist". This label loses all context, especially when we share it with someone who wasn't there or otherwise doesn't have that context.
So outside of the fact that sexism exists, this problem isn't specific to culture or Twitter. It's a result of how we interpret, compress, and share reality with each other.
My own experiences with fighting have not given me a fear of men in general, but they have certainly contributed to a caution that I have around certain types of men - in particular, around men who have either an animalistic concern with territoriality and status, a socioeconomic desperation that makes them willing to rob outsiders, or both. I try to steer clear not only of men of this type but also of entire demographics and parts of the world in which they are common.
For example you mention wage, and that's because it's repeated over and over again. But how about life expectancy? Is is considered a major sexism problem? Can we fix that gap?
I agree with your post 100%, we are not judged equally.
In response, you made a bunch of quotes in which you replaced the word "women" with "Jews". I just spent several minutes trying to track down those comments before I realized that you were pulling that trick. I'm really shocked that you would stoop to that.
The flamewar trope "I'm going to replace $group1 with $group2 just to show how $xist your comment is" is one of the most common. Usually it's people on the other ideological side who do that, and often garden-variety trolls. It is a strong marker of cheap flamewar and a good example of how the ideological enemies who perpetuate these flamewars actually resemble each other more than they do anyone else.
Did you figure this from the outside, so to speak, spending time abroad and immersing in a different culture? I've found that most people sort of start noticing cultural blind spots only then.
Elon Musk's advice: Solicit Negative (constructive) feedback.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/elon-musks-advice-to-ceos.ht...
Also, Eespecially for young founders and CEOs, they should study and obtain coaching on how to develop and improve their leadership skills.
Really? Prior to anonymous Internet comments there were even fewer discussions. I think recent years is when we’ve finally began to understand how people really feel.
The words sexism/racism often get confused with discrimination.
He was defending Marvin Minsky, not Jeffrey Epstein. The former was twisted into the later.
It's too easy to say the wrong thing and take some serious heat.
Do you honestly think the situation improves if the discussion is censored here? Whether you like it or not these industry discussions, and much worse, are happening elsewhere and censoring relatively timid discussions like this only makes matters worse. There are 490 comments at the time of this post and I'd bet the vast majority of them are relatively benign.
I'm aware that I have the same biases as the rest of society. I do my best to recognize them, and, where applicable, to add a small mental counterweight before making decisions. I don't think this always leads to better outcomes, but I do think it's a net positive. And if investors act on similar frameworks, they've probably doomed some companies and saved others. The future is unknowable, and we'll never know what would have happened.
I wish this investor had acted out of a desire to be a better person, or a more successful VC, rather than from fear of a mob. I'm not a fan of mobs. But none of us are immune to cultural biases, and we should second-guess ourselves accordingly.
https://www.facingsouth.org/2019/04/twisted-sources-how-conf...
The overwhelming majority of history education leaves out inconvenient truth of vile and anti democratic acts committed in the name of American Capital interests.
Perhaps there is a difference in that is classified as a genre of 'student' or it's a difference in age group (be it older or younger). It's hard to make comparisons across the world :-)
On the other hand, any case where the people that are forming the 'next' generation don't know how the basic principles of their society work is a sad/bad case.
Pre-empted by the abundance of caution described in the article? It's not a very deep game, so I assume the strategy in question is readily apparent to almost any man in such a position.
Wide eyes. Disbelief. That can't possibly be right. With all the people I have watched become HIV+ over the years, it is of course very believable to me. But the data from PHAC is reliable enough, and it speaks for itself. I shouldn't need to make it believable. But of course people are not emotionless abstract rational machines, and that's why I'm doing these sort of talks rather than emailing out memos with charts.
(The good news at least is those numbers are almost certainly coming down with new medical interventions like PrEP, earlier treatment and routine testing, which are my main points these days. I might actually get to be happy with the numbers in the national HIV tracking data when it's compiled for 2021.)
It's unfortunately all too easy and common for people to mistake a divided community for a "putrid horror show", dominated by demons [1] or, as the internet likes to call them, "terrible persons", when in reality most people here just have different backgrounds and experiences from one another [2]. I'm not saying that's the only factor—anyone can scan my moderation comments in this thread to find examples to the contrary (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613942). But I still think the HN guidelines are right to say "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." ...and I think that if you took that guideline more to heart, you might see the bulk of the thread differently. (I don't mean the long tail of trolls and flames—those are always with us.)
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Where as an investor probably has a wider range of experience to draw advice from, potentially having seen companies both succeed and fail.
That seems like an over correction to me and I think that it shows in the push to tear down monuments of great people in American history who were largely products of their time.
For example, it's hard to overstate how important it was that George Washington gave up the presidency. He set the stage for the peaceful transition of power in the US and even the world. But he also was a rich guy who owned slaves.
It's not nuance that's missing, it's the concept of duality.
But this isn't the idea at all, right? Rather, everyone seems to agree it's relatively rare, but that it's such a massively negative experience when it does happen that it tanks the expected value anyway.
this is the way
>Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus[27] as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction; an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis; and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.
I’ve never understood why they are so desperate to be oppressed that they have to invent new categories to be part of then claim to be oppressed when literally no one even knows what they are.
Even when phrased that way, I don't perceive that the author is _blaming_ men. The author is critical of the mob, and the dangers of being incorrectly perceived as sexist and ruining one's reputation. You may insist on your interpretation, and fixate your attention on a couple of sentences that ring the wrong way to you, but I think you are missing out on the nuance.
"Just be cool" is not a strategy.
We live a block from the playground, close enough that I can almost see it from our window, but you can't get there without crossing the street. So our kids (7y, 5y) can only go there with a grown up. I've worked on teaching them how to cross the street safely, but they're just not good enough at checking for cars yet.
This is kind of the end result we're heading for, where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy.
Seems pretty clearly gratuitous flamebait. Oppression hierarchy? We're heading to where nobody can frankly speak to anyone? This is 'first they came', in different words and is equally cheap and dumb.
I think it's true and fair to say that caring more about how people are perceiving you results in drawbacks, and the world we live in where people do watch how their actions effect others isn't a perfect, problem-free world.
It makes intuitive sense to me that sometimes, when we work to raise people up, we do so at some cost to the people who are already at the top. This could be an example of that, I think.
The article was talking about risk. Risk isn't binary, if it was then there wouldn't be a risk...
> minor risk to reputation
I think the article, and at least from some candid comments in this thread, indicate that people perceive this risk as much more than minor. Almost as if not being labeled a racist or sexist or homophobic (founded or not) is worth a few $m lost from the inaction taken to avoid that labeling.
BTW, I am not talking about the actual article. It's fine. I'm merely talking about the ensuing "debate."
I understand what you're getting at though. I just made a claim that people in policy circles are writing things under pseudonyms. You want evidence for this (justifiably), but this would require me to essentially out the pen names. Sorry, not going to happen.
Recently I had a zoom meeting with two women. One of them was a bit shy and quiet, and the other one constantly interrupted me and the other woman. There was nothing gender-specific in that encounter.
Similarly, in other meetings there are often some men who stay quiet (but obvs nobody cares about them).
Possibly we should let shy people talk more. Regardless of whether they are women, men, black, gay or whatever.
Or maybe not. Maybe you need to be self-confident and a bit bold to lead, because if you don't, you won't be a good leader anyways even if you were given time to speak regardless of your sex. I don't know.
Don't look for sexism in every encounter.
// Sorry, this turned into a bit of a rant, but yes, there's definitely a lack of understanding of history in schools these days and certainly some pretty powerful propaganda
Was the architect dismissive of my ideas because I am a woman? Because he shoots down everyone’s ideas? Because he has a specific problem with me? Because my ideas are bad?
One of the greatest challenges I had to overcome in my career was not reading too much into the actions of others. When you do you can easily be offended by everything.
She posted a comment on her social media focusing on this feedback as "criticism" that came from a sexist guy "of course". It was pretty easy to draw the line to the three panelists, one of whom was a guy. Ouch.
In a previous life, I'd worked in a awesome (female led!) product company. While I had no experience prior to this, I quickly realized that the product itself and its quality etc was almost irrelevant to success, the X and Y mentioned by the male panelist was unfortunately everything, which you'd only know if you were in the space itself. The female led company I worked for was bought out by a (male led) competitor, who then using much strong x and y skills - cleaned up. Company I worked for got basically nothing.
Fast forward - my friends business not doing so great, she asks me for feedback. I said nothing other than enthusiasm. Partly because I was really enthusiastic - she'd put her heart into this project. But her comment on social was in my mind - I had no desire to be next sexist guy "shooting down" an idea
She's out of the business I think mostly. Anyways, this parallels the take of the article.
> "If there weren’t both women who made false accusations and an audience eager to hear and magnify such accusations, then the upstanding investors would have nothing to fear about being candid. But, unfortunately, both do exist."
women murdered per capita has indeed gone down, but so have the general murder rate. Men are still murdered far more often than women, and reached the highest ratio ever measured in the last summery by the government agency BRÅ, with around 77% to 23%. I would be careful to attribute such numbers to gender equality, especially since the trend seems to continue upwards.
The statistics for assault and sexual assault has similar complexity. The combined risk of being assaulted or sexual assaulted has been historically similar for both women and men, with assault being more common for men and sexual assault for women. Between 2012 and 2018 there were a major increase in sexual assault, and especially rape after 2015. The reason for this can't really be discussed since it involve an other political hot topic.
It still might be a rapid change that is causing people to overshoot, but it is likely a much harder token to measure. Changes in political power.
I guess it depends on your definition of sexism. Reading these comments, and just general life experience, I believe different people have different definitions of what sexism is. Regardless of company policy or the law of your country.
Taking your definition of sexism I would say every interaction with a woman is a form of sexism. Everyone, at all times, tries to speak to another human being in a way that conveys a message. That manner of communication changes based on social norms. Which, as this article points out, currently seems to be differnt between the sexes.
Generally I believe people do try to "talk to their audience".
One example from my life: if I notice my colleagues have nice shoes, I point it out. If it was a female colleague, I probably wouldn't because of the risk of that social interaction "going wrong".
Someone could point out that complimenting someone on their footware is weird/wrong/shouldn't be done during working hours. If this is the case then I'm not talking sport or politics or local news or how you're kids are doing...
I think the article does a good job highlighting the downside of being hyper-aware of the social situation around a person trying to convey a message to another person, and how that could be labeled as inappropriate.
It's incredibly hard to keep having an open mind, keep trying to figure out "Is this actually constructive criticism or toxic bullshit?" and keep trying to engage in good faith in the face of certain patterns. It's just exhausting. It takes all your time and mental and emotional energy to try to sort it out, which detracts from putting energy into things that will actually advance your career.
You can spend hours and hours wondering "What did he mean by that?" in an exchange that lasted under a minute. And you may never figure it out.
It's vastly easier to just start erring on the side of "You're all just sexist pigs!" Though, unfortunately, that seems to make the problem more intractable and unresolvable, but it makes is a little easier on a day-to-day basis to cope in the face of a situation that is inherently excessively hard to parse and navigate.
One of the best pieces of career advice I have ever taken was from this TED talk: https://youtu.be/KzSAFJBLyn4
The section on Abraham Lincoln. Perceive no slights. It changed the way I approach people at work.
Edit: also, please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post. We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. You needn't use your real name, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613077.
The effects of trying to find the truth show themselves as bi-products that affect culture and society in unhealthy and unforeseen ways. You can never know the intent of someone or why they act the way they do, you can only guess and even that takes a special type of person who feels comfortable enough doing so (reads lawyers) and a framework that encourages such speculation (legal system [0] or stock market.) Speculative systems are toxic and are festering ground for bias. If we want to live in a world ruled by truth and facts ironically the way to do it is not by forcing ourselves to understand something that is not Physics as if it is and by the same methods.
Ignore everything that pops up on these topics if your goal is to create a better society for all.
[0] some legal cases are clear cut, I'm not referring to those.
The Messenger Is the Message: Science Talk podcast, June 2020.
Folks have said this can still be done, but our office was burnt by giving feedback, and the person in general likes to argue with it which is already a drain.
So anyways, no more feedback to folks not hired - period! Luckily this applies to all hires, you don't know at the early stage if someone is in a protected class.
The author is, perhaps inadvertently, contributing to the problem.
BTW, yeah, this is one of my alt accounts.
Oh. My. God. Just ask the person if they want your advice.
It’s the same in the (presumably male-dominated) workplace as it is in anywhere, such as giving unsolicited advice to someone at the (usually male-dominated) rock gym.
Like what do they do if a man falsely accuses them of some trespass?
Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock have stated that they are not willing to perform at colleges. There are probably more, but with smaller names.
So if I preface an opinion with 'X, but', it may not be all about begging for the right to dissent; I may have good reason to think that, without the preface, what I say will signal some beliefs or values that I don't hold. If those things are genuinely hurtful to a vulnerable group, or simply reprehensible to me, then I have good reason to disavow them, regardless of whether I need to do so in order to be heard.
One company I worked for ended up being no different than the good-ol-boy system, except all the men were women -- looking out and protecting each other, figuring out how to screw with employee's yearly reviews in order to game the system for the cabal of women leaders. This was getting to the point that the management chain was vacationing with each other in the south of France.
In one particularly painful case, they celebrated a big cloud move to AWS with T-shirts. The devops engineers who did all the painful up front work to make it happen got t-shirts. When the devops team completely turned over, they left the t-shirts hanging in their cubicles.
You mentioned that this was seen as an exceptional case. It is exceptional. The vast majority of americans are white or male.
You're not wrong about that. But many people face further oppression based on their race, gender, and sexuality, in addition to wealth and class.
Sadly I think it may be for profits, for survival's sake. The media business is very different now than it was pre-Zuckerberg.
And even if one were to believe that that is unlikely too, nothing guarantees that someone else won't think it sexist. For example, I remember some panel with four scientists (three men and one woman) that was discussed in HN a while ago; at some point, someone in the audience (I think she was a journalist) yelled at the moderator to "let her speak"... Even though the scientist herself didn't think the moderator was doing anything wrong.
Please don't post flamebait to HN. Nothing good can come of this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: please don't use HN for ideological battle. You've been doing it repeatedly, and it's not what this site is for. We ban accounts that are using HN primarily for this (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), and your account looks close to that line if not over it.
I've detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613374.
I recently had a conversation where the lady I was talking to basically said (paraphrasing for brevity) "all men bad, always" and I'm really not sure what she even wanted to achieve. Some kind of perceived revenge maybe? I ended up disengaging and it left me feeling rather deflated. If I'm bad by default and there's nothing I can do to change that, why care at all? Luckily I know that most women are much more reasonable so I will continue to strive to treat everybody equally and how I want to be treated.
But I do worry sometimes that even that can backfire, because I've witnessed another situation (on Twitter) where a lady complained that men who didn't get her joke tweet were mansplaining about how what she wrote was wrong, that they were explaining her (purposeful) error to her because she was a woman. Except others replied with their own versions of the joke and they too were getting "mainsplained" too, even though many were themselves men. That is, some people were misunderstanding the joke and commenting, it wasn't anything to do with her being a woman. But she turned it into a gender issue.
So if I want to treat everyone equal, but that equal treatment can be seen as mansplaining or other negative gendered thing, that makes me more likely to disengage out of fear and then I'm not treating people equally, but not out of malice or feeling of superiority, just out of fear...
Its a big problem and I don't know the answer either.
Oxford definition of “sexism” via Google:
> prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex
The definition of sexism seems to include discrimination. What definition are you using?
This conclusion isn't quite there.
In China, foreigners are notionally required to carry their passport with them. I have never actually obeyed that, because it is a very bad idea. And it's never mattered, because although I'm obligated to produce it on demand, that demand has never been made.
It's not because I blend in. Any idiot can see that I'm not Chinese. "Looking like an immigrant" is not sufficient to be stopped by the police.
Agreed same here.
Unfortunately I think the reality will be that male founders may get even more funding than before, which will then lead to a potentially wider gap.
And then the cycle will continue, a misread of the situation as sexism or more accusations of sexism than before will lead to more people staying with the easy choice of being silent.
I'm reminded of that quote, "better to be silent and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove any doubt people have." The same thing is true for investors but with idiot replaced by sexist.
I wouldn’t say this publicly and am saying it here due to a reasonable amount of anonymity (that’s a symptom of the problem).
There are behaviours that are universally toxic and destructive. Sexual abuse, sexual objectification, violence, etc.
These are all behaviours, generally, more commonly found in males. I think a lot of males have understood this and over corrected. This over correction “may” now be going too far.
Little is said about toxic behaviour more commonly associated with women:
Gaslighting, manipulation through victimisation, sexual suggestion for preferential treatment, gossiping, etc.
I think education needs to start early in school about what’s not acceptable.
I have a feeling that’s going to start happening once society realises that focusing only on male behaviour is also to the detriment of women.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
...applies to articles too.
So if we lived in a world were the concept of sexism was not as well developed as it is now, at least here in the US, you wouldn't have this internal conflict? Is this not enough reason to not engage in discussion and encourage others (presumably women) not to engage in behavior that keeps sexism at the very forefront of thought?
I don't think that these universal sort of statements are anywhere near universally accurate.
There has certainly been a shift about what is an acceptable public topic lately, but "anything" is certainly false.
However I believe you can climb the wealth ladder by leveraging your status. For example, you could start a one-person firm that builds or rebrands sites for clients and advertise your firm on linkedin. It'll go viral very quickly: people there will be retweeting your posts because your case fits the narrative.
E.g. I'm sure tourist issues when travelling to North Korea are vanishingly rare, and yet I bet I'm pretty good at guessing what not to do. You can glean that kind of thing from the totality of your experiences and knowledge without necessarily testing it.
That's not to say I wouldn't be over-cautious or that I'd be a perfect predictor, but that's just about the looming cost of a false negative. I don't think it's rationally faulty or circular to just act in a self-preserving and overcautious way.
Some outsider risk takers will use this chill to create new networks and yield some consequent successes.
But yes, doing it safely requires skill.
Right now we're seeing a lot of the "illiberal left" marching through institution after institution, as another commenter said, it will reach you eventually.
It has the appearance of symmetry but I think the first is correct and the second is a very hearty [citation needed] as I have experienced just as much gaslighting and gossip from men as women.
It's well documented that most cases of aggressive sexual violence are men. Is it equally well documented that most gossips are women?
The men are assuming based on the female founder’s gender _alone_ that she might accuse him of sexism.
Regardless of how rational this fear is, they are stereotyping new female founders they’re meeting for the first time based on what an X% of other female founder’s have done in the past.
For the men, it’s probably a risk/reward calculation. Keep your head down and be polite and have ~0% chance of being accused of sexism. Or, speak up and maybe ruffle some feathers and have a ~X% chance of being accused of sexism.
You can see the problem on both sides of the equation, but withholding advice based on gender alone does meet the definition of sexism, regardless of the intentions of self-protection rather than hate.
Far more men get groped than women these days.
Few know/talk about this unless they're doing the groping or an outlier in attractiveness.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613456.
So labelling anything where two genders are treated differently as 'sexism' or 'sexist' I don't think actually matches the modern usage of the word. I think the difference is it's usually used in a negative connotation and the type of discrimination is seen as non-acceptable - for instance most people wouldn't call a girl-band or boy-band sexist because they select their members based on gender, while most would call an employer sexist if they had a generic business and tried to segregate their teams into single-gender teams. Most people still don't have a problem with boy bands (i.e. a male-only-team in a music workplace), thus not sexist, but do have a problem with male-only-teams in other workplaces, thus sexist.
I've held the belief that if a someone can't recognize and clearly identify the differences between criticism based on merits and criticism based on bias, then there is no point attempting to do "what they want," because they don't know how to identify what they want even if they got it.
The second one, which I only use occasionally, is a private Android/iOS app that is very similar to Signal group chats.
I've heard of quite a few others but I don't have first hand experience with them.
I’m not sure why female founders are being portrayed as a different species? They’re humans. They know about sexism. They know when what they’re seeing is sexism vs critical feedback. And they will understand if you express your concerns with that.
My point was if there are many women who are benefitting from men being more thoughtful and careful, then it could be worth it to pay the cost of some women not benefitting, especially if they're approximately at the top already.
I don't think demanding a change be strictly positive for everyone is a fair evaluation of the change.
Importantly the speaker and listener are not consciously aware of this happening. The net result is that you can say literal/plain thing A and the listener can hear literal/plain thing B.
Speaking to Americans requires a significantly accurate modeling of the listener's mind and expectations to be able to be clearly understood, much much moreso than any other language I have studied or even heard of.
Basically, it is very easy to be totally misunderstood when using plain, literal speech (such as is common in Germany or in Slavic countries).
I've written about it: https://sneak.berlin/20191201/american-communication/
For example, an enormous amount of misunderstanding, bad communication and fraught decision making has resulted from the social activist redefinition of “racism” that has gained prominence in the last decade or so. And there are still so many people talking past each other completely obliviously. A richer taxonomy of terms and ideas could help everyone reach understanding.
It seems like the same dynamic as you’re describing in these dialogues on sexism.
Instead of playing semantics by saying that "it is technically sexism" (and I'm not saying I agree with whether it actually is or not), we could choose to at least stop phrasing the situation like that.
Respectfully, this shouldn't be on the person from whom advice is being sought, but on the asker.
"Or better yet, be honest with the female friend that you wanted to advice, pointing out what she had done before and expressing your apprehension in providing critical feedback?"
If someone asked me this, I'd probably think they used hashtags like #redpill or were into bashing Ellen Pao or something. It comes across as, "you can't say anything these days without being offensive, men in tech are soooo mistreated."
Obviously you didn't post the feedback, but I wonder how this was phrased. If the feedback was "improve X and Y", I think I sympathize with the panelist. The feedback was solicited! If it was framed as "unlikely to succeed because inexperienced in X and Y" then I think that crossed a line from critical feedback to a somewhat demeaning comment, even if it was right.
Regardless of how it actually played out, there's a good lesson here that you should be mindful of how your communication is understood. It's not enough to be right, it's important to speak in a way that makes sure what you're conveying is delivered in a useful way.
I've solved this in the past by asking the person if they want a comforting lie or an honest truth. I still provide feedback in both ways but the honest truth path is what is taken by most people who are able to take negative feedback correctly.
Here some random thoughts / observations:
Hiring women because "we need at least one woman on the team because of the quota". Would you like to know you have been hired because the team is forced to have a women and everybody knows it?
Same company. I have received an email that you can "get bonus if you refer a friend that gets hired." Then a list of how much you can get depending on position. Then a note -- "if a woman, the reward is tripled".
Promoting women before they got enough experience. Similar to above. You have been put on a fast track for promotion but you haven't had time to get the needed experience. Everybody knows this (and discuss behind your back) but nobody is going to tell it to you. Now you have two problems.
On topic of feedback, people need feedback to improve, but female developers will not get it. All-positive feedback is no feedback at all because you are nowhere closer to knowing what you are doing wrong. I have personally been doing some pretty stupid things (like taking credit for other people work) until somebody told me and I fixed it. I wonder what would I do if nobody dared to tell I am doing anything wrong, or if my salary or position in the team had nothing to do with how well I am actually doing?
Just because guys can't be hitting on girls in the office doesn't mean it isn't there, but now it is more comical.
Just because people aren't supposed to discriminate women doesn't mean it is not there. Male developers seem to be in large part focused on the fact the words are spoken by a female rather than their merit. I have seen concrete examples. It kinda seems it is still true you need to (at least in some cases) work twice as hard to prove anything, but now male employees got better at hiding their discrimination. I am half decided that maybe all the focus on discrimination achieved is push the discrimination underground.
Discussions quieting down when you show up. Or tame behavior when eating lunch. Guys reminding other guys that a woman is present. Supposedly because it is not proper to behave like that (but it is fine when only guys present?) Imagine this happening every time.
If the man on the panel was really experienced in said domain, regardless of if he was sexist or not, he could have given the same feed back. Especially if he’s really confident he’s right.
I'm admittedly a bit socially inept, but isn't it obviously not this simple? Someone saying they want honest feedback is no guarantee that they will take it well.
But hey, I'm a sexist, racist homophobe who wanted to bring down a woman. Why should anyone want to listen to me when I told them she is a fraud whose only credentials are her genitals?
Interesting. I hesitate to accept your interpretation as the universal one, because my experience has been that there are ways to express these concerns without coming off as a bigot. Perhaps more education, awareness or discussion is required.
This is also why call latency can really destroy the quality of a discussion, even when its presence isn't obvious.
Let's draw a parallel. Most people would consider crossing the street because there is a black man walking towards you as a racist action. Sure, not burning a cross in their lawn racist, but racist nonetheless (it's a spectrum). I would argue that people that do this do so because they are afraid of said black person. Yes, their action is caused by fear, but their fear is caused by racism (i.e. they view a black person as being more likely to be dangerous than a person of another race).
Looping back, I believe you are right that these decisions are fear based, but it is fear that women are out to get you, which is the sexist part. In reality it does not appear that women are more out to get you than men are. Though we likely have a perception bias that they are because of social media. There's the double edged sword of awareness. It can help you solve a problem but it can also increase the problem because it can make you blind to the root issues.
I think this brings us to problems with social media or more precisely sensationalism (which is amplified in social media but far from the only platform that encourages this). These cases are more visible and gives us a selection bias. But I guess we have to encourage good faith discussions (which is a rule on HN btw) through media, which is rather difficult to do at a cultural level. And we don't want to entirely kill sensationalism either because topics going viral has a lot of utility (such as that more women are being open about the abuse that they've received. Yes, this does lead to a higher number of false accusations, but they still are a very small percentage of accusations). It's a really difficult problem but I think encouraging good faith arguments, being kind to one another, patience, and allowing for mistakes are a necessary step to be able to solve this entire issue (which I'm not going to pretend to have real answers). Particularly I think the last component is essential because we need to recognize that not everyone learns the same lessons. If we're going to say things like "everyone is racist" or "everyone is sexist" we have to also allow people to safely make mistakes and importantly be given the opportunity change/fix their behavior. I personally believe if people are not given this opportunity they double down on their ways. It is a coping mechanism because no one wants to be the bad guy.
Huh, and here I was under the impression that you moderated both sides equally.
I've always felt labels such as "female-led", "female-owned", "<insert minority-led>" do the opposite of what they intend to do. That is, they paint a picture that this minority group is not capable enough and need a lot of hand holding so everyone please bias your decisions towards their success to the detriment of other groups.
If that's not enough, currently there are few repercussions for false sexism/racism accusations. I've seen some men lose their career even though the accusations turned out to be a coordinated revenge and were false.
All these together makes dealing with a minority group a lot risky and potentially a headache.
I believe the solution is to keep existing anti discriminatory laws but also ensure false accusations are sufficiently punished/disincentivesed
You threat women exactly as everybody else. See? Wasn't that hard.
...And I'm glad I did, because this article is not what I wrongly expected, and is a good read.
It will challenge your biases regardless of your priors. I feel appropriately chastened.
Enforcing a rule isn’t discrimination. The rule itself may or may not be discrimination.
> Most people still don't have a problem with boy bands (i.e. a male-only-team in a music workplace), thus not sexist, but do have a problem with male-only-teams in other workplaces, thus sexist.
They get the label “boy band” after they form. If they were a mixed gender group (like a workplace) and kicked out a talented female musician because they wanted to be male-only, that would be sexist.
Well, I think that unlike women or bin-binary people, a man wouldn't be able of accusing another man of sexism in his direction.
This will impact society badly for years or decade to come.
Is there a solution, though? How do we work around this?
I think most of us would like to reach a point where none of this is a concern, and we can just get on with working—yet the prospect of a future without sexism almost seems hopelessly optimistic.
Is this just one of those problems that cannot be solved in a single lifetime? Humanity seems perfectly capable of acknowledging its faults, yet it seems entirely incapable of fixing them. Our status page is always set to “Under Maintenance.”
When we encounter technical barriers, we’re good at overcoming them. Recent events have shown that we’re able to overcome medical hurdles in a manner that our ancestors would have deemed impossible. When will we be able to do the same for social issues?
Regardless, we’re talking about social judgements. In a legal setting the burden of proof would be on the accuser.
In most cases I hear of people that claim they’re afraid of giving “candid feedback” to a minority, it’s almost always the case that the person is an asshole when giving feedback IN GENERAL as well. Maybe evaluating your general behavior first, before going all scared of this or that minority group, would be much more productive? The net result is almost always positive.
Edit: I interpreted this as you having been witnessed situations where you felt someone was an asshole, and someone else did too but ascribed it to sexist or targeted. Apologies for the non-fluency.
A simple "Sorry <name>, I cut you off, you were saying?" does wonders and makes it clear to everyone that the next person who should be speaking was the one who got interrupted.
That's not a good yes or no question, because it not only unites two different points together, but also really depends on your definition of global warming, and also ties a lot of other different issues into it. You could for example believe that humanity affects climate to some extent, but still think that it's not bad enough to support environmentalists from economics point of view. You could also believe that this climate change is real, but is not caused by human activity and is just a part of a natural process.
I just don't think that boxing a complex issue into a boolean is a good idea.
So no, you aren't damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Some people would go as far as to say this is a cornerstone of white supremacy.
I wouldn't, I'm not sure how you took that from my comment. I'm saying if I defend my group (eg "not all white males are like that" or "that wasn't sexism, he was doing the same to everyone") it often (in my personal experience) gets interpreted as defending the asshole, by going against the claim of sexism/racism/whatever.
In my personal experience, the chances of any comments on the situation getting misinterpreted as negative are too high. Either you get accused of denying the sexism is real (ignoring that you got treated the same way by the assholes), or you get accused of "well actually...". Sure, sometimes people understand, but the risk is real.
But we can't fix it by doing otherwise—asking people to stop being "overly" cautious—either. Another comment put it best: that solution is akin to asking people to self-sacrifice, except that at the very least jumping on a grenade gets you a medal; in this case, it gets you vilification.
So, this scenario isn't exactly uncommon in the startup world. It happens all the time. But because she's a minority female and her competitor is a white man, it suddenly becomes an example of white supremacy and the patriarchy conspiring to oppress her. The VCs who funded the competitor? Obviously racists and sexists, and she called them out explicitly as that on Twitter.
I considered reaching out to her to offer some perspective, but ultimately demurred. Why? I didn't want to be caught in the wurlitzer. Better to let her make more problems for herself than offer a sense of perspective that could get me cancelled.
If you think this isn't happening, I challenge you to think of a single unpopular thing that you believe and ask yourself if you'd be comfortable expressing that attached to your real name in a permanently recorded medium.
If I'm hyper-paranoid about my statement signaling beliefs I don't hold, isn't that just an indication that people are trying to assume too much based on that "signaling"?
the problems genders face are interrelated, invalidating all men that complain about something just because of a history specifically disenfranchising women will not help your cause
But in any legal setting this will get shut down immediately unless there’s valid proof.
Indirectly: Men should be wary of partnering up with women because investors might see such a partnership as "danger zone" and pass.
I KNOW sexism exists and should be eradicated. Unfortunately the current way of doing things cause lots of unintended consequences for women. I (a man), for one, refuse to put myself in a position where I'll have to make explicit decisions for men vs. women on the merit of their work because there is a chance that if the woman "loses" they'll label me a sexist (they can genuinely feel that way, but I know that my intentions are not towards gender discrimination - unfortunately there is no way to convince her of that if that happens). That means I tend to not work with women, even though I hate passing on people that will do the work well. If they have a history with such activism, it is worse because whatever happens, if they are terminated for any reason, it will most probably be labeled discrimination. If they have a social media following, I'm screwed. So it is difficult. I don't want to pass on them but the potential consequences for any misunderstanding are too large. I don't want to live and work while walking on eggshells.
Without an explanation about which parts people find disagreeable, assuming thats how people are even using the voting system here, I have no idea what the real world consensus is or what they wish for it to be
If the accused also have a powerful position at a company, then that company also faces large liabilities, both reputational and financial. Everyone knows that the costs of litigation in the US are astronomical.
It is less known but equally true that the costs of arbitration (and to a lesser extent, mediation) can be high. Prohibitive for a startup, still painful for a larger company. Which means that all a potential accuser needs to do to get their pound of flesh is threaten litigation, and name an amount less than what would be paid in arbitration.
So our current system, on social media and in the courts, puts a tremendous amount of power in the hands of those who might accuse. And yes, the gender _alone_, or protected minority status _alone_, is enough to set off alarm bells in an executive who has already been burned.
Yes, as a man, sometimes you do have to be careful about how you give feedback to female founders, coworkers, or employees. It's a skill to be developed just like 1,000 other little skills you need to develop be reasonably successful in life.
This same "but men might get in trouble for an innocent mistake" argument was used when women first entered the workforce to decry the unreasonable burden having to work with women placed on men. You still see variations on it today.
Yes, Twitter mobs are a thing and the people who participate in them are horrible. But if you are having trouble giving feedback to women, that is not women's fault. It is simply a skill you need to develop.
Not necessarily. In a social situation, you may be more afraid of what other people will think than of what that one person will think.
If that one person misreads you and hates you, it's not some big career-ending problem. It only becomes a big career-ending problem when a whole lot of other people agree that you doing X is some major issue that "obviously" was rooted in some kind of nefarious intent, such as sexism.
If I was in management, I'd at least consult my HR department about it. Better safe in court.
RMS literally said that its possible that Minsky did not know that she wasn't willing because she was being coerced by Epstein to appear like she was. What is tone deaf about that? It seems pretty obvious that Epstein coerced his victims into acting a certain way.
The post took this and rephrased it as "RMS said she was entirely willing", which wasn't even close to what he said.
> And very little twisting was needed to make his discussion of what really is rape reasonable?
Except he never questioned what is or isn't rape. He didn't even question whether the girl in question was a victim, it was pretty clear that he agreed that she was. He only said that, because of coercion by Epstein, Minsky likely was presented with the appearance that everything was ok, even though it wasn't and that this would have affected his judgement.
Of course, Minsky's wife also said that they were on Epstein's island together and that Minsky did not engage in any of the accused activity anyway. But that's neither here nor there.
There were class action lawsuits that required law firms, law schools, medical schools, and hospitals to accept women doctors and lawyers.
Technology didn't have these interventions so it's unsurprising that sexism is more of an issue than in other fields.
Longer term though, I'd make sure we hire female investors into my VC fund. I'd take them along the journey of investing with this startup, and if I felt a female CEO needed to be replaced with a man, I'd discuss this with my investment partners. Any harsh feedback, if given, would be coming from all of us, and a mixed panel would be harder to accuse of sexism.
And those rumors kill careers, as TFA mentions.
> The risk is still there from the first contact to the last.
This is correct, and that's why this problem is very likely only going to get worse... And the people being cautious still won't be the ones to blame.
> But in any legal setting this will get shut down immediately
Outrage mobs don't need a legal setting to ruin someone's life (or livelihood).
I feel like we're probably not talking about the same thing.
Also, are really downplaying what happened and ignoring the fact that it could have ended up much worse for KP.
> The point here is you can't talk to minority groups about anything these days, if you are white.
You lost me here.
You had one experience with one person and extrapolated that to multiple entire groups.
You should be able to discern how your conversation with that one person was okay and not a "cancelable" offense, and how your comment that I quoted is not okay and could be a "cancelable" offense. Or if that's not the issue, you should be able to see how to have that conversation.
Can you see that I can't tell if you've been pushed to extreme views where you wind up on websites where other people say the same thing and agree with you, or if you all your experiences are segregated like this to the point you would fit a definition of racist?
That was rhetorical.
The point is that your one experience is something fairly predictable but not an area that validates your complaint. There would be a way to continue that conversation, acknowledge the person's experience and how they conflate that with race-based oppression, while also being able to contribute to the conversation.
Regardless of gender, the other issue is if they're crazy or unable to accept feedback, then they may try to make you look bad. It's probably a good idea to socially screen all founders carefully so you know who you're dealing with.
The vocal minority of these twitter feminists have in essence, made most womens lives move difficult because they have actively sought doxing methods of firing people for honest mistakes. They think everybody needs to be perfect and it's impossible for anyone to make mistakes.
Sometimes I get harsh criticism, I can get momentaneously defensive and it hurts a ton but you won't see me lashing back at the person and chances are you'll see me thanking them.
> The impoverished of any race are more susceptible to police violence, and impoverished Black people even more so
is true. But the statement
> Black people of all economic classes are more susceptible to police violence
is also true. There is no logical contradiction between the two. Therefore, when someone responds to the second statement with the first, their response carries the connotation that the first statement is somehow "more true". It implicitly minimizes the struggle of Black people.
Not everyone who makes the first statement in response to the second intends minimize the struggle of Black people, but I think in the majority of cases that is exactly what they intend to do.
It didn't used to be a spectrum and it's a terrible innovation that it's viewed that way today by so many. Racist used to refer to people that believed in the inferiority and superiority of certain races. Only recently has it become socially acceptable to accuse someone of racism or sexism at any sign of prejudice. This is a major cause of the divisiveness in the culture today and if you're doing it, you're part of the problem.
When we talk about people's prejudices it causes us to examine potential solutions in a productive way. When we accuse someone of being racist or sexist, we imply that they're beyond redemption, and we can skip right to hating them and feeling superior about ourselves.
Anyone interested in having good faith conversations should actively avoid labeling anyone or any action as a racist or sexist. The genuine racists and sexists are usually more than happy to self-identify as such. Everyone else, and I mean everyone else, is just a mixed bag of good and bad prejudices that can, with work, be improved over time.
That statement does not seem to be accurate: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nordic-count...
The only way rumors kill careers is if we fear the rumors.
If everyone is giving honest, straightforward feedback, then everyone has a rumor about them and it becomes powerless.
But if most people are afraid and one person gives honest feedback and is subjected to a rumor, the one rumor seems significant.
I guess I brought up the legal stuff because I think believing rumors is silly in general. If you’re actually the subject of discrimination, you should prove it in court for the benefit of yourself and society.
I’m not sure that we’re disagreeing entirely. I do agree with what you’re saying as well. Just hoping we can chart a new path.
Agreed, it sucks. But unfortunately in today’s environment, there are enough people creating social media backlash over well-intended advice that it is necessary. Successful people are taking career and social risks by merely speaking openly to people they do not know. The best way to lower that perceived risk for them, and to improve your odds of getting useful advice from a wider array of successful people, is to present yourself as someone who will not crucify them for trying to help.
The problem is that the story will usually be told by the person who misunderstood the argument, and the other side's defense wouldn't have as much reach. "X is a sexist jerk" will gain way more clicks, attention and support than "I thought X was a sexist jerk but actually I misunderstood and we're all good - nothing to see here".
Furthermore nowadays there are plenty of people out there who love the drama and will be more than happy to keep pouring fuel into the fire, either for entertainment or in an attempt to virtue-signal how "better" they are by (appearing to) care about the issue. Worse, entire industries (social media) happily profit off this and encourage it by promoting the divisive content.
It's exactly this line of thinking that is so problematic. You assumed that the asshole guy was "getting a pass".
It's only sexism if it happens to a woman, therefore the word "feminism" itself isn't inherently sexist.
It's only racist if it happens to someone of color. White people can't be discriminated against by definition. Anyone who believes in "reverse discrimination" is a "racist" who has "too much entitled privilege."
Be quiet and accept the prevailing, correct opinions and beliefs, or be labeled and canceled. There is no debate and there is no discussion because the ideological mafia has already decided what beliefs are proper today. Oh and anyone who doesn't renounce yesterday's micro aggressions should be forced to resign if they don't apologize hard enough four times.
The left is a circular firing squad that doesn't have any loyalty.
I was interested to note something in the hiring page for the company wiki where I worked once.
It said the biggest red flag, an automatic no-hire, was a candidate confidently "explaining" things he didn't actually know. This was a big enough problem to be called out in the hiring policy. Interviewers were on notice to watch out for candidates who claimed to know something, but whose explanations were pure bluffing. Happens all the time.
The feminist literature, of course, refers to this as "mansplaining", except that mansplaining by definition refers to an explanation delivered to a woman. How is it different from the ordinary behavior? Well, it isn't.
1. Criticism is fast and easy compared to thinking up a solution; building the solution; trying to show a solution works; etc. Criticism has the benefit that it can be directed to any sub-part and does not have to, necessarily, take in (or understand) the whole.
2. Criticism is, generally, perceived as "socially safer" than creation. For example, it's easier to say "I don't like X or Y about something" than it is to say "I think that X or Y should be changed to A or B." Proposing the change exposes one to criticism.
3. Criticism, in many ways (thinking of many college courses here), is what folks are often trained in as compared to creation. I think an outcome is that we learn to "see" faults more than we learn to "see" solutions. To be clear, I think folks learn to create in their vocation, but outside of that, necessarily, limited sphere, folks are most often trained as critics, rather than creators.
But this leads me back to my previous comment: this isn't a feasible solution because it means basically asking people to self-sacrifice until the "rumors" lose power.
People need to think about it in terms of incentives, what incentive do I have to try communicating with an incredible mindfulness and scrutiny that I might then fail at. The failure to do so properly could have potentially endless downsides? The default incentive is always going to be avoidance as much as possible. Not because of any desire to be sexist, but because is the instinctive path of least resistance.
We didn't do those things for one venture and a lot of people that would have liked to support or be inspired by us had no idea we existed, never being included on lists
When we did do those things, we got the highest engagement on the articles because half the people would be supportive and mostly members of the same group, and the other half which typically were not of a minority group would argue about why it was mentioned at all
and I have no opinion on that, the outcome reminds me of gullibility? something about how easy it is to play the population like a fiddle, its kind of like setting a glass bottle on the edge of a table and watching what happens
my actual opinion is always remember who is shaking the bottle
Whenever I am asked for advices or feedback I am often in a position where I have nothing to win, I would gladly help and genuinely share my knowledge so that other people don't make the same mistakes or gain a different perspective, but there is a small probability I will lose something (reputation, being labeled a sexist or whatever)
Therefore, pure logical reasoning push me toward "not helping".
I am more lenient with people I have known for some time (even if they are just acquaintances). But for strangers/employees who seek advice, I stay far away from women and only interact with them if another person is in a room, or I am being recorded.
So I did this as usual and offered a hint to the last person (who was a woman) to not see the trick this time. It surprised me when she looked visibly upset and asked me why I was explaining it to her. I'm guessing this is because of her own insecurities that she was worried that I thought she was too dumb to solve it on her own otherwise. Up until this point her gender was irrelevant to me. I only explain stuff because the value of discussing interview problems is to get practice solving and explaining stuff to each other. But now I have to question whether I was "mansplaining" or not.
This minor event bothered me so much I never talked to her about programming puzzles ever again.
Fwiw I upvoted your first comment and down voted the ones talking about votes.
God help you if you ever made the mistake of greeting a room full of people with "hey you guys" in her presence.
The ridiculousness of the complaints escalated until any Slack messages not strictly business related were relegated to direct messages with only trusted people. There were no more work outings, because people didn't feel comfortable. People avoided engaging her at work as much as possible for fear of an HR report.
It made work absolutely miserable.
Effective communication requires effort, but many people speak impulsively and fail to convey what they actually mean. If someone is unable to clearly express themselves without being misunderstood then either their thoughts need to be distilled further or the statement needs to be carefully worded.
If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613161
I don't think I ever accuse anyone of "mansplaining" because I don't think that's likely to be helpful in remedying the problem. But I do think the use case that men can be oblivious to the stuff women are dealing with and can kind of pick on women and can then act like she's just not trying hard enough or something if she doesn't jump on his suggestion as a brilliant solution is a common enough occurrence that it isn't unreasonable for there to be a word specifically for that pattern.
It's a word useful to kvetch to allies about it happening. It's not a word useful to build bridges, explain to the people doing it why their random unsolicited advice to a woman can be actively harmful, etc.
Edit: And I am not trying to pick a fight with you or something. I do realize the context here is you are probably agreeing with me in some fashion. (Turns out I'm still not perfect and I apologize if this reads as fighty. It's not intended to be.)
So, this scenario isn't exactly uncommon in the startup world. It happens all the time. But because she's a minority female and her competitor is a white man, it suddenly becomes an example of white supremacy and the patriarchy conspiring to oppress her.
One consequence is so many opportunities for insight and thoughtful constructive reflection are lost. It's funny to me that under the guise of narratives that supposedly empower women (narratives which have also, as in the above example, been abused beyond their true purpose of calling out actual unfair bias), women are instead holding themselves back and getting in their own way mightily... and they don't seem to realize it? How can so many smart women have such a whopping blindspot to be duped into acting this way and think this is "power"?
I think it has something to do with how compelling and self-satisfying these stories are. You know, the ability to blame everyone else rather than face yourself and take personal responsibility. So, sadly i think, many people just get addicted to this as a short circuit substitute for actually doing the hard work of processing experiences and cultivating useful insights out of them. They just short circuit to feeling good temporarily, sadly prioritizing these fake stories and reasons over getting results.
It seems if a movement was really interested in empowering women it would try to address this glaring structural weakness of the current approach rather getting them hooked on these fake payoffs that don't get them anywhere :(
Sort of, and it's definitely part of the same dynamic. The differences, or at least the points I wanted to emphasise, are:
- I thought you were focusing on people's need to signal their in-group membership and general conformity (sometimes sincerely, sometimes not) so that they might be listened to and not shunned. I was pointing out that the motivation for the caveats can have a less cynical/craven strand: the simple desire to clearly communicate one's true values and beliefs.
- We might be collectively reinforcing this state of affairs without individually doing anything irrational. You say 'people are trying to assume too much based on that "signaling"' -- but given the equilibrium we're currently in, if someone expresses unpopular opinion X on hot-button topic Y in context Z without any caveats, I may be quite right to suspect that their real views are even more extreme, and/or that they come as part of a broader ideological package. If that's not the case, and the person wants to express their actual unpopular opinions without appearing to hint at the other ones, they may be right to add the tortuous preface. If they do so, the strength of the implicit signal sent by those who don't add the caveats increases, and the cycle continues; none of us can unilaterally break it without (on the receiving end) wilfully ignoring implicit meaning, or (on the sending end) risking being completely misunderstood.
edit: also, I don't know if you were implying this is a notably modern/progressive thing, but I think the basic dynamic is pretty universal. Definitely right now in the circles I live in, I'd mostly be afraid of signalling right-wing stuff. And the whole thing does seem to have increased in intensity over the last decade or so. But I see people in the various right-wing tribes being just as conformist, and I don't think it's really anything new. I'm confident that people arguing for less conservative interpretations of the Bible 20/50/100/1000 years ago were very careful to signal that they were genuine pious Christians.
(I don't like this dynamic, by the way. I'm a bit of a literalist, I like to make clean logical distinctions and evaluate each idea on its own merits, and I'm not very comfortable with the world of social signalling and game-playing we all seem to be trapped in. But it's completely pervasive (not only in political contexts) and I don't think people are wrong to read and react to the signals, even though they sometimes do it badly.)
I do believe that in the US sexism is generally one directional due to the intrinsic imbalance in power. There are stereotypes about males, and they are harmful in some cases, but generally because more men have power the harm to women is more pervasive and severe.
Same thing with respect to race and white people, actually.
What you want the world to be isn't what the world is, and in this case it's true, as by law in the Netherlands, various promotional and termination choices are required to be justified by numbers, which is not the case in Anglo-Saxon countries, where employers are more so at liberty to subjectively assess whom they wish to promote, and whom not.
It seems like at some point we shifted from optimizing for “innovate” to optimizing for extracting the existing wealth of the Silicon Valley gestalt, and making sure that nobody unfairly got a bigger piece than anybody else.
Similarly, if someone's background (say gender) results in fewer mentorship opportunities because of the ol' boys club, I'm happy to put in some effort to put them in touch with people.
Self-preservation and self-interest is how every single resistance has failed and capitulated.
And if you’re actually kind, fair and decent to women you will have people who rebut the rumors. A tweet against you isn’t an inevitable destruction of your career.
There is no contradiction between the two, but only one of them is considered socially acceptable in certain circles, these days, in any context. That's problematic.
I don't understand what you're trying to say about sexism or racism because your sentences don't make grammatical sense.
Being the bearer of bad news or unwelcome advice carries social risk, period.
Mob vigilantism does just the opposite. It does not trust the law to punish all who are guilty, so it punishes on mere accusations without concern for the innocent.
The difference between the two may be the reason fear is so powerful here.
Furthermore, beyond the media (whether social media or traditional media - print, TV, etc) industry profiting off it, some people's careers are entirely based on this problem persisting. Dedicated "diversity & inclusion" roles have appeared, even though addressing any issues should be the job of any competent HR department - but now these specific roles would obviously become irrelevant if this problem is solved.
Racism, sexism and general "being an asshole" were always a problem (though the latter is now often - maliciously or otherwise - mistaken as the former) but back in the day humans successfully dealt with that in private, and the police and the law dealt with anything serious enough to warrant its efforts. Nowadays however, it's commonplace to turn it into dirty laundry and air it on social media and wait for the mob to jump in, which also allows false accusations and witch hunts to emerge.
---
I think this problem is mostly specific to the tech/media industry. There are plenty of other industries where racism & sexism are no doubt present, but overall people in these industries seem to be busy working and making money (which is the end-game of work at the end of the day) instead of constantly being offended.
I interpret it like this: On the one hand, there are people (many of whom with good intentions) instantly assuming that any criticism a man might give to a woman is rooted in sexism, to wit, what TFA mentions that investors are cautious about. On the other hand, there are people, also with good intentions, saying that "men being cautious in what they say to women" is also sexism.
Now, I don't know the solution either, but I do believe that a good first step would be not saying that people who are merely cautious (precisely not to come across as sexist) are sexist anyway.
But feedback is important. One of the things that I've learned, over the years (not just in tech -long story), is how to give feedback.
I have made some mistakes, and I rapidly learned that I only get one strike, as a manager, and not even that, if I'm not careful.
I have also been in the position of delivering feedback to someone I don't want to piss off, if at all possible (think green, with spandex pants), but it's vital that they absorb what I have to say.
I've learned that electronic communication is best avoided, when delivering feedback; especially negative feedback. Sometimes, I have no choice, but, for example, if we have FtF meeting in a week or so, maybe that is a better time for me to mention that I need to see a better burndown rate, as opposed to sending an email, or Slack message.
Also, in my experience, I've found that it's important to allow "pushback." This is especially important, when talking to smart, self-driven people. I have had people tell me to go piss up a rope, after giving them feedback, didn't react, and they ended up taking the feedback to heart, after cooling down. Sometimes, people just need to feel they got to say something, and giving them a safe place to say it, is important.
I wonder if there should be a policy where you can only downvote if you leave a comment on it first. And somewhat relatedly I think the policy should extend to flagged posts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Com...
I'd argue that people now are still treating it as a binary situation and not including the nuance that is requisite of a spectrum in determining their response. As an exaggerated example we can't treat a grand wizard who burns crosses on lawns the same as someone who touches someone else's hair. If we react the same then the reaction is not acknowledging the continuum but rather lowering the threshold for the binary classification.
> When we talk about people's prejudices it causes us to examine potential solutions in a productive way. When we accuse someone of being racist or sexist, we imply that they're beyond redemption, and we can skip right to hating them and feeling superior about ourselves.
I think we actually have a lot of agreement. Reading your response I think a lot of our disagreement comes down to diction, not philosophy. When you say
> Everyone else, and I mean everyone else, is just a mixed bag of good and bad prejudices that can, with work, be improved over time
I fully agree, I just use different words because that's the words used around me. Words only mean what society uses them to mean. This is a big part of why I mentioned intention being an important component. I don't view someone that is racist/sexist as being nonredeemable, this includes Neo Nazis and Grand Dragons of the KKK (I know this is an unpopular belief, but it is one I hold). This is part of why I said that we need safe spaces to fail. I do think how we react needs to be tempered and thought out because my goal is to fix behavior, not punish. But if you lump me together with those that seek punishment (I believe this is a minority, but highly sensationalized minority) we're going to have a hard time discussing. Because I don't have major qualms with what you've said and I don't understand how you read my comment as such.
If you dig deep enough, for far too many of them, this amounts to either taking away certain means of speech from people they disagree with, or exercising pressure through getting people fired, or through nasty allegations.
This is exactly the same sort of extra-legal thing which homophobic societies did to homosexuals. It's the same thing that used to happen to Jewish people, even in the 20th century in the US. It's the same thing that used to happen to Chinese in San Francisco, when they as good as let Chinatown burn down. It's underhanded stuff that happened to my immigrant parents. It's not that far removed from unsavory things that happened to me in locker rooms and on the street because of my perceived race or my perceived sexual orientation.
Forcing people to not speak through fear or through unconsented force isn't winning an argument. It's oppression through extra-legal means. It's using exactly the ugliness practiced by bigots of the past. It's what I find that far too many young people advocate, and strangely label as "virtuous." How is it, that people can be like this, then be surprised when there's no societal unity? Does that even make sense?
Principles aren't legalisms to be followed by the letter of the law. They should be reflected in the attitudes and manifestly practiced values of a truly virtuous society.
I've been in plenty of panel discussions where I have offered advice to female founders publicly. I was in a semi-open mentoring session just a few days ago when I did so. In fact, I've been called out in the pas for not being sensitive to women's perspectives. (No twitter mobs, thankfully)
Giving good feedback is a skill. Giving good feedback to people of different races, genders, ages, nationalities, etc is an important subset of that skill.
I simply said that in Dutch decisions of whom to promote, numbers play a greater sway than in Anglo-Saxon promotions; the claim you are attacking is another altogether.
Every opinion has an easily triggered mob attached to it now, so some mob group will target you if you get any attention upon you.
It's amazing how fast the US became a 99% censored nation (either self-censored, mob cancelled, or censored by big tech), terrified, buried under authoritarian & hyper angry mobs desperate to attack other people. It happened within a single decade.
It's going to get a lot worse yet. I used to tell myself that living in the US was worthwhile despite its flaws because at least we had tremendous free speech protections (and most countries do not), and that's no longer true de facto. The US is arguably now worse - in reality, not the pretend notion that free speech still technically exists - than more speech censoring nations like Canada.
I think we're never going to reach an agreement so I'm cutting out.
The last thing I'll say is that there's a difference between this particular situation and historical resistances to oppression: If you were to even call this situation "oppression", it would only lead to further ridicule and ostracism, perhaps would even get most of the few people who might have sided with you to turn on you as well.
Like I said earlier; jumping on a grenade gets you a medal, the people who protested during rights movements are heroes. The ones you're calling now to self-sacrifice would very likely be considered "some more toxic males who finally got their just desserts".
Of course, I hope I'm wrong. In fact, I hope a better solution is found.
As a one-off (or a personal "hack"), the NDA is an offering of empathy. Sharing sincere feedback is hard. Offering the NDA shows that the advice-asker is worried about the advice-giver's well-being. It's nice and genuine, and I hope it will work.
But, this idea seems so GOOD at first blush, that I'm afraid it will become widespread and lose sincerity. Anytime feedback is involved, the NDA appears as legal boilerplate. It's no longer a personal connection built on shared vulnerability. Instead, it's a corporate threat: "If you want advice, we can either be friends or go to court."
I am deeply aggrieved by your clear insinuation that your parent comment is a dim-witted noodlehead.
But distilling an idea can take lots of time. In the startup partner scenario, one want quick, honest feedback and start the discussion to refine the idea.
Holding up ideas from your partner is... Less then ideal.
Personal example. A friend mentioned that a new hire at her work didn't have to go through as much interview training as her, and she was wondering if she should take offense. If she were a guy, I would have said something along the lines of "come on, 'amount of interview training' isn't a real status marker, you're getting worked up over nothing". But I strive to be an effective communicator, so I couldn't just bluntly refute her feelings like that; it'd sound like I'm denying the very real ways that women can be subtly mistreated in the workplace. Instead I clammed up, and she ended up deciding to file an HR complaint, which is unlikely to have a positive impact on her career.
Is there any way I could have told her what I thought without being misunderstood? Sure, maybe, if we'd had 30 minutes to sit down and talk about a bunch of abstract principles. Is there a strategy that would have fit inside the 30 seconds of conversation we had on the topic? I don't think so.
The more you trust somebody the more leeway you will give them in how they can express themselves to you, because you expect them to be honest and you assume that they mean well. You are more willing to interpret ambiguity favorably. From experience this seems to be a rather universal phenomenon. I often determine how I should express myself to people based on how much I think they trust me, and this approach seems to work well enough.
Yes but it's like saying humans live for at least one minute which is true but misleading because humans live for about 80 years. Huge timescale issue that exists despite your caveat.
Your second opinion which I respect is not one shared by experts who study gender roles in anthropology. They cite that the reason why women have more power in modern society is not one made by choice but one made by technology. Women today have greater freedom in our societies because they are no longer held back biological weaknesses such as menstruation as modern technology helps assist them in this endeavor. Additionally, modern society is no longer centered around manual labor so women can gain power without resorting to physical strength.
Keep in mind, this is not MY opinion. This is the opinion of the scientific world that exists outside of both the gender cancel culture agenda or the male dominated mens rights activists.
>I do not subscribe to the belief that patriarchy is biological because there is numerous empirical examples of historical matriarchal societies in places such as South America, Asia, Native American Hopi tribe, Celtic society, Germany and Estonia including in the recorded history of my own non-American society.
You can choose what belief you wish to subscribe to, and I respect your choice. However facts are facts:
Among anthropologists of science within academia there is no question all societies have been patriarchal including the one we live in right now. I am well versed in the anthropological studies on this, very very well versed. Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy
Scroll to "History and distribution" and read the following quote:
"Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal.[59][60][61] According to J. M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer, and Jake Page, no true matriarchy is known actually to have existed.[55] Anthropologist Joan Bamberger argued that the historical record contains no primary sources on any society in which women dominated.[62] Anthropologist Donald Brown's list of human cultural universals (viz., features shared by nearly all current human societies) includes men being the "dominant element" in public political affairs,[63] which he asserts is the contemporary opinion of mainstream anthropology.[64] There are some disagreements and possible exceptions. A belief that women's rule preceded men's rule was, according to Haviland, "held by many nineteenth-century intellectuals".[5] The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second-wave feminism, but the hypothesis is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it was never true.[64]"
I took anthropological studies in UCLA and even the female teacher there outright told the classroom that there are no examples of true matriarchal societies. Also be careful about studies promoted by the feminist agenda as cited by the section above, don't let those articles (they are all over google) lead you astray.
There is a lot of false misguided information on the internet about this topic but if you dig deeply or actually study this topic (as I did) in academia you will find the cold hard truth.
Either way you can still subscribe to your belief despite what the scientific literature has found. Science is not always correct, but be aware about whether or not you're subscribing to that belief because of evidence or because of desire.
Which is long term self sabotage imo, but it is what it is.
The point I am making is not about whether you are racist though, it’s that saying that you treat all races equally is enough to be classed as racist, regardless of your actual behavior.
I don't think this is precisely correct. In the situations like in the article, the issue is that both parties are playing a dance around _what kind of feedback/criticism_ is acceptable.
If I ask you "why might my business fail?", and your gut reaction is "your personal life is a mess", do you tell me this? Even with an NDA, that's _super harsh_ feedback.
(This feedback would hurt me more AFTER the NDA. The NDA would change my expectations around the types of feedback. I'd expect "you're not a good programmer" or "you don't work enough hours to beat the competition".)
But if I _really_ wanted to have my business succeed, that's feedback I probably need from someone other than my therapist. :)
Yeah, that's some great parenting... </Sarcasm>
Intentionally misunderstanding is a tool for accomplishing that goal.
Actually, the overwhelming impression I have of the "US history" in the minds of young people, is summed up by that very sentence. However, real history is always nuanced and complex. I certainly wouldn't disagree that bad things have happened in the name of US power. However, the actual history isn't that one-sided.
And often, it's that one-sided skew which is then used to justify throwing out principles like due process and innocent until proven guilty.
I'm a bit confused, did I not respond in a way that recognized this? It appeared to me as a low quality response that did not actually have anything to do with my comment. I believe the comment vastly oversimplified the problem, which is part of what I'm trying to address, that the problem is complicated and we need to recognize the nuances involved and respond in good faith. To clarify, I do not think a good faith response results in
> instantly assuming that any criticism a man might give to a woman is rooted in sexism
As such a belief is itself rooted in the belief that the only criticism a man can have of a woman is that she is a woman, which I'd argue itself is sexist (and not responding in good faith). As an example we saw this during the 2016 election where people often said that anyone who criticized Clinton was doing so because she was a woman, which honestly is an extremely dehumanizing platform. While there were people criticizing her on this basis (openly and through more careful language) the claim itself positions Clinton as being infallible and thus not human, which is absurd. This is far from a good faith response because Clinton, as any human (and especially politicians/leaders), are deserving of criticism (not that you should be mean about it). So by a good faith response I would expect someone to respond to that criticism instead of accusing the other person of being sexist. But I honestly believe people making such claims are a minority, albeit with high visibility because of the sensational nature of their bad faith responses.
The fact that this sort of dreck isn't widely debunked and ridiculed whenever it appears is kind of mind boggling. Yes, some very bad things happened. But by the same token, the founding fathers weren't B-movie villains doing bad things for the evulz!
The same view shared by myself and my fellow 'intersectional-ists'. I haven't heard of anyone aside from 'centrists' and fascists that adopt a different viewpoint? Perhaps there is a subset of fools on breadtube or facebook, sure, but they are vastly outnumbered.
> Almost as if her terrible politics simply didn't matter because of her identity.
Well then your lenses are vastly, vastly different to mine, and do not match up with both those in modern academic circles (Like, literally just read any new literature covering intersectionality and the introduction of it to communism), those on the ground in protests, and those present in progressive/queer groups (like me). It's worth noting that at the moment there is a huge divide between "progressive" communists, and, well, "regressive" communists (For want of better terms). From what I observed from stalking facebook commie groups, most of the latter are still stuck with 100 year old debates -- and while they have a huge amount of theoretical knowledge, they have no practical contributions to any revolutionary movements thusfar. For example, most of the discussion I observed was focused on rehabilitating Stalin's image, whereas most of the 'on the ground' antifacist-aligned folks are of the mind that that isn't really something modern communism should waste it's time on.
I would suggest at least reading some modern intersectional writing, if only to better understand the thing you're arguing against. The basic focus of intersectionality and how the systemic abuse created by late-stage capitalism impacts specific groups differently (The 'intersection' of those groups and the oppression they face), and how movements (even revolutionary) to improve conditions have backfired have been around for at least 60 years if Tony Cliff's 1978 writing "Why Socialists Should Support Gays" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1978/08/gays.ht...) is anything to go by -- at least if you will give me the small leeway of temporarily ignoring how controversial Tony Cliff is as a figure in Communism.
If you are in search of one of the progressive communities I talk of, Something Awful has recently (last 5ish years) turned into a very leftist-heavy place, with frequent debate about neoliberalism, capitalism, etc. You will be able to ask questions there and receive answers and engage in productive discussion.
'Disease and Disaster' (Debate and Discussion): https://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4...
And 'C-SPAM' (The politics subforum): https://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=2...
Are both good places to talk about this with progressive, mostly-intersectional communists. Just take note a lot of the thread titles are in jest, you should navigate to the last five pages and pick up context as you go (A lot of the threads have been running since 2016!) and espousing neoliberalism in an annoying way is a swift path to a probation :)
My guess is the person you replied to doesn't realize these shows are fiction and doesn't' realize he or she is in a information bubble. However I know nothing about that poster so could easily be mistaken.
I didn't think it was; it seemed to me a succinct summation of what calling the behavior in TFA "sexism" leads to: Ultimately, regardless of what he does, a man will be considered sexist by someone.
Or, to put it another way, calling the cautiousness we're discussing here "sexist" can itself be considered a bad faith position.
> But I honestly believe people making such claims are a minority, albeit with high visibility because of the sensational nature of their bad faith responses.
I'm not sure what to say to this: I agree, of course, but I don't think that's the point. That minority can and has killed people's careers and thus, we have the cautious behavior mentioned in TFA.
This is sort of true. I'll talk about the aspect that is true. What is true is that men are an order of magnitude stronger than women on average. What isn't true is the violence part. Women are actually more violent then men and the reasoning is simple.
It's because men are stronger will do more damage if they get violent so men have a tendency to hold back. I don't know if you dealt with women a lot socially, but when women get frustrated they're more likely to pound you or push you with their pathetic little fists. They often have much less ability to control themselves.
This is supported by statistics: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-mo... which should be taken with a grain of salt as violence from women against men is highly highly under reported.
The caveat here is that when it comes to actual damage men do far more greater damage, meaning that when a man actually does decide to lash out at a woman the damage is far greater and the crime far more severe. Outside of specific studies the severe crimes are the only ones that are reported. However, make no mistake, within studies that account for this bias, the numbers show women are more likely to be violent. In fact even those "territorial" men you talk about actually literally hold back when there's a woman around. There is no equal treatment here.
>My own experiences with fighting have not given me a fear of men in general, but they have certainly contributed to a caution that I have around certain types of men - in particular, around men who have either an animalistic concern with territoriality and status, a socioeconomic desperation that makes them willing to rob outsiders, or both. I try to steer clear not only of men of this type but also of entire demographics and parts of the world in which they are common.
Have you had much encounters with women? Even in dating and going to the club practically every aspect of their lives is centered around safety and caution. They rarely go out alone. Always with another man friend or with other groups of women (three at least) and when in bars or clubs even women who are strangers are always watching each others backs.
This is despite the very true fact that Men are actually much more likely to be the target of violence from other drunk men then women are when going to bars or clubs. The fear women have is biological and inbuilt as valid defenses for the more savage hunter and gatherer era. It is currently an outmoded standard of behavior that is no longer as relevant in modern society. But biology is biology and we are slaves to our biology.
Additionally it could be that women have these defenses because the consequences are much more severe. While a man is more likely to suffer from a violent attack from other men and women then a woman herself would, if a woman should get unlucky enough to suffer from an attack the consequences are extreme. This would be an argument in favor of your point of view, but still in support of the fact that women behave this way because of biology not reasoning. The biology is just an "reasonable" evolutionary response to the environmental pressure.
I don't know that it's not being taught but the attitude seems to be that a person who owned slaves shouldn't have their accomplishments and contributions acknowledged or that those contributions are taken for granted.
It's better to focus on trying to do good, to keep learning and adjusting.
"who would willingly attack themselves to prevent their own abuse of the power they've newly gained? Only a rare few, I doubt that will change."
Of relevance - the "least privilege principle" in computer security involves designing the system to prevent itself from doing anything which it isn't outright required to do. It involves the host of a service to even lock themselves out of as much potential access as possible (for example via end-to-end encryption).
All power is fleeting.
All power is contextual.
Any one who tries to deny these truths, is attempting some manner of deception to further their own power at someone else's expense.
Even if the gender of the accuser has no effect on the probability of the person accusing someone of sexism, it has a massive effect on the probability that such accusations are believed and weaponised by the public / mainstream media.
It doesn't have to be always, it only needs to be once and then your career is ended.
One can't possibly guarantee that every founder (female or not) knows that, and in fact, TFA implies that many don't. So the possibility that at least one of them will think the investor sexist for giving feedback is unfortunately not zero. And, of course, this option doesn't seem to consider the possibility that even if the founder takes the criticism at face value, someone else might not.
In light of that, the third choice you present seems to be GP's second choice after all.
It's really the fault of the media, school and everyone else who pushes the unnuanced narrative that everything must be judged thru sexist or racist lenses. In that climate where our shortcomings are someone else's fault because they are by default inherently sexist or racist, this is what you will end up with. And so those who could help avoid at all costs any possibility of being viewed though that lens. Ergo the clamming up.
So we end up with people who don't practice critical skills, though they have them, and believe the narrative unreservedly because they have been taught this way. It's lose-lose for us all. Men lose, women lose and American society loses.
Once you see one person behave like that, a very easy trap to fall into is to think that everyone who is concerned about even vaguely similar things is trying to do the same thing, even if their concern is fair/reasonable.
At that time the abolishing of Racial Segregation was already old news and happened at least 5-6 decades before the internet. If this was an overshoot you would think the overshoot would've happened after Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and not on some random time period 60 years later when the internet just happens to be 2 decades old.
It’s often not even about personal responsibility. Such as the example responding to, it’s just a case of a harsh dog eat dog world. Many well deserving people miss out due to that reality and simple bad luck and I think it’s also important to learn to be able to accept these cases (which can be really hard to do).
This is the very opposite of nuanced.
We'll simplify down to three elements: the serialization process, the communication medium, and the deserializatiom process.
The serialization process is our speaker. How well can we represent our data in a line protocol? Do we lose fine details, maybe data types get converted? Do things get entirely mistranslated, like a zero value becoming a null? A speaker can do a poor job converting their thoughts (data) into words (serialization format).
The medium is how the data gets exchanged. Maybe details are lost (again) via headers being stripped, or sourced getting over written. People can lose a lot of information based on medium as well, in particular text based communication, different cultural context, or just a noisy room.
Finally, there's deserialization. No matter how well formed your line protocol, how reliable your medium, the receiver can have a library that incorrectly decodes the data. Ints can become strings, zeros can become nulls, formatting can be lost.
So, as you said the speaker is responsible for being thoughtful and careful, but even if they are the listener can get the wrong message due to their own flaws or even just circumstances. And that is leaving aside intentional misrepresentation, which is a problems unto itself.
This makes me sad, but it is exactly what I would have done. My life is built on avoiding anything awkward or uncomfortable. And...that's not working for me anymore. Thanks to a mental health professional, I'm working on embracing these "problems".
If I had your experience today, I'd come up with a plan to at least clarify things. I'd probably start with a slack message. Maybe something like:
> I'm sorry.
> When I talk programming puzzles with <person>, we have a routine of the first person to solve waits a short while and then shares the answer.
> I like that system, as spending 45 minutes to come up with the "trick" usually isn't fun for me.
And then see how the conversation goes. I'd expect 70% something with the feeling of apology-accepted, 20% being told that mansplaining is a pattern of mine, 5% things getting very personal/real/vulnerable, and 5% wildcard. Maybe the estimates are wildly off. I'm still new to being honest and real. But today-me looks at those odds and says sum of awkward + fear isn't high enough to beat the expected value of the conversation.
Being a CEO or entrepreneur is not easy for anyone, but victim mentality doesn’t make it any easier for yourself.
Sexism exists and affects both genders. Imbalances in power mean the effects of sexism are generally felt more by women than by men. The narrative that men cannot understand or recognize sexism, or have an inferior ability to do so, is not supported by the facts. It is also harmful to overcoming the problems of sexism by men toward women.
I hold a similar view with respect to the relationship between racism and white people.
It is treating people differently based on the damage that they can do to you. Generally a woman accusing you of being sexist is will do more damage than a man doing the same (not universally, but usually). So while the outcome is equivalent the decision is based on the very real threat, not the gender.
Not everyone that you speak to is objective or level headed.
Maybe they're low-sugar and crashing. Maybe their dog just died.
You have absolutely no way to prepare for all of the ways someone will be ill-equpped to handle their day. And this is probably a high percentage of people at any given time.
But we can't afford a society where everyone treads on egg shells.
This article is actually a very strong argument for diversity in boards.
Regardless, I do believe you aren't properly weighing the cost/benefit or risk/reward properly in public v private situations. One can have all the skills in the world, it isn't going to get the risk to zero. And if the reward is little, it doesn't add up for many folks.
I'm not a public person so I'm speculating.
There are many types of founders out there but two stand out: those who do a lot and don’t really sell themselves, and those that sell all the time but never execute (you see them posting. lot of pitch competition wins, necker island visit, private jets, etc) . The former you can see year over year chugging along, iterating quietly, making sure unit economics work, etc. The female founder groups have many people who have been clearly iterating on their projects for years, trying to bootstrap and not have to ask for permission, because it never comes or it comes with bad terms. Then just ask how many of them have seen competitors raise millions on a promise and the floodgates will open. The competitors have a lot of confidence and usually little to no experience or genuine insight. Not sure if that needs to be called or sexism, because Dunning–Kruger makes a lot more sense. The problem is when investors buy it.
On Clubhouse a few months ago, a well known investor said the pandemic has leveled the playing field between charismatic bravado driven founders and those who have execution strengths (the charisma doesn’t do so well via Zoom). So now investors who interview entirely online get to ask more substantive questions and not be swayed by confidence as much. Not sure how much that lasts during reopening, but one can hope.
I see the latter as a mere symptom of the former—that is, the angry mob is a side effect of the rampant discrimination. It’s certainly not limited to tech, although I’m sure each industry experiences it differently.
> Nowadays however, it's commonplace to turn it into dirty laundry and air it on social media and wait for the mob to jump in, which also allows false accusations and witch hunts to emerge.
Perhaps, but that all goes away if discrimination is eliminated from our culture. And make no mistake—it’s rampant. It’s not specific to any single industry or country.
What’s curious is that although the specifics of any given case of discrimination are often disputed, there does seem to be a general consensus that it’s an issue. We might not all agree on what constitutes discrimination, but most of us acknowledge that it’s a major social issue for the entirety of humanity. Yet, despite this acknowledgement, we’ve never really found a solution other than, “educate people and wait a few generations.”
We’ve found ways to combat pandemics in ways our ancestors thought impossible. We’ve found ways to travel to the moon. We’ve found ways to communicate instantaneously across the world. Yet imagining such a casual solution to social issues seems to be naïvely optimistic at best, delusional at worst.
Who will be the Gutenberg or Pasteur of our social revolution? I’ve come to expect amazing things from humanity; I’m sure we can pull it off again.
There is a nonzero risk in any social interaction that involves giving critical feedback. The way you manage that risk is by investing in healthy relationships, not by perceiving literally half of humanity as being too risky to be worthy of critical feedback.
I’m not quite sure what to say to you. Living life involves risks. It sure seems like one of those risks is being deliberately amplified to be used as an excuse to “not even bother” with female founders.
If that is the case, then it doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s impossible to create unambiguous statements. What we’re talking about here is complex conversational speech, especially in regards to sensitive topics that people feel strongly about. And specifically, we’re talking about the usage of such speech in everyday interactions, in which words have to be formed on the fly at a rapid pace.
All of the highly capable women I know seem to be exceling.
Wise moderates don't even join the conversation on social media. A wise decision for an individual, but it's harmful to all of us collectively. One negative side effect is people assume that everyone is an extremist of one stripe or another.
The article says they don't get corrective feedback not because they're seen as too weak, but because it's too risky to give criticism, since it can be misinterpreted (or misrepresented) as sexism.
When life sucks and things go wrong we often look for something to blame on days when we're not at our best.
People who have experienced mistreatment because of some general characteristic have an easier time finding targets to blame "racists!" "sexists!" "-phobes!" unreasonably for their problems. We're all unreasonable sometimes.
If I'm having a shitty day day and I'm not a racist myself... I don't really have easy generalizations to blame for my problems so I have to find more nuanced ways to be unreasonable. (and yes, I have had bad days full of unreasonable accusations to blame for my problems, they just weren't towards some hot topic issue).
There is this issue where movements to empower and unify have a tendency to shit to blame and divide. It's a tough situation.
Was that a right guess?
Sounds like it is, in fact, a thing.
I mean this is how I read it, but again, I thought it lacked nuance. Someone is key here and ties into how we respond to sensationalized perspectives. I'm advocating for more nuance and being more careful in interpretation. Such as not treating the term "sexist" as being a binary position. I would, and am, argue(ing) that interpreting the word as a binary classification is only detrimental. It in itself is a bad faith response. But we have a problem that "sexist" means different things to different people. While one may interpret my usage as such, I believe that there is sufficient information in my several comments that I am not using the word as such a classification (even explicitly stating so) and this is where I draw contention with the responses I'm getting.
It should be apparent that responding to me as if I am using such a binary classification will give me the impression that one simply skimmed and responded thinking "oh you're one of those people." I'm actively advocating for reducing this type of response, because I think we'd argue that binning people is far too common and leads to many of the problems (in fact, binning is the root of this entire post, thread, and conversation). This is why I'm saying that the damned if you do, damned if you don't is a false dichotomy as (as I stated in the original response) the actions are not equally as bad. It matters "how damned" someone is. My entire thesis lies in a continuum.
> That minority can and has killed people's careers and thus, we have the cautious behavior mentioned in TFA.
Maybe I can be more clear in my response to this. I am saying that how we are responding to sensationalized content is feeding into this behavior. We need tempered and thoughtful responses, not knee jerking emotional reactions (we don't have to be void from emotion). I don't think it is enough to just complain about these people, but that we are perpetuating this system by clicking, retweeting, liking, and pushing these comments into the forefront of our conversations. That minority has killed many peoples' careers (some justified some not, but we're presumably discussing the unjustified cases), but the reason these (unjustified cases) careers have been destroyed is because of public response and selection bias of what majority opinion is. As an example of this Speedy Gonzales was canceled because complaints/fear of ethnic sterotyping. But it was later brought back due to League of United Latin American Citizens noting that he was a cultural icon that was seen positively by Latin American viewers. It is a clear case of letting the minority's opinion overrule that of the majority. I believe that if we let people that are looking for problems dictate what a problem is then we'll only have a race to the bottom. I do not believe the people responding to me and downvoting would disagree, and that is where my confusion lies.
* Age (why do older people always assume their prior experience in stone-age computers informs modern age computing? Sometimes it does, but often it doesn't)
The contra case is: amazingly large number of truisms found in the 50s 60s and 70s hold true today as well.
* Experience (why do experienced people always assume you can explain things to inexperienced people? Some things have to be experienced to be understood)
The contra case is that some uplifts can be done, and don't have to be experienced. But how to decide which ones?
So this men clamming up thing can be at least two other reasons for holding schtum: Maybe its not about mars/venus but is about age and experience concerns?
Are they, necessarily? This could be entirely up to expected value and cost/benefit. Right now, current day, on average, the amount of power and attention wielded by a woman making an accusation of sexism is far larger than that which would be wielded by a man. This gender skew in outcome causes the cost/benefit calculations made by advice givers to also be gender-skewed. As a result, women get one cost/benefit calc, and men get another.
The problem is precisely systemic societal inequality and sexism. It's sexist to automatically value the word of one gender over that of another. However that is essentially what our society does in this context, made worse through social media's amplification of the mob mentality. It's this amplified societal gender skew which is the problem.
The way out of this is to value and respect evidence. The way out of this is due process and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The way out is through principles which we know can counteract the evils and dysfunction of the mob, which we have known and codified, and whose value has been borne out by history, since nearly a millennium ago. Only this time, let's apply these gender neutrally.
Suffice it to say that I don't think you're on as solid intellectual footing as you think you are.
I have stairs in my house, too, by the way. SA has always had a pseudo-leftist bent, even when we were passing around videos of 9/11 set to the tune of Benny Hill. I have a few photoshop friday entries, in fact, if that's still a thing. D&D is the self-absorbed, ego-driven SA analog of stoners marveling over their own hands at 1am at the local Denny's. No thanks.
Fair enough. I'd only tell if you were a good friend and even then it would probably take a drink or two at the pub.
I'm agreeing with you.
Which leads me back to GP's point: there are only two choices. I take it that you're saying that the risk of the second choice can be ignored if taking some steps, but the consequences remain the same, and GP didn't speak about the thresholds or ways to improve the odds. He only mentioned that the risk exists and isn't worth it for him, and you disagree, but that's not much to go on.
> I’m not quite sure what to say to you. Living life involves risks. It sure seems like one of those risks is being deliberately amplified to be used as an excuse to “not even bother” with female founders.
Conversely, I'm not sure what's being implied here so I don't know how to reply.
For what it's worth, TFA isn't saying that investors aren't bothering with female founders. They are, but are being careful with the feedback they give.
ETA: Forgot to mention, the way you're suggesting investors to "manage" the risk not only doesn't remove the risk for investors, but it also leaves female founders at a disadvantage anyway: male founders can get critical feedback right away, female founders have to wait until a rapport is built.
Or maybe, it's the double-whammy? They second-systemed you and ghosted you and clammed up all at the same time?
I have experienced sitting in an international research workshop hearing my work played back to be by a PhD student. They're going to be first-to-file because they got peer review and in a commercial research domain, I didn't bother validating my idea properly in the peer-set. It was a lesson in dotting the I and crossing the T if you want recognition for prior work.
The dominant view on social issues swings like a pendulum. When one extreme falls out of disfavor, there is a shift toward the other extreme.
I hope that one day we can settle on something sane. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.
I do not exaggerate when I say that the amount of meaningful advice I've been given since I adopted this technique has increased 5x.
Another perk--due to my vocal policy on this, I had an autistic colleague tell me that I'm the only woman he feels comfortable working with. He struggles to read social situations, and he frets that women will interpret his bluntness as him being dismissive or "mansplaining." It made me very sad to think he's missing out on good relationships with so many talented women in our office, just because of this environment of fear. But he's a wonderful friend and colleague, and I am so happy to have his advice and support.
As they accomplish their goals the moderate extreme membership drops out and the median voice moves ever towards the radical. "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain" sort of thing. I'm not trying to say that about any specific movement, but it does seem like the "hero" aspect of many movements is on the decline.
The mob mentality itself supports this theory; a genuine effort to solve discrimination would involve respectful communication in an attempt to understand the problem, iron out any misunderstandings and change minds; but this is not what we see - instead we have witch-hunts, partly because the mere appearance of being human towards the "enemy" would cause the rest of the mob to turn on you, but maybe also because there isn't much willingness to actually solve the problem, or maybe even because there wasn't actually a problem if you drill down into the details?
This reminds me of Daryl Davis, a black man who attended KKK rallies in an effort to understand their racist opinions and change their minds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis - that is a genuine effort to solve a problem, which unfortunately wouldn't be possible today because you'd be attacked by the mob for attempting something like this.
> Perhaps, but that all goes away if discrimination is eliminated from our culture.
I'm not sure this will go away; if certain people (or even entire industries) benefit from outrage they will happily find something else to be outraged about.
> We’ve found ways to combat pandemics in ways our ancestors thought impossible. We’ve found ways to travel to the moon. We’ve found ways to communicate instantaneously across the world. Yet imagining such a casual solution to social issues seems to be naïvely optimistic at best, delusional at worst.
The difference is that there is a major upside for solving these problems and little to no downside. I'm not sure whether mob/outrage/SJW culture will ever disappear instead of just digging even deeper for things to be offended about especially when money or virtue is at stake.
It shouldn't matter if you are pro-Trump if a bunch of people are being anti-Trump in a wildly over-the-top way and you want to point that out. Or vice versa – if you're surrounded by Trump loyalists and want to point out that something he did you disagree with, you shouldn't have to say "I love Trump but...", you should just be able to say "This is dumb, he shouldn't have done this".
The problem is that we've polarized everything to the point where this isn't very feasible.
I, cis white guy in the bay, was hired as a consultant to help build out a product and was pair programming with a woman founder & new engineer and made some passing comment about the CSS quality not being "ideal" or something of the sort. This was later brought up as something that they interpreted as some kind of sexism which completely caught me off guard and put me in a very awkward position of having to respond to that and explain that it was just poorly phrased, not sexism.
In the grand scheme this was very minor situation, e.g. no managers, HR, or social media involved, just between a few people on the project, but it's something I'll never forget and had colored how I interact with women going forward.
Basically I just want to avoid that ever happening again because if you're on the "No I'm not sexist" side of the argument, you've basically already lost in how society engages these days.
I don’t even think it would be good to require a private explanation when downvoting or flagging. In my experience with other services with user-generated content, negative feedback signals for community driven moderation are very valuable and most users never give them. You want the process to be as streamlined as possible. You can give more weight to feedback from more trusted users, which HN does in a transparent way by gating the flag and downvote options to accounts with more reputation.
To be clear, I think the comment here is a good contribution. There’s a lot of passion about this topic and the system seems to break down somewhat.
I suffer a bit from imposter syndrome, so I completely get what the GP is getting at, it was just phrased ambiguously.
Here is a disambiguated version: "Imagine what a privileged, entitled, overconfident, upper-midlle-class cishet white dude would do, and do that."
When you speak, people pay attention! Comic books pander to your adolescent fantasies! Your doohickey is the greatest thing since sliced bread! In fact, it's the greatest thing since unsliced bread! You're a frickin genius for dreaming it up! Your LoMoSo strategy is going to make billions for you, the few early employees that don't quit, and the VC that you choose to let invest! You're making the world a better place through scalable fault-tolerant distributed databases with asset transactions! The world is your oyster, and everyone who laughed at you in high school is going to be sorry! Bwahahaha!
Er, ahem. Pardon, got just a little carried away there.
Anyhoo... that advice has nothing to do with capability, talents, skills, or accomplishments, and everything to do with self-promotion and attitude. If you don't toot your own horn, who will?
>Becca: What are you doing here? I figured they’d have locked you away in the psych ward for good by now.
>Scott: Nope. And what are you doing here? You haven’t killed off all your patients yet?
>Becca: Only person in this hospital I might kill is standing right in front of me.
>Scott: Be careful, I’m armed and dangerous picks up a central line placement practice set menacingly
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/23/friendship-is-counters...
Not only did these kind of conversations make the company a more fun place to work, they also made it easier to speak critically to each other, because our critical feedback didn't seem like a big deal in light of the daily ribbing. There wasn't a lot of corporate BS at that company either--maybe not a coincidence.
I imagine there are other things you could do, like curse frequently, if you wanted to broadcast that words don't easily upset you. But telling jokes seems best if you think of one.
White men can and do blame sexism and racism for their failure to advance all the time, and have been doing so since the day when overt discrimination in their favor stopped being a near-universal norm.
EDIT: of course, the audience that is favorably predisposed to such complaints is very different to the ones predisposed the same way toward claims from other groups, but it is very large and socially influential.
> her having more relevant knowledge of the problem space (by her own estimation)
That sounds an awfully lot like, "We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong."
I rarely try to rely on my own estimation of my knowledge, because I know I can't be objective.
What happens if someone Googles the pseudonym? Or tries to contact it? Do they use an anonymous email address or just not allow it?
I always assumed that was the point of the document to begin with.
I feel like "giving into the fear of being labeled" doesn't fully capture the risk involved. For many people that labeling means the end of their career, or at the very least a lot of personal and professional embarrassment, plus a big negative mark on their record. I have a hard time looking down on anyone too hard for giving in to that fear.
It is irrelevant that the majority does not actually think this way.
What is relevant is if there is a vocal minority who has power over you and your career that does. And any of the majority who steps out of line in opposition to this power structure individually gets destroyed.
You seem to be mistaking your desire for fair and righteous social dynamics for what actually is today: a Kafkaesque environment perpetuated by fear of anyone speaking up and then becoming a target for the mob and ruination.
Maybe you don't believe this, or maybe this isn't your experience, but take it from many of hundreds of commenters here, this article, or countless stories just like it that this is very real and justified fear.
So I go back to my first reply: to stop casting people into a binary like I think we both want, better not to throw such loaded words at people and instead analyze their behavior on a case by case basis. Fighting the word itself is prescriptive at best, and language tends to be descriptive, AFAIK.
[Though that's not AFAIK intended as a defensive strategy against reputational harm, rather as one against the dangers of lust].
I have experienced encounters which as a stereotypical white tech-bro I can only chalk up to me being an asshole, not having enough tact with people and/or tech skills for that particular domain, but could equally be explained as racism or discrimination if I was part of a protected class.
I don't have a problem with people being offended by the way, I have a problem with this self-reinforcing positive feedback loop of virtue-signaling our industry seems to be in.
This is worsened by many people doing a poor job of providing said feedback, for a myriad of reasons: because they never learned how, because they were never in an environment conducive to doing so, because they flat-out just don't care, etc.
Not to mention, there's also the fact that some pills are just straight-up hard to swallow. I've had to choke down more than a few of those, and it took a long time for me to develop the maturity to do so productively.
An NDA doesn't fix any of these problems.
I think the difference for this particular case is that the people who have to stick their necks out are the people who generally don't have much to lose if the resistance fails. (Obviously this isn't the case for the larger discussion around combating sexism, where individual women bear the brunt of the risk, but for this particular advice-giving bit, it is.)
You /can't/ communicate without euphemisms, and trying to will always fail and make you seem like a dick even though you're just being straightforward. That is likely where the difficulty you've experienced comes from.
(For context, your exact situation occurred this weekend. I was invited to an event and said yes, but both me and my friend knew that I would not attend)
Question: Would we, on average, expect an outrage mob response of the same size and magnitude when a man makes such an accusation? Whether or not this is justified by historical injustice is irrelevant here. What's salient is whether or not there is a gender skew.
If there is such a systematic and large societal gender skew, then we should expect people's cost/benefit calculations regarding the exposure to the risk of such accusations to also be skewed in a way that is large, systemic, and gender unequal. In a word, the way our society works around accusations, current day in 2021, is itself highly sexist.
Therefore, if we don't want systematized sexism, then we have to eliminate gendered skew in these cost/benefit calculations. We already know the mechanisms for the way out of this. It's codified in various legal systems, and in the values of historical liberal societies and philosophies. They are called respect for evidence, innocent until proven guilty, and due process. When society applies these principles gender neutrally, the gendered skew in individual cost/benefit calculations will even out, on average. Society will have eliminated another form of sexism, and the world will be a better place.
When one says "believe women" somehow in preference to believing men, this is a contributing factor. To avoid the gendered skew, it would be obviously impractical to say, "believe everyone." Hence: respect for evidence, innocent until proven guilty, and due process. Applied gender-neutrally, this is our way out.
In short, the tremendous power we've given mobs based on accusations not-requiring evidence is itself highly sexist, and this distorts our society to also be more sexist.
It isn't natural, it's part of the culture.
The worst I've seen was so bad that when I refused to interrupt, I waited 45 minutes without an opportunity to speak and then the meeting was over. Literally a 45-minute chain of people interrupting each other. That's not natural, that's adapted behavior.
Fortunately, it's a rarity at my current place of work :)
All it takes is a few bad apples and everyone else will adapt and interrupt as well.
I've noticed this trend where people started to accuse each other of psychological trickery a lot. I think it descends as a "defense" from that. I was never really sure of how many psychological games were really being played and how much people just reached for the terms to use as dismissal from criticism.
The phenomenon isn't something created by the media and deployed into society. The origins of cancel culture and most of this outrage come from extremist leftist elements from students in college campuses. The media just made the spreading of this phenomenon faster.
You can't really blame social media either. Because we control what goes onto social media. We're responsible for the news on our social feeds.
Isn't receiving what was intended as corrective feedback as though it were sexism a sign of weakness?
If you believed the person you were giving corrective feedback was strong enough to take it in stride and learn from it, there would be no need to worry.
It's just a bit of a stretch to think that a VC not giving her money must be because he was thinking "oh, she is definitely more competent and knows more about this space than this other founder, but because she's a woman I'm going to cut her out and go with the other guy."
I didn't call it a lie, but yes, that's what I was requesting.
In that circumstance, I believed things would ultimately work out, but my confidence was faltering. I needed to hear my own belief in an outside voice whether that person believed it or not.
I didn't actually need his belief. I already had my own. I just needed him to voice it.
I can't pretend to have any idea what that's like. However, I do know what it's like from the other side, wondering whether the things I say will be misconstrued as prejudice and whether any bad experience I have with someone of a difference race/sex/etc will be used to label me as a bigot.
I don't think I ever thought differently of anyone for their sex or skin color as a kid. Now I'm so worried about offending people that I force myself to be hyper-aware of anyone with those kinds of traits that differ from my own. Maybe it's easy for me to say from my position, but I'm not sure how we'll ever come together so long as we keep highlighting those sorts of differences.
And like many legal outcomes, just being accused is its own stigma. Someone accused of murder but then later (let's say objectively, truthfully, correctly) found not guilty will expect to face social discrimination and alienation. It's not right, but it's unfortunately how people operate.
Additionally I wonder what other corruption has occurred in productive systems because of these Identity Politics that have been raging to the foreground recently. And finally are these minuses outweighed by the pluses of said politicking?
Rule #1: Always ask people if they want feedback before you give it. Do it for men, women and non-binary folks. If you can, give hints about the topic ("hey, would you like feedback about your skills alignment with the problem?").
I've always been amazed at how much better feedback is received by anyone when they've explicitly agreed to hear it.
And as this article points out, the zeitgeist of the moment is the presumption of guilt, so any accusation of being an *ist comes with tremendous consequences, and people are understandably fearful of that.
What you're observing that this creates an unfortunate vicious cycle: the fear of persecution for an accidental offense leads to disengagement which disadvantages the very people who the disengagement is meant "not to hurt."
This isn't a new observation.
MLK said: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction ... The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation." [1]
I think this is where the extremes of "wokeism" and "social justice" miss the mark. When the mob is rallied to punish and seek vengeance against those who have done wrong, it can become a witch hunt.
To Dr. King the path to victory over oppression was through forgiveness[2].
"Here then is the Christian weapon against social evil. We are to go out with the spirt of forgiveness, heal the hurts, right the wrongs and change society with forgiveness. Of course we don't think this is practical. This is the solution of the race problem."
In the hypermedia era I honestly don't know if calm, civil discourse is possible. It certainly isn't profitable compared to the level of engagement driven by outrage.
But I think if we wanted to take the next major step forward it would be wise to look back at how much progress happened during the Civil Rights era, and specifically to understand how and why the progress was made. Can we imagine applying Dr. King's words today, to seek to understand each other, to identify wrongs done intentionally or unintentionally, and then to forgive each other for past mistakes so we can do better going forward?
[1]: https://mlk.wsu.edu/about-dr-king/famous-quotes/ [2]: https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/mea...
When my sister experienced sudden cardiac death in her twenties, 8 months pregnant, for no apparent reason at all, I desperately wanted someone or something to blame, because anger was easier to confront than the earth-shattering grief. Anger feels productive. It feels like something may come of it, and that glimmer of hope that if you just channel the anger in the right way, you might be able to affect the bad thing that you're actually powerless against is extremely appealing.
I didn't have the option of anger, but I wished for it desperately at times. Ultimately, I'm sure I grew more confronting the reality that sometimes really awful stuff happens for no reason at all, and there's nothing I can do about it, but I wouldn't wish the learning of that lesson that way on anybody.
The issue is that women are, well, individuals. Who knew? Some like direct honest feedback. Others don't. The same applies to men. Perhaps on average women prefer the more gentle approach rather than the more direct one, but in the end it all comes down to the individual.
The problem with a lot of these debates, IMHO, is that they're framed as a group/gender debate ("men vs. women") centred around statistics and averages, rather than as an interpersonal conflict. I have definitely been the target of "mansplaining" by more than a few men, even though I am a man myself. I'll readily believe this happens more often to women, and this is an issue, but that's an average which doesn't necessarily say all that much about the social interaction you're having right now.
Interpersonal conflicts happen all the time. Between men and men, between women and women, and between men and women. There are loads of reasons for this; mismatched expectations, misunderstandings, lack of empathy, cultural differences, or just plain personality conflicts. It's part of the human condition.
But once you start framing all these things in a context of sexism it becomes tricky business to get it right. Being accused of assholery is one thing, but being accused of sexism is quite another. No matter what you do, sooner or later you will do something wrong because we're all just blundering through all social lives making tons of mistakes all the time.
A few years ago I attended a (local) programmer meetup; one women made a presentation I quite strongly disagreed with and we had a decent discussion about it. Afterwards I realized that perhaps I came off as a tad too strong (this was also quite recently after I moved to the UK from The Netherlands, which has quite a different culture). Live and learn. I don't think I did anything wrong as such and would have voiced things pretty much the same if it had been a man, but I was afraid that it was perceived as "mansplaining" by either the presenter or some of the attendants. I don't know if I was, but it's certainly possible.
It's hard... Unfortunately a lot of the more, ehm, engaged people on this issue seem quite unwilling to listen to men about this and learn from their experiences. This entire thing is really hard and if we're ever going to fully resolve this everyone needs to listen to everyone else. Men need to listen to women, but women also need to listen to men.
This is very naïve. For this to work, either people would have to be omniscient, or some karmic mechanism is ensuring that "justice always prevails." Let me assure you that neither is the case. I know this, because being different and being a minority, in various times and places, was enough pretext to let people attach falsehoods to you, and have it widely believed. We know this from false accusations in the Jim Crow US south. I know such things from my personal experience.
However, those mechanisms aren't the only ones. No-one is completely immune from such accusations, except for fleeting periods of extreme popularity and societal goodwill. A lie will get seven times around the world, before the truth laces its boots. This, too, I know from personal experience.
The question is this: Do we want mob mentality to be the arbiter of justice? Nearly a millennium of jurisprudence would firmly tell us: NO!
What's more, the mob mentality is clearly sexist! And it's the mob's sexism which is the root of the problem. On average, isn't there a much stronger mob reaction from a woman's accusation of sexism over a man's? It's this difference that gender-skews the cost/benefit calculation. This difference is itself sexist.
Justice doesn't come reliably from the mob. Instead, what we get is bias that results in more sexism. Funny that.
I've met people who treat any investor as a part owner and will listen to them as best they can. Then there are those who treat any investor as someone who is graciously being tolerated.
So if anything, maybe having to be on your guard all the time will help people learn what it is like to be a minority and can then understand why it is helpful to at least be somewhat thoughtful in how you treat people of diverse race/gender/cultural background.
Yes, absolutely. Men do that all the time.
- Joshua/WOPR
edit: clarified provenance to the best of my ability.
In other words, unconscious bias.
I mean, all of that is true.
Nobody thinks that the founding fathers were B movie villains, only that they were overwhelmingly a set of people looking to maintain and increase their power leveraging their ability to own people like cattle, and steal land from the people who were already here as an economic concentrate and multiplier.
Treating them as infallible gods who were uncompromisingly dedicated to the public good holds our country back from what it could be.
I'd recommend An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard as a introduction into how the constitution was designed to reinforce the power structures holding up the people who wrote it.
Indeed; I couldn't agree more. Although I'd like to add a note to this which complicates things a tad, namely that almost all men are stronger than almost all women.
I have met exactly one woman in my life that's physically stronger than me. I'm not especially strong, about average, and I'm already stronger than >98% of all women out there.
The sexual harassment you experienced was, mostly, without actual physical danger. While certainly inappropriate, frustrating, and wrong if things really escalated in a way you didn't want you always had the option to just stop them from doing whatever they were doing. A lot of women on the other hand don't really have this option.
What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the framing of the choices involved as just the two is misleading and not at very useful. Not sure what you're trying to imply by going through the pedantry of demonstrating that what I said is "actually covered by the second choice". If that makes you happy, let it be so, its a false dichotomy.
> Conversely, I'm not sure what to reply to this. It seems to me like you're implying that the people who are discussing this are "sexists looking for an excuse", but that sounds like an uncharitable interpretation, so I might as well ask if you could clarify what you meant by this.
I stated a possibility for why the people are behaving in the way it has been described. The reasoning given seems to be "some women founders may interpret it as sexism", which to me seems like an uncharitable interpretation.
I am trying to point out that this only makes sense to an audience of males. The reason could be equally viewed as "some men investors do not want to deal with women founders", which is another uncharitable interpretation.
> For what it's worth, TFA isn't saying that investors aren't bothering with female founders. They are, but are being careful with the feedback they give.
The article is very clearly stating that investors are withholding from giving the kind of advice that could decide between whether the company succeeds or fails. I would actually say that's worse than outright rejection to work with female founders, as investors play an important role in filtering out bad ideas and convincing founders of good ideas.
The answer to this question is yes.
I've returned every wallet I've ever found and I've never taken any money from them. Doing so poses no risk to myself. It's very easy to stand on your high horse and criticise others but after you've been in the situation of being accused of something it changes your opinion on certain things. I hope that you never have to deal with it.
the sad part is something like this thread; where half [majority? like before Reddit hit critical mass] the people can/do understand what the difference is between, say, trolling and a dialectic or stoic whatchamacallit, and those that don't/can't.
as i think this thread seems to generally agree, those that can't then resort to this rhetoric you're talking about. you can see the same echoes in things like socialism and fascism. general bigotry. the backhand of misunderstanding.
where it really gets messy is when you have University graduates who can't understand these 'tropes'/dynamics/straight up logic getting opportunities ahead of an uneducated person that CAN understand those things, simply because they have that degree. it comes from the same place where racism and sexism are valid. where it's invalid you get this blame game. it's the hammer and the nail. those who can, do. those who can't, say... the Germans must have a word for this? man i wish i was more articulate cause i think we've all [as in hacker news minded type people?] got the words for this on the tips of our tongues. so much so that even out most basic know it's coming [the civil war chatter].
They claim male investors give more candid feedback to female founders they are familiar with, because they are not worried about the female founder calling them sexist on Twitter.
Depends on the quantum of risk.
I'll make someone unhappy at most but the truth will help them? Sure.
I can be labelled as sexist and it might end my career? Hard nope.
For the US as a whole? No way! If it were true, the economic might of the South would have overwhelmed the North. The opposite was true. Slavery held the South back, economically. You've been fed some propaganda lies, there!
You can't even get slaves to reliably do high value-add work which requires attention to detail, even on pain of death. It turns out that to do this sustainably, you pay them bomuses. This was especially the case in the US South. Certainly the Germans found this out as well, in the 1940's. (Through failure, in that case.)
(Skeptical? Read yourself some books by distinguished African American economist Thomas Sowell, then get back to me. He used to be a Marxist, then became disillusioned and started debunking their lies and deceptions. Think about it, if slavery were some miraculous universal engine of productivity, wouldn't startups be doing it?)
Treating them as infallible gods who were uncompromisingly dedicated to the public good holds our country back from what it could be.
Sure. However, throwing out certain principles which make our society great will hold us back and throw us further backwards as well. Instead of being told the truth about how civics really works in the US, students are being propagandized against this.
For those perceived as belonging to a privileged class, people feel free to (and in some cases relish in and are socially rewarded for) voicing their sexist opinions. A man has a lot less reason to dwell on whether a particular interaction was sexist against them, because when it does happen it is often overt.
You can both recognize and encourage minority groups while persecuting racist crimes.
In the US, there are some men who will say that to a woman who wouldn't say the same thing to a man giving the same performance. Most women have experienced this at least once (watch someone criticize u fairly). So, some women will assume criticism that is happening in a sexist way when it isnt.
I've observed both many times - sexist criticism by a man (which would infuriate me if I were the woman), and a woman assuming that criticism was sexist when it was fair.
We also have a generally less blunt culture in the US.
Albert Camus, The Rebel
Even if it were a case of unconscious bias, though, that doesn't mean she should be on Twitter accusing of him of committing collective violence against women of color by choosing to fund a white guy instead of her.
So if we're communicating with words meaning different things (which is extremely common but unnoticed) then we have to be careful that we don't lose meaning on the assumption that someone's message can only have one interpretation. We have to recognize the embedding problems and limitations of language to effectively communicate.
Would you describe this person as "racist" against Russians? I don't think a reasonable person would apply that label. I think they'd say they're responding rationally to the specific circumstances of their immediate situation. That sort of behavior shows no inherent animosity to Russian people in general.
(And before anyone cries foul, I'm not in anyway saying sexism accusations in 2021 corporate America is anywhere near the same as the KGB. I think that should be patently obvious. The reason I picked this specific example was to stretch the underlying logic to a situation that's clear enough to be cut and dry situation.)
So, one important criticism of Theranos, which was made at various points starting very early on, was this:
"If a substance is present in the patient's bloodstream, you still won't be able to detect it unless it is also present in the blood sample."
Theranos was always offering a product that was not even theoretically possible. Blood samples must be large enough to contain at least one molecule of whatever you're trying to test for, if it's present. When that's what you start out with, how are you supposed to "take criticism as a way to improve"?
Do you think a slight or partial interpretation of sexism (even if misconstrued completely and therefore a false interpretation) will be treated with this nuance and proportionality you speak of by someone who wishes to publicize and cancel as described in this article?
The entire point here is that whether 9/10, or 999/1000 interactions with women go exactly or even better than interactions with men, it ONLY TAKES ONE to literally ruin your life. Get it?
Because of this, the natural defensive reaction is to avoid interactions and conflicts altogether, out of abundance of caution.
Is this sexism? Who the hell cares! Peoples livelihoods are on the line! That you would care more about your little intellectual exercises and nuanced view of the "isms" means absolutely nothing compared to putting bread on the table, or not, for most people.
One could even say this makes you privileged to even think they should care about this more than protecting themselves and supporting their families.
SW VII (2015) – $2,068,223,624
SW VIII (2017) – $1,332,539,889 <-- loud complaints by "YouTubers"
SW IX (2019) – $1,074,144,248
The downward trend is honestly pretty extreme. Of course you can blame this on fatigue, yet if you do the same analysis with the Marvel Avengers films (which have not had the same "too PC" criticism directed at them), you will see the opposite trend towards the story's climax.
You can also look at the Star Wars films that are not part of the new trilogy: Rogue One and Solo.
Rogue One came out in 2016, after VII and before VIII. VIII was widely considered (especially by the YouTubers you refer to) to be the most egregious re-writing of Star Wars lore, establishing (as the argument goes) the main character as a clear "Mary Sue" (ridiculously over-powered character with no flaws) and otherwise shitting all over established canon in the name of "subverting expectations" (in the director's own words). Meanwhile, Solo came out after Episode VIII, and focused on (I would say) the male-favorite character in all of Star Wars, devilish rogue Han Solo. So I think the reasonable expectation before the release of either film was that Solo would be the more likely to succeed. But again, Solo came out fresh off the heels of Episode VIII, the main film that received most of the backlash you claim is "fake". I will let their respective Box Office numbers speak for themselves.
Rogue One (2016): $1,056,057,273
Solo (2018): $393,151,347
Australians never had to fight for their freedom from the British, we were given it. In fact, the British Empire offered the self-governing dominions – of which Australia was one – effective independence in 1931 (by the Statute of Westminster), and it took Australia 11 years to actually accept that offer, which just goes to show how eager Australia was to be independent.
You read the US Declaration of Independence, and you'd think that life in Canada and Australia and New Zealand must be absolutely horrible, and yet the actual experience of that life is that it compares favourably overall to life in the US. You can point to some things those countries maybe do worse than the US does, but you can equally point to other things those countries arguably do better. (And a lot of that comparison comes down to personal value judgements about how much priority you put on various pros and cons.)
Some of the complaints in the US Declaration of Independence are really quite pathetic. They complained about cultural rights for French Canadians ("For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province" is complaining about the British allowing French Canadians to keep the French legal system, which they viewed as important in preserving their culture). They complained about the British government imposing limits on European settlement in Native American lands. Some of their examples of "tyranny" were arguably good things.
Of course, the British were bad, in a lot of ways – colonisation, slavery, genocide, theft of land from indigenous peoples – but can you really argue that in those ways the Americans turned out better? If you want to look at slavery in particular, the British Empire officially abolished slavery in 1833, it took the US another 32 years (and a terrible war) to reach the same outcome. I think it is likely that if the American Revolution had never happened (or had been a failure), the abolition of slavery would have reached the American South earlier. So was the American Revolution then really about freedom?
If Americans are finally realising that much of their national mythology is unbelievable, is that a bad thing? I wouldn't say that Australia has no national mythology, but I feel like it is a lot thinner than America's, and maybe that's not a bad thing? Maybe the thinning out of American national mythology is something to be welcomed?
She was in a tech forum where a woman was complaining about her experience at a company. It amounted to this woman having a perception that she was not being valued as much as a male colleague and was immediately jumping to the conclusion that it was sexism. My wife jumped in and suggested that from the sound of things, it sounded like there may be some other things going on that this person could work on and that it may have nothing to do with sexism etc..
The other people in the forum, including men, crucified my wife for those statements. This along with her daring to suggest in other women in tech forums, groups etc. that not every piece of feedback that is not positive is sexist led her to be banned from several women in tech organizations. Many would not even tell her why, but if they did it was for "being harmful to women" and "suffering from internalized misogyny" among other things.
Given her experience alone, not to mention other things we have all seen in the community none of this is surprising to me. Ironically, one of her concerns when she saw the "micro-agressions" etc. trend take hold, beyond the fact that she felt it was trying to fix one wrong with another, was that it would lead to this...and here we are. [edited for clarity]
Incels badly want attention from women, but the way they act basically guarantees they will never have what they want. No self-respecting woman would ever want someone who blames them for all their suffering.
Radical, toxic feminists badly want success, but the toxic behavior they display will ensure that anyone successful and smart will do their best to stay away. No self-respecting businessperson would want to do business with someone who, given criticism they don't like, might turn on a dime and call them a horrible, sexist, patriarchal monster.
You can't have it both ways IMO. You can't say I'm a strong, independent woman, in control of my life, but any time things don't turn out the way I want, it's the fault of sexist cis-white-men. The world is not a fair place, you don't always get what you want when you want it, and sometimes, that's nobody's fault.
So it's come to this. People making accurate and pragmatic calculations on real-world cost/benefit, without malice, are making these decisions. What's amazing, is that it's largely the effect of the outrage mob itself. Let me explain.
Answer me this: On average, does the outrage mob give as strong a response to an accusation, regardless of gender? Whether or not this is historically justified is irrelevant here, just whether or not such a bias or skew exists. For the sake of argument, let's say that such a bias exists in the outrage mob, and that it skews very powerfully in favor of accusations by women.
Well, given this circumstance, accurate cost/benefit and expected outcome calculations are going to skew by gender. Women, on average, are going to present a much higher risk of bad outcomes from giving candid advice.
In this way, the sexist, gender-biased reaction of the mob, combined with its outsized power, and the fear of accusations that damage without evidence, is itself distorting these individual decisions. In this way, the sexism of the outrage mob is causing a societal gender-skew which itself results in even more sexism.
In my school days, we were taught the dangers of the mob mentality. We were taught that the mob too easily generates injustice, even evil and horror. Now, we are presented with another situation in which the mob generates more injustice: specifically more sexism. Go figure.
Instead of this mess, how about some gender-neutral due process, innocent until proven guilty, and respect for evidence?
I absolutely use this technique, although I'll admit it's more of my natural goofy personality versus a serious effort. I'll often say things to my (all male) team mates like, "Hold up, repeat that for the dumb blonde please" or "If you really want that promotion, I can give you some makeup tutorials." I also refer to myself as "the team mom", since I'm always baking sweets for the team and mentoring our shy new grads.
All this jesting is really just a humorous way of me saying, "Hey, look, I'm the only girl on this team, but let's not turn it into an awkward elephant in the room. We may be different, but I know we all have mutual respect, so let's not be weird about it."
I have a phenomenal relationship with my team, and I credit a lot of it to this goofiness. It's hard to be guarded and worried about accidentally insulting someone when that person is saying far more insulting things toward themselves (even if it's obviously in total jest.)
And in an odd way, by turning those sorts of things into a joke, it's also subtly reminding people that attitudes like "she just got hired because she's a young blond" aren't appropriate. People don't make jokes about totally normal, benign behavior.
So it's a win-win situation: I'm surrounded by people I have wonderful relationships with, and those people are subtly reminded of what's work-appropriate behavior through goofy, sarcastic conversations, and not cringey trainings.
I assume there’s a spectrum, but I also think the public view is very distorted by who gets amplified. You can’t get tenure or get your op-ed published in the NYT writing about how being a minority in the US is fine and people are pretty nice.
Straw-manning. The important parts are in the US Constitution and comprise the important core principles, particularly the Bill of Rights. Australia is pretty decent, because Australia is pretty comparable in that regard. The rest is a boondoggle, and frankly not worth responding to.
Maybe the thinning out of American national mythology is something to be welcomed?
Not if it's a veiled attack on the principles. I'm not against lampooning the Founding Fathers. However, let's keep an accurate account of how they furthered certain universal principles. Let's not throw them away, and somehow declare the US is filth from top to bottom. It's clearly not. It's clearly got a lot going for it, just like Australia.
The Dutch cultural tendency to be very blunt is probably not helping your case.
I'm leaving this comment in hopes of being personally helpful to you as an individual and it's probably foolish for me to do so. It would probably be better for me to say nothing, but it's just kind of a pet peeve of mine so to speak, so I am doing it anyway.
I'm curious to hear what I'm downplaying here. We're talking about a very rare case where the individual making the accusation had the wherewithal both to file a lawsuit against the company and to write a mass market book that got tons of publicity. And the company won the lawsuit and is doing just fine. Doesn't that mean the risk of real, actual consequences is vanishingly small?
Not really. We have a responsibility for the effects of our actions. There is a practical limit to how far we can take worrying about those effects, but that doesn't mean the responsibility goes away.
The same is true for considering how different audiences will interpret your words. You have a responsibility do take those interpretations into consideration but there is a practical limit to how far it can be taken.
However, I believe the listener shares some of the responsibility to consider other (possibly more generous) interpretations beyond their initial reaction.
If both parties do this, is is remarkable how quickly disputes get resolved. If neither party does this, a conversation accomplishes nothing.
With female its the potential unknown predictability that causes the fear.
Australia's constitution doesn't have a Bill of Rights.
And why focus on the Constitution over the Declaration? The Constitution wasn't even adopted until 7 years after the Revolutionary War was over.
> Not if it's a veiled attack on the principles.
Which principles?
In many cases, those who criticise America's founding fathers do so, not because they reject worthy principles, but because they see the contribution that those men made to those principles as being overstated.
Background - I'm actually on the left a fair bit. So one issue - you are not supposed to really ask minorities / women to explain / teach you / help you deal with these issues because it in fairness burdens them. I'm not looking for that either.
In terms of my colleague who I'd mentored in past (before things had gotten more extreme). I think others have made good suggestions - do you want some suggestions that may have already been made (it's never truth really - just another persons guess) or comfort.
That's why the Soviets failed, their incentive system totally doesn't work for majority of the individuals. Individuals are not to fault here as in there.
The scenario you paint is uncomfortable - only because there have been a fair number of situations (music and elsewhere) where the white person really has raked in the cash off a minorities good idea.
Luckily my friend was the competitor trying to compete in a market much more crowded than she perhaps realized.
The real problem is the cancel culture. That's what needs to be fixed. A twitter mob shouldn't be able to cause as much damage as they do. There should be laws preventing people from being fired because of social media. Maybe everyone who's ever been fired or had negative career consequences due to a twitter mob should get together and bring on a massive class-action lawsuit. Force twitter to fix their toxic lynch mob problem, and let that be an example for any other social media company that wants to capitalize on harmful gossip and mob behavior.
It was basically as part of scoring of ideas. I think in the weaknesses box the panelist had noted lack of experience / plans with respect to X and Y. So while I would make a suggestion, this was probably more in critique space.
The issue was more - unless you'd been in the space, you wouldn't realize that THIS issue was actually perhaps very important in the products success. Since I'd been a part of a business that had gotten TROMPED on for a similar set of non-product issues - it hit home.
Yes, we want to have control over destiny, and depending on the negative event may reserve anger at creation or things and beings within it.
However, what the GP and GGP are referring to are intellectually avoidable. It’s mainly there because of social indoctrination and its effect on reason and judgement. Especially the young who are impressionable and believe these things uncritically. It’s sad to say, but they’re being taken advantage of by these charlatans.
It’s really not serving them. Long term it’s untenable, medium turn, people, thinkers, influencers, interested parties make some money on this.
It was the computer WOPR who said this in the WarGames movie.
Because the Constitution — in initial form, the second adopted plan of government — represents more than the freestanding propaganda of the DoI, but real experience-based thinking about how to balance principles in tension with each other in practical government.
I asked them what their boss was (female) and their bosses boss (female) and til a few months before, their bosses bosses boss (was female and recently changed to male). Was not a happy look I received.
And 100% there is sexism/racism in workplaces but in my small bubble of the world it feels a reasonable proportion of people put these kind of excuses on their lack of progression over looking inward, but I've tended to work in more progressive environments so maybe I've missed what the wider world is like.
Never heard that one before. Sorry for the tangent, but is this a reference to the CIA’s “Mighty Wurlitzer”?
I was really sorry about Mulan for example, because it's one of my favourite cartoons, and I was really really looking for the movie remake. They made it politically correct for the US and cut out all the sex scenes and humor because of the Chinese government. I think it's one of the worst remakes of all time at this point.
You are painting an entire gender (or the majority) with really broad generalities, all under the premise that gender based discrimination is overrated and exaggerated?
But even presuming that you are right, it still means it's on all of us to stamp out whatever discrimination exists from our industry, especially those of us that are straight cis het white males. So that each of us can be treated on our merits, including those of us who risk being accused of discrimination rather than facing it.
Each of us should absolutely be able to give completely unfiltered constructive feedback to our female and minority peers, and if anyone has any questions or doubts about whether they can do so without concerns of impropriety, that is not is not the fault of the woke or feminists, but that of our privileged arrogant predecessors who have created this status quo in the first place.
The fact that I, as a straight white male have to be careful with feedback is a FAR smaller cost than ACTUALLY having to face discrimination I never have to imagine seeing.
Keep in mind, cartoonish levels of either are no longer present. What remains is frequent and constant micro aggressions driven by unconscious bias that the offenders may not even be aware of. Each individual example is easy to dismiss and explain in other ways. But in the aggregate, this adds up to, and drives people all the way out of the industry.
The fact that the wolves would be out regardless of the veracity of the claims, and that there is no viable avenue for recourse here aggravates this.
Wrapping this up as "sexism" is the same kind of logic that gets you the removal of women-only sports as "sexism".
The old form of it was “avoid occasions of sin or scandal”.
I personally haven’t found this to be the case. I’ve often found that starting out with an apology leads the offended to be much more receptive to what you have to say next. Best case scenario the person you are apologizing too isn’t offended at all and tells you so. Worst case scenario the offended uses your apology as justification that a wrong was committed in the first place. Thankfully I have only ever encountered either the former or people somewhere in the middle.
Co-advisors should be on an equal footing in terms of the power dynamics. They can discuss amongst themselves any advice that they feel might be obstructed by biases and should be able to do so frankly. If others in the advisor group agree on the advice, then they can then present their advice as a group rather than as an individual to the person they are advising.
At that point it doesn't matter who the person is breaking the news. The advice comes from a group of diverse people and is then far more defensible against accusations of sexism, racism, etc..
Most recent example outside of Reddit subs catering to neo-feminists that I can recall is this one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MaliciousCompliance/comments/m7f4ln...
Not the literal exact quote, but a fine example of a story about, somebody treated the new hire intern disrespectfully, where the comments go in that direction. Oh wait, it was a woman? Well it definitely must be sexism! Downvote anyone who expresses doubt. It's not like men ever get disrespected and told to sit down and shut up in roles like new hire intern.
Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. That's the last thing we need on top of the flamewar we already have here.
Please let's not make this about a specific group. That way lies flamewar, and I can assure you that cross-cultural misinterpretation is a huge problem here in all directions.
Thank you for pointing this out. You’re absolutely right on this one, and I would retract my suggestion if HN allowed me to edit the previous comment.
The new lesson: If you're a woman with magic powers you can overcome sexism and become great.
Doesn't it? I might sneeze and inadvertantly cause a typhoon in Malaysia through the butterfly effect but I can't possibly know or predict that, so how can I take responsibility for it? What does "responsibility" even mean if it's practically outside of your control?
I would argue that the limits of our responsibility are defined by practical limitations. We can't take responsibility for accidental negatives, any more than we can take credit for accidental positives. If you tried to account for your entire impact on the universe, regardless of the practicality, you'd be paralysed with indecision.
Both constitutions contain racially discriminatory clauses, although in both cases they are either repealed, spent, or disregarded in practice. At least in Australia's case there is talk about removing the last of those. To fully remove those clauses from the US Constitution would require moving away from the "stick-amendments-on-the-end" model to actually changing the original text.
And that odd approach of sticking the amendments on the end instead of changing the actual text is probably one of the most distinctive aspects of the US constitution today. It achieves nothing except making the document harder to follow. Can you imagine how difficult it would be if other legislation was maintained in that fashion?
I think the decision in the US constitution to replace the Westminster parliamentary system with a presidential system was a step backward. Donald Trump is a good example of what a presidential system can lead to. Parliamentary systems like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand avoid that because you can't become the leader of the country without a majority support from legislators, which makes it much harder for fringe/out-there characters like Trump (or Jair Bolsonaro).
It is nothing about being a monarchy vs a republic. You can have a parliamentary republic in which you have a non-political president appointing a political prime minister who commands support from a majority of the national legislature – that's exactly the system used in Ireland, Germany and Israel, among other countries. It is also what was proposed in the failed 1999 Australian republic referendum, and I'm sure eventually Australia will become a republic and it will be a parliamentary republic not a presidential one–the failure was largely due to a dispute about how to elect the President, but I think everyone wanted a non-political President appointing a Prime Minister, not an American-style political President–the dispute was just about whether to have that President elected by Parliament, as in Germany and Israel, or elected by the general public, as in Ireland.
(Israel did briefly experiment with something closer to the American system, in 1996–2003, with direct election of the PM, but the experiment was abandoned and is generally considered a failure.)
Every big company I see is promoting female mentorship and promotion, and nearly every big company is bigtime CYA.
I half agree, but for me it depends on the situation. If the point is purely logical or empirical, and a fully detailed argument is made or watertight evidence presented, then the speaker's other beliefs and values are irrelevant. But often things are a bit fuzzier, and it makes sense to take the speaker's identity and character into account when making a snap judgment on how seriously to take them. And there are social reasons to care as well; conversation usually isn't just about truth-seeking. Even if people would take my arguments equally seriously regardless, I would prefer not to imply alignment with a set of values I don't actually hold.
Thinking of _just one_ potential solution would be evidence that they are acting in good-faith.
But secretly sleeping with and living with one of her male investors likely was a factor in this debacle dragging on as long as it did and that's not typically an option for most slick conMEN even if they were willing to pursue it because most wealthy, powerful people are heterosexual males.
Is this deliberate intellectual dishonesty? How is Australia not having a section named "Bill of Rights" even relevant? What's actually relevant once again are the human rights which are protected and how well they are protected. Those are the foundation: the principles.
And why focus on the Constitution over the Declaration?
Again, those are the foundation. Those are the core principles: rights enshrined in the constitution.
In many cases, those who criticise America's founding fathers do so, not because they reject worthy principles, but because they see the contribution that those men made to those principles as being overstated.
The Founding Fathers stated the principles. It's up to us, now, to live up to them, better and better. Unfairly attacking the Founding Fathers doesn't really further that. That's just fodder for propaganda, for those who have an axe to grind against the United States. Only a fair and rational reading of history will get us closer to the truth.
The important part are the principles themselves.
How does that even matter? That's like complaining that a log-structured file contains the old value. What, are you going to complain that blockchains have old transactions in them? This is the same false propaganda-logic people use to justify destroying statues.
Just because some people think in ways that don't work, doesn't mean that there isn't unfairness toward women. But just because there is unfairness doesn't mean that's the cause of everything.
But i think the incel notion didn't even have a grounding in reality underlying it. Isn't it that sex is scarcity and and there's some sort of conspiracy against them as individuals that means they get no sex? Maybe i don't understand their view, but as i state it's, to me, anyway, complete and utter balderdash.
Just because that's bs, doesn't mean that all women are good people who treat everyone fairly, it doesn't mean that some women don't deliberately try to hurt people in relationships and surrounding matters, just like some men do... But the notion that there's a conspiracy targeting some self identified subset of the male population to deprive them sex is just crazy. Plus the notion that somehow they are entitled to some minimum sex quota and are being unfairly shortchanged...which is like the flipside of toxic masculinity. Like defeatist beta male toxic masculinity. Plus the notion sex is scarcity. It's not at all. So the underlying narratives are just bullshit i think. But atop that bs narrative the same type of disempowering delusional pathology that women attributing every failure to institutionalized patriarchal oppression also succumb to.
Another connection I see albeit less commonly occurring in the population is the narrative used by terrorist recruiters. You know like it's not your fault that everything sucks in fact it's the result of someone else some institutionalized oppressor who is deliberately targeting you because of a group membership (that you can rally around), and you need to blame them for everything. It provides a fake pretext for violence, which i think you also see to a lesser degrees with incels and then a type of emotional or reputational violence with twitter mobs.
And i think there's connections with Trump supporters and the white Christian America under attack narrative, although in that case there's a lot of different dynamics at play and it's not as easy to parallel because it's such a popular movement.
I do think there's a common thread that runs through all of these different movements, and whether consciously or unconsciously at work, it's a tool in tool box of people who try to enroll you in these movements and get you to do useful work in them, and that is to cast you as a disempowered member of some targeted group, setting you up to realize that there's "salvation" (or at the very least comforting consolation) achievable via this new group identity.
Apart from the tragedy of the violence which sometimes results, and which is then justified and explained away within the parameter set up by these narratives (at least by the supporters themselves), there's another tragedy where the group identity or "cause" is abused to lend legitimacy and motivation to the movement, and this often disenfranchises people who are authentic members of those groups by clouding their message and hijacking their collective voice (such as actual victims of discrimination, or true followers of Islam)
Of course there's a lot of room within these group definitions for a diversity of people to be genuine members of the group but I suppose that's the point, because it's the inclusivity of these groups that provides this vulnerability of their "brand identity and message" (if you will) to the abuse and exploitation of these movements that co-opt these for something else. These platforms could be sources of good. But when misused like this, the hijacked groupe messaging ends up getting in the way of people who should be doing good, or seeking good, through them. I think such misuse is the second tragedy.
the third tragedy is the that you end up with all these people who are ostensibly seeking empowerment ending up disempowering themselves by believing and acting in alignment with this stuff.
None of these tragedies insignificant. Even in the case where the second tragedy doesn't apply because, at least to me, there's no legitimate narrative underpinning the movement such as in the case of incels, the remaining tragedies are not insignificant.
A white person reports this story and says "see, minorities exaggerate." and you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it must have happened to more than one person.
Do you see the problem?
What are the technical benefits of the "stick-the-amendments-on-the-end" model used by the US constitution, as opposed to the "change-the-original-text" model used by most other contemporary constitutions (including even many US state constitutions)? I can't see any.
Even the law, which is usually the last to evolve, clearly understands the difference between a death caused by self defense and murder.
Just a tip that's helped me in similar situations!
Current crisis is a direct result of people attributing too much meaning to simple negotiation tactics.
I have always believed her gender was a factor in this nonsense. (I am a woman and my experiences as a woman having trouble getting taken seriously is part of why I always thought this was crazy stuff and life made sense again once it turned out to be fraud.)
It is a very common criticism of the Australian constitution that it lacks anything comparable to a "Bill of Rights". It is not just that it doesn't have a section by that title, it is that the content is largely missing. The Australian constitution is largely lacking protections for individual rights.
Australia had a referendum in 1988 to add a Bill of Rights to its constitution. It failed by a 69-31 margin – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum#Rig...
Nope, a hostile founder/CEO will pick the men out of the panel and sick the mob on them. The women on the panel are either oppressed or anti-feminism. The mob doesn't care and won't hear the whole story.
An otherwise cool female coleague kept making claims people were misogynistic, at first I thought she was joking or that she did have some claim, because someone made an unintentional mysoginistic joke.
Then I left the company, and I talked with an ez coleague who was promoted as a team lead.
The guy was into some new age stuff, about helping everyone, and she was slaking/not interested; the higher ups wanted to fire her.
Not my friend, he really believed in her.
When it was clear she was about to be fired, she complained about him to the HR, that he's sexist and all that.
That guy was the least sexist guy I've ever met and the only one caring for her.
This is of course anecdotal, so I'm not trying to paint anyone with a broad brush. Just wanted to point out that in my experience, asking if you can give feedback/advice/etc isn't always well-received. I can't imagine unsolicited feedback would've been any better received in those situations.
"Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept"
It seems to me this can defuse some communication issues between people too
For me personally, I saw EP9 on opening day and with my brain off I managed to enjoy the spectacle while constantly having tell myself to just ignore all the issues and enjoy the ride. But on immediate reflection once it was over it was impossible to ignore all the issues.
I tried to watch it again 6-8 months later and had to turn it off after about 10 minutes it was just so much nonsense.
Not the dozens of other posts throughout this thread of people making unequivocal statements about how A) one cannot speak to women or minorities anymore without being accused of discrimination, B) how "every" (or some variation of that summary) minority/woman are hurting their cause with constant insistence of discrimination?
Dang, just because someone is civil, does not mean they are logical. Just because they are logical, doesn't mean they are correct.
There are folks all throughout this thread right now that are making broad general summaries of misogynistic and racist talking points, but you are not warning ANY of htem.
What really matters is who protects human rights better, and who is better at the rule of law and individual freedom. From what I can see, and from what you yourself have said above, there's not that much difference.
Again, it's the principles that matter. The principles in action, more specifically.
Please share with us. I can't think of a single way to express these concerns without looking like a "red piller". The mere fact someone even has concerns marks them as suspicious and harmful.
In all honesty I think this mindset is precisely why we've ended up in this massively polarized situation. When you "take the speaker's identity and character into account", you're obviously ("you" here being people in general not you in particular) to lend more credence to someone who's priors match your own. In other words, you give the benefit of the doubt to people like you, and interpret more uncharitably the words of someone who you think isn't like you. This creates a destructive cycle where everything eventually devolves into an echo chamber, increasing polarization and creating more echo chambers.
That's why I like how one of the principles behind Hacker News is to employ the "principle of charity" – try to interpret people's words in the best possible light, regardless of their priors or your own.
Absolutely! I've successfully built and run such training.
Most things are trainable skills. For example, I'll never be able to run as fast as Usain Bolt, not by a country mile. But, if I develop my running skills to their maximum potential, I'll be able to outpace a pretty good chunk of the rest of the population.
Same goes for communications, programming, whatever. You might not have what it takes to be The Best In The World, but most people definitely have the potential to become unreasonably competent at a thing, should they choose to put in the work.
In this hypothetical, I don't believe I did anything explicitly wrong. But I also didn't handle the situation well. Maybe the "sorry" is "sorry for not addressing your concern". Or maybe it's just "sorry that 'mansplaining' is a situation you encounter frequently". It doesn't have to be BLAME. Just empathy.
I've already said – it makes the document harder to follow and harder to understand. I don't see how that's a mere triviality. The ability of citizens to understand the law is a valuable thing, and especially when dealing with the most foundational law of a legal system, its constitution.
> The principles in action, more specifically.
Principles and their application matter, but form matters too. I'd agree that principles and their application are more important than form, but form still matters. Imagine you had a constitution with the best possible principles and the best possible application of those principles, but the text itself was significantly harder to understand than it could be – changing the text to make it easier to understand would make that constitution even better.
"mysoginistic" in the sense of "I literally hate women" or in the sense of "I think women are less capable than men" or "I liked a physical feature of her"?
There's more to choose from, the list of things that are called "misogyny" nowadays has gotten incredibly expansive.
AFAIK, this circumstance has no significant effects of this kind. Still, the burden of proof is on you, and all you've provided is an opinion.
Principles and their application matter, but form matters too.
Woo.
It's better, in my opinion, that people know the messy history and can see it in the law. This way, they can know the nuanced history of how we all got to the present day. Otherwise, dishonest "activists" might try to sell young people some B-movie version of history.
It's a very common criticism of the US Constitution, that there isn't a direct enshrinement of "innocent until proven guilty." Again, that's not what matters.
Do you, or do you not have rights as an Australian? Again, it's the principles in practice. If you answer yes, you've lost your argument. If you answer no, I should think you're lying.
Thoughtfulness is for the aware, and many investors aren't even aware of how they can be raked over the coals by a bloodthirsty mainstream outrage machine for something minor, petty, completely misinterpreted, or intentionally twisted for click bait.
Constitutionally entrenched rights are quite limited. There is the implied right of political communication, which is a lot less expansive than the US first amendment – it only covers political speech, non-political speech is not protected. Also, as the word "implied" specifies, it is not something explicit in the constitutional text, it is something the High Court has read into the constitution through its case law
There is a prohibition on establishment of religion or religious discrimination by the federal government (section 116). There is a right to jury trials in federal cases on indictment (section 80).
That's basically it, most of the provisions in the 2nd through 10th, and 13th through 15th amendments have no analogue in Australian constitutional law.
> Which is all you've done too.
You've fallen into the trap. You just admitted that your "effect" is not any kind of proof, just an opinion. On the other hand, my opinion has no material effect on my position that your points are trivial, woo, and the bandying about of opinion. That was kind of the point, of my using the word opinion.
Thanks for playing.
Even if only 5-10% of people took offense, it's not worth it to speak your mind.
I was once told by different toxic people that I lack social competence while working on projects with them (nobody agreed with them on that). The toxicity caused by them made several key people, myself included, jump the ship and the projects tanked. Lessons have been learned.
In my opinion, the nuance is whether the difference is truly because of gender or if gender is just something with a high correlation.
For example, if an average man says to me "give me your wallet or I'll beat you up", I'm likely to do it since I'm on the smaller side. If an average woman did that, I'd say no. So maybe it seems like sexism at first, but then I consider, if a woman threatened me who was the size and build and general risk of an average man, what would I do? I'd hand over my wallet.
If you aren't interested in opinions why do you bother? That's all this site has. Yours, mine, those of however many other users there are here.
This is quite literally exactly what has been happening, and it seem like it will continue happening because the loud minority has everyone else by the balls.
Instead we created African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Gay-Americans, Straight-Americans, Native-Americans, etc, and everyone is out for themselves. And everyone is against one another.
Female-led, Black-led, Latino-majority, who gives a fuck. Do your job better than yesterday if you even want a chance of someone giving a fuck.
Racism is not something you fight with laws, racism and sexism is something you fight with actions. Promoting a "black-business" is not integration, just imagine being proud of having a "white-business". Promoting a "female-business" is not fighting sexism, imagine having a male only policy on anything and thinking you are helping.
If we could forgo with the labels we would relieve so much pressure from society it's not even funny any more.
A symptom of what I'm talking about about is the example I gave of George Washington. A great majority of the admiration I have for him is vested in his decision to relinquish power after two terms as President when many feel he could have gone on to be a life long President and how that set the precedence for the peaceful transfer of power. I've found that aspect of his character to be completely disregarded and taken for granted. It's not that they think owning slaves is a bigger negative than that positive, is that they don't even entertain that it's a point in his favor, like the peaceful transfer of power was a foregone conclusion.
I really do think that's an over correction. Some correction of his myth was definitely needed so I'm not saying this is completely wrong but I think the correction is more needed in the way we think of historical figures as good guys and bad guys instead of some mix of both, as we all are. Instead, the founding fathers seem to have just been moved from good guy to bad guy.
Now, I don't know what's actually being taught but I do see the result, which is all I'm speaking to.
Others too.
First because "Effective communication requires effort" from BOTH sides.
And also because others can deliberately misinterpret your words for their own gain, or because they're biased, or because they've been primed by factors outside your control, or for lots of other reasons...
>If someone is unable to clearly express themselves without being misunderstood
That has been the case for everybody for the entirety of history.
There are better or worse ways to express something, but there's no foolproof way to express even the simplest thing in a way that you "wont be misunderstood".
Sometimes even saying "yes" or "no" with the wrong tone (or what the other person perceives as the wrong tone) can be misunderstood.
*You are painting an entire gender (or the majority) with really broad generalities, all under the premise that gender based discrimination is overrated and exaggerated
But the second half of your comment I really agreed with. I think there are a lot of these things happening but I think the term microaggressions is a misnomer because it incorrectly dismisses the validity of or presumes a magnitude of people's feelings where you don't actually know if that's the case.
You can't in general say that everybody needs to react the same way so you don't know if something which seems small to someone else is actually really big to another person.
but what I think the mistake of that kind of talk about this is that really this comes back to people being able to communicate effectively about their own feelings with other people who might be crossing boundaries or hurting them somehow. Like you said the other people might not even realize they're doing it and that's reasonable because everybody's reactions are function of their own individuality. so I think the mistake here is in sort of trying to aggregate and assume you know a common reaction and try to solve this as a you know sociological level rather than going no this is a personal problem of being able to communicate effectively with people you interact with and letting them know how you feel about something.
And not having to feel "oh I need to invoke sort of the mighty sword of the Zeitgeist discourse" you know in order to give validity to how I personally feel about something. It should have validity in and of itself and I think if people can be effective communicators about that then they will have a fine time navigating you know personal situations.
the other problem which I think is a basic interpersonal thing which seems to be missing from this discourse is that you can't blame other people for how you feel and react to things. And trying to hold them hostage to or blame them for your own reactions it's just a violation of a basic interpersonal boundary and it's just wrong. and it's also deeply connected with incorrectly mislaying responsibility for things. because by blaming other people how you feel and react you're incorrectly mislaying responsibility for how you feel and react.
The "lifting" of one's own personal reactions to the level of you know a social offense, (as in, my feelings are hurt therefore somebody did something "wrong", sociologically) unfairly limits the ways in which offended people are allowed to react or things about which they're allowed to feel offended, but it also incorrectly invokes the language of systemic bias for things which don't cross that level, which then starts witch hunts and creates more bias, when these common things (incorrectly called "microaggressions") are simply the result of I think interpersonal communication issues. The other thing that that type of labeling of anything that goes wrong for you as some sort of part of something that's wrong with society is that it traps you in and supports The narrative of you being a persecuted victim of some institutionally oppressed class. Which is very disempowering and very limiting for how you will then be able to respond and think about things.
from a cynical point of view of trying to control large numbers of people in groups and that would be great if I wanted to control you and limit your reactions but it would not be great if you valued freedom, authenticity and personal expression.
you might say you can't separate those things like this systemic sociological bias from interpersonal communication but I think it's really important to separate them because you have to have effective individuals to have an effective society and you can't have effective individuals if people do not respect these basic interpersonal boundaries and you know ways of communicating about themselves, that work.
so I think this is the case where there's a sociological solution for a personal problem but it's not very useful, and is actually maladaptive.
so I think there is a separate issue which can be dealt with sociologically and that's the elimination of unfair and discriminatory bias in all forms and education about bias... but confusing, in the way i try to describe here, the issues of responsibility, personal reactions and interpersonal communication with this sociological issue is a mistake.
It doesn't have much to do with wokeness, though, killing parent figures (Uncle Ben, Obie Wan, Yoda, etc.) is what the original trilogy did too. It just wasn't very original.
If you can lose your job because someone misinterpreted what you said (or chose to misinterpret something clear), then that "practical limit" can get quite high...
>If both parties do this, is is remarkable how quickly disputes get resolved. If neither party does this, a conversation accomplishes nothing.
Well, if every person loved each other, then there would be no crime either!
Heroes are mostly martyrs. Bulk of winning is done by showing up every day and doing small improvements, slowly albeit steadily. This is today's culture is called 'below average' or 'mediocrity'.
Consistent sustained mediocrity, and occasional 1% progress is 99% of success.
A coworker of mine once referred to Australia as "that policed state." I guess that's why.
something the High Court has read into the constitution through its case law
Have you just given a complete accounting of that? Are you saying that no principles from the Magna Carta come down to you through Australia's legal heritage in the commonwealth?
Do you, or do you not have rights as an Australian? Do you, or do you not enjoy the benefits of rule of law? Do you have protected property rights? Can you reliably conduct business? Do you or do you not have rights?
You try and weasel out of this, with your use of the qualifiers "establishment" and "entrenched."
Well, if your position is that you don't actually have rights, that the government can take those things away from you on a whim, then you've lost your argument, because that, right there, is what is so great about the US Constitution. There are certain things the government is not allowed to do to us, which guarantees our freedom. Is it perfect? No, but it gives us a fighting chance.
On the other hand, if the case law basically amounts to your having rights, then your argument in the thread above also falls apart, because then Australia has the same things in principle that the US Constitution has.
So which is it? (Hey, I'll also accept a nuanced alternative between!)
I would feel sorry for you, if in principle, you do not have actual rights, and the government could play whatever games it wanted with you. That's basically the situation in China. (My wife is from Fujian, so I have a pretty nuanced view of the Chinese system.) And yeah, the US isn't perfect.
https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
But here, we at least have a fighting chance. Just by existing in that state, the United States keeps the world as a whole from sliding further towards tyranny. IMHO.
(Another point of history: When Hitler took power in Weimar Germany, the Nazis already had most of the legal framework for totalitarian rule in the laws as written. As it was, all of the laws touching on human rights had an out for the government, in case of emergencies. I hope you Australians aren't in that situation. It's not as if we in the US are completely free from shenanigans like that, as the Korematsu ruling illustrates. Though some of the current justices have said they'd do something about it, if they got the chance.)
That's not how this works. People eager to engage in this kind of ideological battle always have Internalised Misogyny as an argument to fall back on in this situation.
When people talk about accusations of sexism like they are a hidden landmine someone might accidentally step on, it makes me wonder about the person's soft skills. Not just the inability to have insight into what might come off as sexist, but also a lack of experience in how to respond when one makes a mistake and does something sexist.
If you want to be able to talk openly and honestly with someone and give feedback, you should build a relationship with them so there is mutual trust and respect.
Ideally you don't have a fixed outcome or solution in mind when you talk with them about the issue, other than helping them make the best decision regarding the issue. If you think you know what's best without discussing it with someone and getting their thoughts, you are arguably disrespecting them.
If you can't have that sort of conversation, at the very least you need to lay out your reasoning and experience when giving feedback.
Preferably you do both, using both a past constructive relationship and your reasoning to discuss an issue and talk about potential solutions that they can decide on.
Otherwise you aren't providing constructive feedback, you are just giving your opinion.
Any behavioral modifications would have to start from castigophobia. Remove the punishment - that's the solution. Everything else is pointless.
Also, I hate to break the illusion for you, but boy bands are often planned as such and are manufactured by the record labels. It’s not a coincidence, for example, that the spice girls are all girls - that’s because they only auditioned girls because they were making the spice girls.
The last one, "I liked a feature of her" is not misogynistic absent of context. The context here is really important. It's like saying "I like your haircut". Did I pass up promotion for another person in a non-modeling job because they had a shitty haircut?
If you hate black people and progress it daily then you probably won’t keep job at The NY Times, but there are plenty of people that share this view and I’ve seen their publications around although not with the circulation of the Times.
There are a lot of unpopular opinions. Sardines on pizza are not nearly as popular as they once were. But only a few that are so abhorrent that you lose your job or social standing.
It has always been that way. In 'How to win friends, and influence people' Dale Carnegie brings forward this wonderful concept of letting people win arguments, suffering fools gladly, and almost always agreeing with people. Unless something very big is at stake.
Giving advice, being critical and helping people through feedback is almost always a bad idea. For starters you must let people fail. This has benefits, it helps them learn from experience and is a character building experience. If the person refuses to learn from experience, well then whatever feed back would be useless anyway.
Just see how many people require walking around them on egg shells. You have to handle their feelings with kid gloves, or have your career destroyed.
Even in general things, good advice is available in mainstream media and advice for ages. People still have bad finances, and lifestyle diseases. Advice, feedback mostly don't work.
Pop culture and politics is where the mob culture resides.
You would need someone like Google CEO (with the support of the board) to say: jumping to accusations will get you in trouble. Just because it's criticism doesn't make it sexist. We don't care about your social power pseudo scientific theory and we will not settle in court. Stop making the work place toxic. Then you need to have this sentiment repeated by other powerful people.
Chances of that happening in US in coming years? In my opinion about zero.
What are those industries where they have software engineering positions open but w/o the SJW types in them? I'm interested...
https://inconvenientconsiderations.blogspot.com/2021/03/hero...
If you wait for other people to spontaneously agree with your outlook on like then the wait will be exceptionally long time even when measured in millennia.
Yeah, they're making decisions and treating someone differently based on the person's (anticipated) race. Something being rational doesn't make it not racism.
> That sort of behavior shows no inherent animosity to Russian people in general.
Racism has nothing to do with animosity. Consider that men have the opposite of animosity towards women and yet sexism is something between humans.
Of course the problem with this is that the facade will crumble at some point because the person doesn't exist.
I was advised by my friend in HR not to give any feedback on my rejections because it could put me in trouble.
I didn't follow her advice, but only because I haven't hired anyone, and my feedback was positive.
Yeah, and that is weird, isn't it?
Because most people nowadays would not consider it a sexist action for a woman to cross the street because there is a man walking.
In fact, these days it seems to be demanded of men to notice the situation and cross the street if they are walking near a woman, so to self-discriminate. And the man would be considered sexist/misogynist if they didn't self-discriminate this way.
It's all so wonderfully self-contradictory.
It's also quite geographic - in this case I mean US-centric (and spreads to rest of the western countries). Ie in eastern europe/former eastern bloc, there wasn't so much sexism, all women had to work and generally things were way more balanced. Not saying it was perfect, almost nothing there was, but to see current trends from that perspective looks like a bit as western world going slightly cuckoo.
I've only heard it mentioned within gaming, and it typically means more than just bathroom (Encompassing instead a bunch of different biological necessities like bathroom, hydration, eating)
I witnessed such a joke, from a brogrammer -- he thought it was funny, but noone else did, especially knowing how sensitive the female coleague was -- someone broke a pot of plants and he said "Why should we clean it, we have plenty of women around here" -- I just know the guy, the tone of his voice, and so forth, and I know he just tried to be funny, but at the end of the day, that was a sexist remark, we knew it, he knew it after he said it, he should have apologized, but he didn't.
But that was the only instance that struk me as sexist, and the guy always helped female coleagues, in no way did see any other "bad behavior" from him, it was just that guys generally have thicker skins when it comes to jokes and jabs, and he was usually very friendly, I've worked in male teams that were outright toxic, he was nothing like that.
At anything that the most hostile interpretation possible could somehow construe as racism/sexism.
And basically, anything can be construed as racism/sexism given some of the current definitions.
Sitting peacefully on your couch minding your own business is racism, according to Kendi/diAngelo.
Treating women equally and not achieving perfect equality of outcome is sexism. Treating men and women differently in order the achieve equality of outcome: also sexism.
Leaving women to make their own choices, which may not exactly match men's, is sexism.
Giving women candid feedback is so sexism. Not giving women candid feedback: also sexism.
I recently had a conversation where the lady I was talking to basically said (paraphrasing for brevity) "all men bad, always" and I'm really not sure what she even wanted to achieve. Some kind of perceived revenge maybe? I ended up disengaging and it left me feeling rather deflated. If I'm bad by default and there's nothing I can do to change that, why care at all?
This is a really thorny issue -- that there are people who have been so hurt that they see no path forward. Trying to reach them is really difficult and complicated and puts you at risk of being burned, which tends to leave them painted into a corner that they can't find their way out of.
I'm glad you know other women that are more reasonable and do not feel like giving up over this one incident.
But I do worry sometimes that even that can backfire, because I've witnessed another situation (on Twitter) where a lady complained that men who didn't get her joke tweet were mansplaining about how what she wrote was wrong, that they were explaining her (purposeful) error to her because she was a woman. Except others replied with their own versions of the joke and they too were getting "mainsplained" too, even though many were themselves men. That is, some people were misunderstanding the joke and commenting, it wasn't anything to do with her being a woman. But she turned it into a gender issue.
To be fair to her, it gets really hard to not attribute certain patterns to your gender. It gets really hard to try to make that nuanced distinction that "Not everything is about sexism." and this also ends up being a thorny issue because trying to tell someone who is in that head space that they are wrong gets experienced by them as just another means to undermine them and gaslight them.
I think the best strategy is to try to avoid talking to women about their "personal" stuff. Try to not make it into a "personal" relationship when it really isn't.
I lived a really private life for a lot of years because I was a homemaker for roughly two decades and what I eventually came up with was this idea that women generally get treated like "private" individuals and men generally get treated like "public" people and the way men and women get socialized reinforces that pattern.
So men frequently have "personal" conversations with women in public settings that they wouldn't have with a man or in a way that they wouldn't have with a man and it happens so often that women don't realize "This is not normal and it is not good for your work life."
It's normal for them in their lives and they don't see that this is a problem.
Men focus on the importance of networking and women tend to be better at the social thing and at making personal connections and that tends to be one of their strengths. It is one of mine and I have been baffled and frustrated that it doesn't turn into professional connections.
People talk to me and they want to see me as their new best friend for life or their one true love or something like that and it ends up being enormously frustrating for me because they generally don't have as much to give back to me as I have to give to them in that regard and what I most need is more income and that's never something they want to help with.
People don't want to pay money to their friends for their friendship. Men don't want to pay money to their girlfriend for being their girlfriend.
And people also don't want to open doors for me professionally once it veers into that "personal relationship" space. And it's not simply because they are being selfish jerks or something.
If a man is sleeping with a woman or hopes to, it can be hard to vouch for her. It can be hard to overcome the public perception that "You're just saying that because you are sleeping with her and I can't actually trust what you say about this woman."
I spent a lot of years being a walking, talking train wreck waiting to happen. I tend to "turn heads" so to speak. I tend to be attention grabbing, but all that attention was directed at me as an individual and I didn't know how to get it onto my work and translate that into traffic for my websites and income.
So what I will say is if you are male, try to focus on her work and try to avoid getting into her personal shit. Women being overly personal in work settings is part of what holds women back.
Not everyone is your Fwend at work and women can be slow to get that memo. That was one of my biggest stumbling blocks because I was a homemaker for a lot of years and the people I had relationships with were basically all friends and family. For years and years, I didn't have a boss or any coworkers, etc.
And it's really hard to do this because it seems like just telling her "You need to stop doing X" would help her but it won't because that is just you getting into her personal business and that de facto reinforces this pattern where women relate to other people in an overly personal fashion and people relate to women in an overly personal fashion.
If it isn't your sister, mother, wife, etc, don't get into that with them and don't talk about it as her problem. Talk about it as "not my problem."
"Oh, well, sorry, I barely know you. This is outside the scope of our relationship. I'm going to go have a coffee now. Catch you later."
With enough repetition women can get the memo.
If you want to help her career, give her work some positive attention. Tell other people she does good work. Tell her she does good work. Tell her you would like to help her connect with people who would appreciate her work.
Make sure the focus is her work and not her as an individual. Keep saying it until it slowly sinks in. Rinse and repeat on the "I'm going to go have a coffee now. This is not my problem." when she tries to turn you into a shoulder to cry on because she has big feels about you giving her work positive attention because no one has done that before and blah blah blah.
Men learn that it's not about them. It's about their work.
Women frequently seem to not learn that. I was very slow to learn that and my gender and the life I lived for a lot of years as a homemaker and the way other people reacted to me because of all that made it super hard to sort this out because I would talk to people like they were my friend and people who were emotionally starved would eat that up and then not know how to say "Look, that's the problem." and no one knew how to say "So, show me your work. Do you have samples I could see and maybe share with some of my contacts?"
People still tend to err on the side of replying to me on HN as if comments I make about gendered issues are just me whining about my personal problems and me being in need of advice and it continues to be a pattern I have to actively work at shutting down.
Everyone wants to make that personal connection to me and that always ends up in a pattern of meeting their emotional needs at my expense and continuing to fail to open doors for me professionally.
So if you really want women to reach some kind of professional parity with men, stop being so personal with them. Get your own emotional needs met some other way and stop investing in having these personal conversation with women and let them know this is not your thing and you want none of it but don't alienate or shun them.
Instead, talk about their work. Help them with their work. Promote their work.
I think women relate less to their work than men do and I think this is the crux of why men's careers tend to stronger than women's careers.
I worked at Aflac for a few years. The CEO at the time that I was there was, I think, the son of one of the three founders (they were brothers) and he made the risky decision to go with the Aflac duck commercials and it made the company a household name.
Aflac had something of value that was underrecognized. If you have something of value that is underrecognized and you add some promotion to it, you can really rake in the dough.
But if you don't have much of value, lots of advertising amounts to a con job, basically.
So when women try to network, sometimes they are trying to promote themselves when there isn't much to promote. It ends up being just an empty social activity and not a career maker because they haven't really done the work and they aren't really promoting the work.
So those are my rambling thoughts at 1am my time, for what it's worth.
But in real world it is not true, and risk of witch hunt based on lies/misinterpretations substantially increased in last years.
It was just unprofessional I would say.
For instance I can appreciate a dark joke that would clearly be sexist/racist/antisemitic/homophobic, I can even reproduce it in a like-minded circle of people, and I still don't consider myself sexist/racist/homophobic.
I vehemently disagree. In my experience, a very substantial number of them fear the mob because there's so much at stake and nobody is interested in falling on their sword. Many people want to talk politics and philosophy and those subjects are often hard to avoid unless conversation is heavily restricted. I've had tons of conversations about algorithms that naturally turn into discussions of political and philosophical ramifications. A substantial amount of the screening that goes into accessing private communities revolves directly around likelihood of charitable interpretation, secrecy and behaviour on public social networks.
You can make a sexist joke without being sexist, but it can still be inapropriate/unprofessional, and it can still cost you dearly.
It isn't a black-and-white thing "you have rights or you don't".
Constitutions serve several purposes – to lay out the basic structure of the national government (the executive, legislature, judiciary, etc); in a federation, to establish the division of powers between the federation and its constituents (states/provinces/etc); to establish procedures for amending the constitution; and to protect individual rights.
Different constitutions differ on how much they have to say about that last topic. Some constitutions say a lot, others little. The American constitution originally had little to say on that topic, but then the Bill of Rights and Reconstruction amendments added a lot. The Australian constitution is somewhere between the two: it has a bit more to say than the original (pre-Bill of Rights) US constitution had to say, but a lot less than the current US constitution has. Protection of individual rights is not an either-or, it is a matter of degrees, and the Australian constitution provides significantly less of a degree of it than the US constitution does.
It is however possible to have rights in practice without them being guaranteed constitutionally. In Australia, there is no constitutional right to freedom of non-political speech, but in practice the law allows a wide freedom for that–but not unlimited, and narrower than US law does. Part of it not being a constitutionally entrenched right, is that Parliament could change the law tomorrow to significantly narrow it, and one would have no recourse against such a law through the courts.
You seem to view constitutional law as being all about individual rights, when there is a lot of constitutional law which has nothing directly to do with that topic.
Yes, everyone is guilty of this. When you mess up, blame someone else. That's how you get stuck regardless of your race or gender. You'll be on a crusade against the wrong thing and never achieve anything.
Pretty much all of it is.
But much (but not all) other adopted legislation in the US consists largely (but also often not entirely) in its raw form of English-language patch instructions for codified law like the US Code. So the legislation itself is added to the cumulative register, but then the main effect most people are aware of is a change to codified law. (Actually, that's true of Constitutional amendments to, but the diff is invariably in practice “the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified ...”; there's nothing stopping the diff from being more in edit form if desired.
But even though most of the text of most legislation is that way, there is lots of uncodified law, too.
(My understanding is that the UK still mostly does uncodified lawn though it does sometimes include specific amendments to earlier named acts in later ones.)
Honestly, though, on a document the size of the US Constitution, there's little impact (and given the original open-ended model, though newer amendments tend to be proposed with expiration dates for ratification that limit the potential problem, the diffing instruction approach would be problematic since the target of the alteration might be reorganized between proposal and ratification.
> I think the decision in the US constitution to replace the Westminster parliamentary system with a presidential system was a step backward.
The US Constitution didn't replace a Westminster-style parliamentary system with a presidential system; the system the US had under the Articles of Confederation wasn't a Westminster-style parliamentary system.
That's the really tricky part with racism, not the mindless extremism. What is the acceptable limit between rationalism and racism? Is there one? If we take the example of the GP with Russian secret services, if 99% of the Russian speaking people you encounter are from the secret services, does it make it acceptable to discriminate against the 1% to save your life? If yes, then what is the limit? 50%, 10%, just one person, ...?
That's why I stated it is a semantic discussion.
On the one hand, I think this redefining is good. Because when we talk about the problems of racism and sexism, the prevalent form of negative discrimination (so in the west, racism by white people, and sexism by males) are what we tend to mean.
On the other hand, other forms of discrimination also happen, and we need words to describe them. Racism and sexism used to describe that, but by now such describing tends to feel bad. It tends to feel like drawing an equivalence between e.g. a white person not being able to use the N-word being 'just as bad' as the oppression faced by black people in America.
I feel we need separate words for both the systemic (non intentional) oppression of people by sex and gender. And discrimination based on sex and gender in general. Originally racism and sexism used to describe the latter. Slowly we are moving towards having it mean the former, without having new words for the latter. Ideally wish we had just come up with new words for the latter. But that would have lost some of the power that comes from calling someone a racist or a sexist.
In conclusion, semantics matter, and are hard.
I've also seen a free Leonard Peltier protest march in Copenhagen, but I'm not sure that the state of Native American rights in Denmark and the U.S is somehow comparable.
The technical benefit is that the the multistage amendment process, with long ratification windows (originally typically unlimited, though 7 years is typical now; normal legislation, including most state Consitutional amendments, have much shorter windows because even if they are multistage it's usually a second vote of the same legislature or a single ratification vote of the people), creates a greater risk for crossing amendments with unintended consequences. Simply stating the final effect has less possibility of unintended consequences.
No, the real real problem is that in while there is some behavior that is obviously $BAD and others that are obviously not $BAD, there's a large range of behavior for which it's difficult to tell whether it's $BAD or not.
Consider the criminal justice system. Some people are obviously guilty and others are obviously innocent. But in between, there are lots of situations where it's difficult to tell whether the person is guilty or not. Vow to be more "tough on crime", and innocent people spend years in jail (or worse, end up executed). Vow to protect the innocent, and lots of guilty people get away scot-free. And there are criminals who are very good at exploiting this uncertainty.
There was a very insightful essay I saw many years ago which I can't find now unfortunately; but the main point was this: In superhero comic books and movies, the real superpower is certainty. The good guys always know who the bad guys are; it's just a matter of defeating them. In the real world, we have plenty of power to defeat the bad guys; it's just not always clear who the bad guys are.
So take the example from TFA, where the investor thought male founder A would be a better CEO than female founder B. Implicit bias is a real thing, and has been proven in dozens of studies. (For instance, where people are asked to rate the qualifications of a range of CVs, where the gender of the name on the resume is randomized.) Does the investor think A is better than B because of implicit (or not-so-implicit) bias? Or is A genuinely a better fit than B? It's basically impossible to know; even the investor themself may not know.
In the past, things swung very heavily toward "let the guilty go free", which meant implicit bias was allowed to stand unchallenged (leading to more men in leadership, leading to more implicit bias). "Cancel culture" is an attempt to swing things the other way. But it falls victim to the "certainty superpower" delusion: they think they know who the actual bad guys are, and end up taking down innocent people in the process.
What's the solution? In some sense there is no solution: until we have an Oracle of All Truth which we can consult, we will always have uncertainty; which means either punishing the innocent, letting the guilty go free, or some mixture of both. The best thing we can do is honestly acknowledge the situation and try to balance things as best we can.
Imagine a society of squirrels and hamsters where squirrels have been oppressing hamsters for centuries. Then, one day, they decide to stop doing that and treat everyone the same.
On average, a young squirrel will come from a family that is vastly richer and better educated than a young hamster. So, if they have to compete "fairly", the hamsters will remain much poorer for centuries more.
This leads to a need to rebalance those two groups, and that rebalance means artificially propping up hamsters. Ideally, we would want to get to a world where the young squirrel and hamster can, on average, compete "fairly"... I have no idea how to achieve that while minimizing the negative side effects.
What the actual fuck? Did you read the context? Hungary in 1956: they would fear those Russians!
*You have to be careful not to confuse a misuse of an idea for the whole idea itself.
Alot of people seem to confuse them, to the tragedy of both the people believing the misuse is the idea, and to those trying to genuinely use the idea to be heard or to spread good.
*When life sucks and things go wrong we often look for something to blame on days when we're not at our best.
*There is this issue where movements to empower and unify have a tendency to shit to blame and divide.
In other teams, the folks are super cautious about hiring women because of an increasing number of such incidents. I'm also seeing this other trend where we are willing to hire women from within the company because they're a known quantity, while hiring few or zero women from outside, while accepting men from within and outside the business just based on their capabilities.
The article is right on many levels. I myself rarely share controversial or difficult feedback with female colleagues or acquaintances unless I know them very well, and know they will take it the right way. It's just not worth the professional risk to me.
I don't know if this is the exception, and I work with several female colleagues at various levels of seniority where we are professional and open. Whatever - it's a sad state of affairs.
So, considering you are the potential carrier of a nuclear power it makes sense to thread carefully.
The problem isn't sexism. The problem is that being wrongly labeled as a sexist is a socio-economical death blow while the accusers gets scot free. This imbalance in power has to be settled somehow and I think this is a pretty good solution.
Posting this anonymously since I'm not insane.
If that is what comes to mind when people talk about white discrimination, then there is a large disconnect in the discussion when talking about the semantic meaning of sexism and racism.
If two people apply to a university and the critical distinction why one got excluded is race, then that is a negative discrimination. If two people are accused of identifical crime and the the critical distinction why one got a harsher sentence is race, then that is negative discrimination. If two people are illegally demonstrating on the street and one get violently assaulted for doing so, and the critical distinction is race, then that is negative discrimination.
Some of that negative discrimination harms white people, some black people, some both in different circumstances, and there is many more situation where such discrimination occurs. Same in regard to gender.
No court. No sensible attempts to truly examine the truth. Just a firing squad.
In this context, even "Good" Russians, fear the "Bad" Russians, for they may be labelled 'collaborators', and face the firing squad too.
If the issue being debated here is an actual problem in (American?) tech business culture, the attitudes and principles that GP commenter is describing are a great step towards solving it. Deep-seated mistrust in the motivations and intentions of others are at the root of the problem, and the road to exacerbating it is paved with bad-faith-assuming hypotheticals.
Incredible.
In TFA, this precise same individual did the reverse first. It is hard to argue bias, when someone worked to get a better founder, female, to be CEO...
Yet this is dropped, ignored, in your comment.
So here we see, that even those actively showing non-bias, are labelled as likely biased still?!
If people's prior actions are no longer any remote indication of bias or not, all is lost.
I'm much, much more likely to feel like I'm walking on eggshells around women, this happens with men also, but more in a personal setting.
This combined with the whole metoo movement certainly didn't help women in receiving frank feedback or mentorship.
Put differently, expectation is half of sensing. That insight goes back at least as far as Helmholtz.
Not saying you weren't the subject of over-reaction, or not, but I think this is an example of sub-par feedback. It would be better to point out the issues in concrete terms, and say this is something that should be addressed, and why. And if you can't do that, you should ruminate on it until you can reify whether it is wrong, and what ought to be done, and why. Do this with anybody. If they argue with you, they'll be arguing only on technicalities, not personalities.
It's not just a regular weapon, being acused of sexism or sexual harassment or God forbid rape is a nuclear weapon, it can do such tremendous damage to an innocent man with zero damage to the one making false allegations that there's no wonder men a really careful.
We have reached a local peak for sexual equality, but I don't think it is possible to move forward as long as mens lives can be completely destroyed by false allegations.
You made this comment hours and hours ago. Yet in that time, 'what is grey' has changed. Things have been voted up and down. And who's to say that 5 years from now, 10 years, the 'web theme' of this site won't change.
And then grey means something else.
Now what you've said has changed, due to how the 'culture' on this site has changed.
Meanwhile, there have been people examining comments, and actions, people made even decades ago. Comments and actions taken out of context, single sentences quoted out of paragraphs from emails/etc, and then social media destroys them without care.
Not only must people now 'clam up' against current threat, but all potential future threat. A comment well received by a friend, can 20 years later be taken out of context, that context being historical, cultural, and personal.
And on top of all of that, a friend can become an enemy 20 years later, for entirely non-sexist, just normal person-to-person reasons. People can and do change over time, sometimes not for the better.
So:
* fear what you say now
* fear the future, for people will misquote 20 years later
* fear even female friends, for some may change over decades, and destroy you later
I don't think this is here now. But if the perception of what is happening continues much longer, it may.
Heck, I recall reading an article which coached men to "never be alone with a woman", for "she could claim anything later". This thought process makes it highly difficult to even give advice in private!
I agree that there shouldn't be, but as life advice this is a bad thought to operate from. If someone doesn't like you or what you've said, there's always a way to put you in a bad light. With discourse that contains a lot of risk, it's probably better to just avoid it.
If you aren't an enemy of feminism you have nothing to fear against female founders and can speak to them openly.
The woke reactions would be like: It’s really saying, "I don’t really see what makes you you". We want you to see the benefit of the diversity people bring to the table. Being colour-blind used to be woke, now it's whitewashing.
My comment: apparently they need the attributes to define the identity they rally around. You can't not see them anymore because it is interpreted as ignoring their identity.
This isn't exceptional or even new, it's been solid advice for anyone in a position of public visibility for at least the past thirty years. The same goes for being alone with teenagers: It doesn't take that much effort to have witnesses and keep the door open, especially considering what a volatile other party will do to your life if you don't.
I thought this was interesting. Do you mean "it closes doors because they are only prepared to help you if you sleep with them"? Or "it closes doors because they're scared to help you in case you misinterpret it"?
My point is that how the US Code and how the US Constitution are amended is fundamentally different: amendments passed to the US Code say things like "insert this section here", "delete this section", "replace this one with this one". And then the edits are applied, and the US Code is published with that edits applied. The amendments of the US Constitution aren't even made in the form of textual edits.
> My understanding is that the UK still mostly does uncodified law
Even though UK law largely isn't codified, they still mainly print Acts in consolidated form – repealed sections are omitted, amendments are incorporated into the text, etc. The main thing that stops it being a code is you have lots of acts on different topics listed alphabetically, whereas codification would imply merging all those into one big act (or a few big acts) with its contents being organised topically
> The US Constitution didn't replace a Westminster-style parliamentary system with a presidential system; the system the US had under the Articles of Confederation wasn't a Westminster-style parliamentary system.
Actually in a lot of ways the Articles of Confederation was closer to a Westminster style parliamentary system than the US Constitution is. The defining feature of a parliamentary system is the executive is practically subordinated to the legislature, rather than being an independent seat of political power. The Articles of Confederation had that – the national executive was quite limited in extent (there was a treasury, the army, navy, foreign affairs, and the postmaster-general) but it was wholly subordinate to Congress and had no independent seat of power.
> The advice comes from a group of diverse people and is then far more defensible against accusations of sexism, racism, etc..
You'd by insurance against accusations, but you'll either just have people in that advice-committee for insurance reasons, or you need to have 10-15 people to do one person's job, because you need to represent all the larger groups, and their intersections.
We as a society only step in collectively when these things happen at an egregious level (what was going on in Hollywood), but if you think you won’t face some degree of it in your daily life then you are just not covering your bases. One must have the resiliency to deal with some of it, and that is fair and reasonable to expect because the contract is we are tolerant of imperfect humans as a society (that those who are sexist and racist have a flaw but are not evil, and we tolerate this imperfection through patience). It’s never going anywhere.
3 is interesting though.
And in practice all amendments are proposed by Congress, and Congress always knows what amendments are already pending, and should be able to foresee any potential "merge conflicts" and address them. You can always use conditional patch instructions: "Replace section A with B; however, if amendment C has entered into force before this amendment, instead replace section A with D". There are other tricks too, like one proposed amendment inserts section 29A and the next inserts section 29B, and maybe if the first one never gets ratified but the second one does you end up with a section 29B without there ever being a section 29A.
(Technically there is a process where a convention proposes amendments independently of Congress – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendmen... – but it has never been used, and who knows if it ever will be. Anyway, the same point applies to such a convention – it knows what amendments are already pending so it can write its proposed amendments to include solutions to any merge conflicts)
I think the real explanation – the US constitution is really old, a late 18th century document, before a lot of the contemporary English-language culture around maintaining legislation had developed. And now it is the way it is, and nobody wants to change it. But if they started again tomorrow it is unlikely they'd organise the amendments in the same way. And a lot of US state constitutions are newer, and they are maintained in the more usual manner precisely because they were adopted after the usual manner was invented.
Well, yes and no. I can see how it's a burden, but they're also the people with the most hands-on experience. If they won't explain, how can anyone else learn?
Because it is a serious problem, and not solving it is not acceptable. Of course men, or whichever the privileged group in any particular case is, have a responsibility to listen and learn, but that only works if someone is willing to explain.
Although I'd love to agree that it's the responsibility of the oppressor or privileged group to fix the problem, it has got to be a collective responsibility. You can't help people without the involvement of the people you're trying to help.
It might be more comfortable for those folks that have gotten burned if there was a more endemic feeling of having any recourse. It being the case that there isn't, asking for people to feel empathy for another group of people that has actively persecuted them is a big ask. To my mind an unreasonably big ask.
Of course, high school kids haven't learned etiquette and don't care, but we want to hold higher standards in the workforce.
So men who are attracted to me are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
And I can't trust their motives. Are they helping me because they think I'm smart and talented and a good fit for a project? Or are they helping me hoping it leads to sex?
In practice, they usually don't make any effort to help me professionally anyway. Once they decide I'm attractive, in their minds the relationship is strictly personal and not professional. Period.
My experience has been men consistently decide early whether this is a platonic/professional relationship or a potential romantic interest. If I'm a potential romantic interest, I'm basically dead to them professionally.
They also tend to only think about how this impacts their career, not mine.
When I had a corporate job, one senior programmer in the IT department asked me for a date. In five years working there, he was the only person I met who knew what GIS was without me having to explain it. (I have a certificate in GIS.)
He interpreted that as "We have things in common and she's hot." He did not wonder if I might be an asset to the IT department. He did not wonder if I wanted a job in the IT department.
I did, in fact, want a job in the IT department. Being asked out by him did nothing to hurt his career. He was doing nothing wrong.
I'm sure he stopped to consider that. I'm sure he stopped to check that asking me out was not a fire-able offense.
He likely did not wonder how it impacted my career at the company. It made it vastly less likely I would ever get a job in his department.
This was true whether I said "yes" or "no." Simply being asked for a date, regardless of how that went personally, made it vastly less likely I would ever get into the IT department.
I left the company a few weeks later. I likely would have left anyway and had been planning to do so for some time, but him asking me for a date was something of a final nail in the coffin, killing all hope that I had a shot at a real future at the company.
I didn't. That simply was a non starter.
So it made it easier to pull the trigger on plans to leave.
This is not uncommon for men or woman to do, and more commonly expressed as ‘you are looking for things to point out’.
You can run your own little test. Convert the sigh to something similar like shrugging. Consider it debugging with console.logs until you find out the source of the bug.
Individuals will consider their jobs and thus their dependents' welfare more important than risking being publicly slaughtered to fix a mindset that's pretty ingrained now.
This entire thread is a sea of doomsday tears of fatalism and how bad it is, and how the culture is on a collision course with death, and mine was the perspective that I'm skeptical that it's truly as bad as they claim.
I'm far less dismissive of their own culture than they are.
But indeed, what they're tired of is not dismissing Anglo-Saxon culture, but that an outsider does so and having to hear that it's not the entire world.
They're own dismissals are far greater than mine.
> The Dutch cultural tendency to be very blunt is probably not helping your case.
My case? is it not further evidence of my thesis that there are cultural differences at play here?
One may assume that is is only to be expected that in a blunter culture, one would be less inclined to use sexism as an excuse when one be criticized.
Indeed, the Anglo-Saxon's famed tendency for politeness might very well be a contributing factor, if again, it truly be the case that it is so common for sexism to be used as an excuse when criticism be leveled.
> I'm leaving this comment in hopes of being personally helpful to you as an individual and it's probably foolish for me to do so. It would probably be better for me to say nothing, but it's just kind of a pet peeve of mine so to speak, so I am doing it anyway.
You are free to do so, and I am free to disagree and point out the opposite.
From my perspective, it comes across as a petulant child who excessively and unreasonably talks about a culture that is failing, but lashes out defensively when an outsider chimes in and says “It might be bad, but I'm not sure it's as bad as you claim.”, for then it is an outsider who does so, and apparently that crosses the line, not the dismissal in and of itself.
If all you’ve been doing is fighting for your damn life as a group, then this will define your character until new types of challenges balance out your origins. This is true for a lot of groups that have consistent struggle. I cannot fault them for being combative.
That's basically a personal attack.
I'm not someone who downvoted you and my above remark was my first reply to you.
Have a good day.
If you talk about this (either as a personal thing or something you've seen happen to someone else) you will get crucified, basically anywhere. It doesn't take a whole lot of extrapolating to see why there are no horror stories.
>This was true whether I said "yes" or "no." Simply being asked for a date, regardless of how that went personally, made it vastly less likely I would ever get into the IT department.
Speaking from outside the tech bubble, that sounds nuts - I mean the situation, not your interpretation of it. How can being asked on a date mean you can't work in the asker's department?
2. Advice (which is essentially a gift of knowledge/experience) is not something you are entitled to by virtue of your sex.
3. A man cannot be said to be 'sexist' when he chooses not to give advice that could potentially incriminate him, especially falsely. If a person (whether a man or a woman) chooses to keep silent, and especially where no fraudulent aspect is involved, that is part and parcel of doing business. You are not entitled to call a person 'sexist' just because they do not want to give advice to you.
4. There are virtually no consequences to the woman who accuses. Yet in comparison, the long-lasting consequences of an investor being falsely accused in public far outweigh any advantages to the contrary. This is enough to make any man clam up, and is a legitimate cause to withhold advice.
5. More importantly, in a commercial setting, no one is obliged to give you an advantage just because you're a woman. If you expect such an advantage/benefit because of your gender, then you are being sexist. A woman who wants to do business should not posit that a man is actively being 'sexist' if he chooses not to help her. That makes no sense.
All an apology costs you is pride, which is basically free. If it gets you to a place where you can have a normal conversation, who cares who has done what wrong? The point of talking things out isn't about assigning blame.
The other side of the same coin is whenever you receive nasty and undeserved feedback, you don't reply or argue.. You say "thank you for the feedback" and ruminate what good you can take out of that, if any. You don't fight back - not if you actually want to receive feedback in the future.
It's exactly what the article is saying: men are clamming up. If one doesn't know how to deliver excellent feedback/is worried about the packaging, the sane strategy is to just shut up. There's seldom a personal upside for delivering constructive feedback to anybody - and in a situation where bad delivery has unlimited downside, it's smart to just refrain from it.
It was a big company. You could date and marry coworkers but you couldn't date someone in your chain of command.
I didn't know the internal structure of the IT department, but if he was high enough in the chain of command, there would be many positions below him. I had an entry level job. Transferring from an entry level job in a different department would have meant I would be getting an entry level job in IT.
I was having trouble figuring out how to get a different job in the company as is. I was having trouble finding the kind of info I wanted that was pertinent to me and having trouble understanding the internal job listings.
Adding the possibility that someone had just asked me out who was high enough in the department I wanted to get into that many of the jobs that might interest me would make him my boss made it overwhelmingly difficult to try to navigate the process of transferring into IT.
As I said, I already had plans to leave for unrelated reasons. Had I stayed, maybe I would have eventually drawn different conclusions and found a path forward.
But based on the info I had, my emotional reaction was "Welp, I can stop fretting about whether or not I'm doing the right thing by leaving. I'm basically going nowhere fast at this company."
I really don't know how to make this any more clear to you, you almost there. And now think an inch further...
How about creating a tag that would be attached to a person profile anywhere it's online, saying something like "Criticism welcome" or "Criticism is not sexism". So this would serve as assurance of not being willing to pursue any feedback by the tag/badge holder.
See #metoo, where facts were kept hidden, until the society was actually prepared to accept the truth, because at that time, a woman would have been laughed in face, for accusing a man of sexism in the 70's ....
Decision maker still could have bias towards men or women generally, but in those two cases some other factors could outweigh this bias, even if it actually was present. No way to tell.
The article also mentions this topic, by listing some factors that may influence decision in such situation:
> The degree to which men hold back on their advice depends on 1) how much is at stake and 2) how much they trust you. For example, you’ll be much more likely to get candid advice from an investor who has invested a lot of money in your company and you’ve known for years vs. a panelist at a tech conference giving feedback onstage who doesn’t know you and hasn’t invested in your startup.
I don't think the root of the problem is intellectual. I think the root of the problem is the insecurity and fear and grief that causes the desire to blame something--anything--even when that thing has to be imagined.
I do think motivated people are taking advantage of that instinct and using it to drive people apart, encouraging them to blame -isms, and the problem can be addressed at that level too, but if we could somehow clear up the fear and sadness that drive people to look to anger as the easier emotion, those opportunists would be wanting the requisite opportunity.
Precisely. Yet one of these two was being used as an example for unconscious gender bias.
Why were both examples not used, or conversely, one showing a bias benefiting women?
Answer: because the bias is, that all men are biased.
What I do personally is to just avoid all of these people.
I have the impression it's harder to avoid them in California because people are particularly brainwashed over there - which is one of the reasons I avoid California as well.
not OP but the silence is a feature that allows you to actively listen[1] which is impossible when trying to come up with an answer while the other person still speaks.
The big topics like violence against women have not been properly addressed and feminists focus instead obsessively on minor topics like abuse of Hollywood actresses or gender imbalance in software engineering.
The strategy has also changed - such factions are focusing less on equality and more and more on taking something for themselves, transforming the dialogue into an us versus them and turning it hostile. The problem with this thinking is two-fold:
1) One can take only so much before the ones that are being taken from push back, especially since there's no shortage of groups that want to take.
2) Other factions also want a piece of the pie and don't care about female victimhood. Feminism has for example failed to tackle both culturally influenced violence against women perpetrated by misogynist immigrants and the zero sum game they play with transsexuals.
That was exactly my point.
Sexism in the workplace has gone from normalised, to being recognised as a potential issue, to having a process which can deal with it all within my lifetime. To expect a perfectly executed deescalation undoing hundreds of years of history across all of society is disingenuous.
If your perspective is one where you care about "culprits," and whether they are good or bad... motivations matter.
If you're characterising the system, not judging culprits.. you don't care about motivations, historical reasons or such. You just care about how the system behaves.
A sexist office is one where people are treated differently based on sex. That could be because of office rules. It could be because of cultural or religious reasons. It could be because of #metoo. Etc. Say you walk into that office, experience or observe sexism and walk out. You don't know why it's sexist, but you do know that it's a sexist office.
I get that you don't want everyone inside that office painted as sexists. Maybe they're not. That doesn't mean that it's not a sexist workplace. This isn't a criminal trial.
> It's also quite geographic - in this case I mean US-centric (and spreads to rest of the western countries). Ie in eastern europe/former eastern bloc, there wasn't so much sexism, all women had to work and generally things were way more balanced. Not saying it was perfect, almost nothing there was, but to see current trends from that perspective looks like a bit as western world going slightly cuckoo.
have spent the past half a decade living in various countries from the former Eastern block mostly working for local companies and not much exposure to the outside. Over here women are generally more comfortable with choosing jobs in STEM and the male reaction to them isn't seen as competition or as toxic as it seems in US. idk what's the reason but perhaps they are not allowed to behave like princess barbies by their parents. But as you indicate the whole cuckoo from the US is spilling over to this region as well. Thanks to Instagram (beauty standards and trendsetting) and US propaganda that tells people how to apply any kind of norms (which is compared to "old" countries massively divisive).
I'm not saying people in the Balkans are less sexist (OMG no :D) but they seem a lot more chill in dealing with this issues. The number of times I had women use the most profane insults hurled at the opposite sex simply because this is how they speak (they swear a lot over here) often balances men's mysogonystic remarks.
edit: clarity
I wouldn't say that the Eastern Bloc had it better. Based on the experience of my own mother and others from her generation, women both had to work and take care of the children. But the roles were very well defined and people didn't waste time debating everything ad nauseam, for better or for worse.
Exactly, probably more sexism, but the discourse around it and life in general is not venomous. My theory is that when you have real (economical) problems you tend to focus first on what matters.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always been of the opinion that it’s unhealthy to base your social life around work colleagues (for many reasons), so while I strive to get on well with and be friendly with people I work with, I’ve never seen work as a place to find my primary friends groups or people to date or whatever. It’s just too messy, not just for the two people involved but for everyone around them too. I think that attitude has helped me in my interactions with women in places I’ve worked because it meant that I already don’t see them as a potential partner but rather as a professional colleague just like the men there. I try to just treat people how I want to be treated, regardless of gender or race or anything else, and from other conversations with women, I’ve been told that the best way to “help” is to do just that and to watch out for when they are being ignored and to help amplify their voices in those cases (eg if men are not giving women a chance to say their bit in a meeting, to say something like hey I’d really like to hear what she has to say, can you please stop interrupting, or whatever). That all seemed super reasonable to me and I’ve taken it on board (but haven’t been in a situation to put it into practice since, due to covid).
But these two more recent interactions did give me pause and made me question whether I would get into trouble for doing what I believe is the right thing... which brings us here.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply, I find these insights enlightening, even if they’re your 1am thoughts :)
PS I find networking pretty hard myself. I guess for very different reasons though...
And well, they aren't entirely wrong, but they aren't entirely right either. Society has obligations which can last longer than a single generation. If society has systematically oppressed and made one group poorer, then society has the obligation to make it right. So yes, squirrels have the societal obligation to make it right for the hamsters, even if none of the original opressing squirrels are even alive.
I don't think it applies as much to coding practices, where you can provide specific and constructive advice and there's a concrete thing that can be debated (i.e., the changes to the code-base). What makes good business reasoning relies upon intangibles, like experience. But even here, one could point to examples of a strategy being used in the past and failing. You can't argue with the historical facts as being innately sexist. You could argue that the variables have changed, but then there's something concrete to talk about.
Edit: minor clarification
They call it Dutch superiority because they are superior. I immigrated from the United States, and I would never go back at this point. People are still people here, but society functions, and that is because people are critical. Education is better, family relationships are better, infrastructure is better, treatment of the poor and less fortunate is better. And OP is right in that you clammed up, in precisely the way the article describes, at the slightest criticism of Anglo-Saxon culture, despite the fact that you have been describing just how much you dislike said culture in your voluminous comments.
My advice is to start being critical if you want your culture to survive. We really do see how silly you all are, and it is really more sad than anything. Fijne dag!
What about: "I personally wouldn't have cared about that." -- then you didn't say what you thought she should do, instead just what you yourself would (not) have done.
And she could have used that as a data point when making her own decision.
And, optionally continue with: "you got more education than X, I wonder if that might as well mean that the company decided to invest more money in you, maybe a good thing for you. Maybe X could have filed a complaint about that as well"
When public discourse magnifies the risk of your comments, you'll tend to be risk averse also. Once upon a time, your opinion would be spoken almost all the time, and perhaps put in a letter rarely. The effort for anyone to raise hell over a minor quibble would involve spreading the word, and doing so enough to find the rare people with a tendency to join you. Go back decades and that is infinitely less likely.
Now, chances are your comment is in writing or recorded, and even if it isn't, the quibbler can broadcast their version of events to increasingly wider circles in seconds, at no cost and with virtually no effort.
I delete half of the comments I start writing online, thinking "What's the point? At best, one person appreciates it. At worst, thousands want to argue."
Interestingly this. We are in the process of hiring a woman because of the quota. Well, we are trying because for every 20 male applicants we probably don't even get 1 female. And we are a team of 7 males. Odds are we have a female employee in a team of 8 are less likely than norm considering the applicants. But here we are.
Like it is insane, we had a female applicant which was rejected in the home assignment process. My manager told me that he felt that he needed to ask the reviewer a second time that if he is sure. Because we desperately need a token female.
And there are times that I wonder if I am part of the quota because I am an expat in this country and I come from a less developed country. I am confident in my skills that I am a good fit even if my nationality helped me at the beginning even if I got here because I am a token but I can see that it would be demotivating if I was unsure
generally agree but have seen plenty cases on social media where the barrier to that agreement was incredibly low. I've even watched myself at times backing the wrong side -out of solidarity[1]- simply because I followed that person already for years and agreed to most of their other opinions.
[1] and what monster would not "always believe the victim"? As a proud father of a gorgeous and smart daughter I have an almost automatic response to see women's rights as something I need to protect. I'd always be harsher on my won sex when it comes to blame or "whodunit" (I'm aware of it so I'm able to counter it but no doubt that this pattern is always present like some muscle memory)
Not because it will help us at reducing the bias, I am glad because no one will think of me as a sexist/racist when I give a negative feedback on an assignment review.
The premise that powerful men having interactions with women is risky isn't proven, there's all sorts of evidence to the contrary, where egregious behavior is ignored. Recent years there have been some consequences for things like physical sexual assault, not widespread consequences for misinterpreted advice.
This doesn't contradict anything I've said. If anything, it reinforces it.
The problem is many people think that just by presenting facts they will get through to people, but that doesn’t work. You have to understand the other persons emotional state too.
Our hypothetical clam doesn't know that the speaker is in the KGB or equivalent. They're stereotyping based on rumours, ethnicity and background. It doesn't matter that they are behaving prudently, it is pretty clear-cut that they are making decisions based on the racial and ethnic stereotypes they know.
I'm the bearer of bad news here. Sometimes racism is a rational response. Strive to make it not so.
1) This was a precedent for public shaming without evidence or due process 2) This generally changed the working dynamic between male and female to something extremely formal and sometimes borderline hostile 3) It was a bandwagon for actresses(and eventually other careers) to make money because of 1)
I joined a company in a different country and that coworker slacked me and said her welcomes in my mother tongue and asked me to speak in that. Apparently one of her parents was from my country and she lived there during her childhood and she was missing it
After carefully planning my reply for 15 minutes, my reply was something like: "Hi, thanks for the welcome! We can have a tea and chat if you ever visit to our floor". Immediately I thought that could be interpreted as me hitting her but I offered the tea conversation because tea is a big part of our culture and we used to do that all the time back at home with our coworkers.
But yea, it kinda felt like I am hitting on her and I was a bit worried that I introducing myself in such a bad way. iirc she replied something like "sure, thanks :)" and that smiley still haunts me. Nothing happened after that, no tea for us either.
So yeah, if you are a sperg like me with 0 social skills, it is even more worrying interacting with opposite sex.
> Answer: because the bias is, that all men are biased.
So, in a discussion where we're discussing the possibility that women might see anti-woman bias where none exists, we have a situation where a man sees anti-man bias where none exists.
This reminded me of this infamous bit from Yes, Minister, and although it's not actually entirely an example of this, it's too good not to share now i've found it:
Sir Frederick: There are four words to be included in a proposal if you want it thrown out.
Sir Humphrey: Complicated. Lengthy. Expensive. Controversial. And if you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn't accept it, you must say the decision is "courageous".
Bernard: And that's worse than "controversial"?
Sir Humphrey: Oh, yes! "Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes". "Courageous" means "this will lose you the election"!
Should we refrain from giving feedback before we have fully articulated the principles by which we would like our code to be written? What about the abundance of tacit knowledge that we can only hope others to learn by osmosis?
"even the investor themself may not know"
The above fragment is what really 'got to me'. I agree that some people may have an unconscious bias. Yet from a few studies, showing some have this bias?
I hear this now spoken of as gospel. As if the very fiber of the male being, is to have this bias. So to this:
"a man sees anti-man bias where none exists."
I say -- I don't think so. Because this 'unconscious bias' theory is a bias in itself. It's like claiming all women have victim mentality, or all women are 'queen bees'. It just isn't so.
What makes me sad is when I hear stories like this - a young man who's passionate about some field got rejected even though he had a higher exam score. He put more time, more passion and more effort into it and yet it doesn't matter because his race-gender category is overrepresented. How can we discount personal effort in the name of justice?
This applies to both men and women, from any background. Even forgetting the potential for these accusations to be levied on us, it's simply a legal liability to have someone on the team that makes public accusations on social media without evidence.
The last thing anyone wants is a lawsuit magnet on the team. Lawsuits are extremely expensive, even when you win.
Now, imagine an equally bad female leader that is also presented as a visionary. Maybe she just gets them fired by complaining to the CTO like happened at my company, or maybe she also posts the details online and ruins their reputations. She would potentially make them unemployable, while still being ultimately wrong and a bad leader.
Now, on top of that consider that while having this opinion, I still am constantly advocating for my female colleagues because on top of all that, the tech field just doesn't have many female members. The odds of a woman being a good leader is about the same as for a male in the tech field, but there's still 10 times more men. To be clear, do to pressure and a human need for validation I would say the average female dev is better than the average male by a bit because they push themselves a little harder, but good leadership is not something that develops by working harder.
All of this makes everything to do with this topic extremely difficult to deal with. I want to provide the same level of criticism to everybody, but if I don't know you well enough I can't be sure my name won't get dragged through the mud on social media. It might not even be the woman in question who does it, and the higher the stakes for the woman, the more likely I am to get called out by a coworker who's just trying to do the right thing. The end result is still that by criticizing a female leader I risk not only my job, but my entire career and social standing. That simply isn't the case when I criticize the male version of the terrible boss, and case in point I did so in the example I provided, I just wasn't high enough up the chain for him to bother reacting to.
This article is evidence in its own right of the real problem. Men are afraid to say what they think lest they get cancelled by a woman and her army of men.
If, as most in this comment section have, you see yourself as having to keep quiet in the situation presented in this article, ask yourself: who would defend me, and who would throw me under a bus, and why? Think long and hard about why the people around you wouldn't rush to defend your character. Ask yourself if it's really that the feminists are out to cancel you, or if there's a sliver of validity there.
You don't have to be perfect. But there's a large gulf between most people's words and their behavior. That's the real root of the issue here. Merely paying lip service to equality doesn't indemnify you from accusations of bias. If you really truly act as an ally, people will take notice and defend you when the cancel culture comes knocking.
Take a sociology class at your local community college, read a book, read some blogs/articles by women, people of color, and other minorities.
There are a lot of really good ways to learn from the people who have taken the time to write/speak about the issues they face.
No. I view the important parts as the individual rights. This is the reason why the United States wins: It guarantees individual rights. If Australia does that as well, then this is why it also wins. If it's just pretending, then it may not win in the long run.
Let me go back to my example of Germany - German youth are very passionate, work very hard, they put in more time and passion into things....and yet can't have nicer living conditions, can't have better social care, better roads, better healthcare, better education, because their country is paying their taxes into foreign coffers for something that their grandparents did. Once again I ask you, how is that fair to those young people who like you said - are very passionate and very hard working, now have to be denied certain things they want and pay for? They are the ones losing out for something they haven't personally done.
It's the same here. Yes, I'm truly sympathetic that a kid can get rejected from college because they are from the "wrong" social group, at absolutely no fault of their own. I truly am. But if society wants to repay its debt for the damages caused then that's one of the ways of doing this.
The other solution, of course, is to create enough places in higher education that no one gets rejected for any reason. But that's a system Americans are unwilling to pay for, so that's not a solution within that context.
As noted, this also seemed to be Rian Johnson's goal as well. It was not "make a compelling story within the Star Wars universe", it was "subvert expectations". Which in the end basically meant turning all the male characters into whinging losers / arrogant assholes while turning all the women into wise sages / over-powered wunderkinds who need no training and make no mistakes, even when they literally do: Leia and Holdo were the ones in charge when literally the entire rebel fleet was destroyed except for one ship with like 10 people on it, and the script gives them zero flack for this. And then of course you have the script letting said terrible leader become an awesome and amazing martyr by single-handedly destroying the huge and menacing enemy flagship in a way that was visually stunning (loved it in the cinema) but broke Star Wars canon in honestly a pretty staggering way (realized once my brain caught up with my eyes).
This actually seems to rhyme a bit with the OP – you can't point out what terrible leaders they were in VIII because the leaders in question happened to be women (I say "happened to be", but it is also clear that the decision to put leadership of the good guys in the hands of women while leaving the leadership of the bad guys in the hands of men was a pretty deliberate move).
Contrast this with The Mandalorian, which has strong and compelling female characters and is adored by audiences of all genders. Why? Because the agenda was not "subvert expectations", it was "make a good Star Wars story".
What, no! :-)
It's instead taxes, and free university education, and free health care for everyone.
And reaching out to historically unfairly treated groups, and inspiring (some of) them to start their own companies or become politicians.
And things like the first exchanges in job applications being without photos and real names
But not blaming "everyone" living today, for what some people in the past generations did
Is it really just "some movies have coherent stories, and some don't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯".
I think if you listen to Kathleen Kennedy talk about her vision for Star Wars, it becomes pretty clear that her goal was not "make good cinema", it was "push (racial and gender) diversity-for-the-sake-of-diversity agenda".
I mean, her contribution to The Mandalorian (which luckily was entirely conceived outside of her influence) was:
> In March 2018. Kennedy added that the series was an opportunity for a diverse group of writers and directors to be hired to create Star Wars stories, after the franchise's films had been criticized for being written and directed by only white men.
Bluntly, I am skeptical that the Dutch are any better at belaying their subjective biases than any other culture--anglo, asian, or otherwise. You may believe you are simply bluntly stating a truth as you see it, but the reality is that you are displaying your own blinders (and comically acting superior while doing so).
Your culture produced Pim and Geert: bluntly, it's hilarious that you think you're stating any truth, here.
I suppose one solution is for women to first gain the trust of the men whose honest opinion they want to hear. Maybe just some comments that explode the unspoken tensions, like “My friend Chad said he thinks my male co-founder should be CEO, and maybe he’s right, but I don’t fully trust his judgement because he can be quite old fashioned and, to be honest, sexist. But that doesn’t necessarily make him wrong in this instance. Could you give me your honest opinion?” It’s then easy for the man to respond.
So, women are being segregated before having any occasion to accuse men of sexism, and yet you claim that they would face 'no consequences' if they actually did?
If you don't have the bandwidth to process all the arguments you're receiving... receive fewer arguments. Get involved in fewer shitposting threads on the internet. Have fewer arguments about politics at work. The solution is not to assume / reduce / summarize until the arguments become tidy little things you can stick in boxes, it is to just reduce your workload so that you can give the arguments you care most about the attention they deserve.
What actually happened is that most Black people were owned as slaves and contributed 3/5ths of a person toward state representation, Native Americans were murdered, defrauded, and forcibly resettled, and women couldn't vote for the majority of the history of the U.S.
> Instead we created African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Gay-Americans, Straight-Americans, Native-Americans, etc, and everyone is out for themselves. And everyone is against one another.
We created each of these subgroups by treating certain people so badly because of their traits that they banded together for protection.
> If we could forgo with the labels we would relieve so much pressure from society it's not even funny any more.
We tried; it didn't work. The Constitution was worded very generically without labels, except for laws specific to native Americans, and using "he" as a pronoun. Most following laws followed the pattern. The result? Slavery, genocide, disenfranchising women.
This is an interesting perspective, and it's something that I found weird when I started working with Americans - they're so cagey about their non-work lives compared to how people are in Ireland. With most of my previous co-workers I'd know their backstories and their partners/spouses/kids names, even if I've never met them, but with my current (mostly American) team unless I actually ask people this stuff they absolutely only ever talk about work, unless they have a story or two that from their real lives that fits with their work persona
So if a Brit/American wants to insult you they'll do it politely/obliquely, the flipside being that politeness can often be misinterpreted as an insult. That won't happen with the Dutch, because if they want to insult you they'll just insult you directly. Is that what you mean? If so - haha, v interesting!
Exactly the attitude people used to justify their keeping Jewish and Asian people out of their clubs. Exactly the attitude people used to keep homosexuals out of certain positions.
In a society that's really free, having opinions should not be the thing which is penalized. In a society that's truly free, you don't have people going around actively looking for thought criminals to persecute -- which is the actual case in certain parts of SF. Instead, people just say, "It's a free country," and associate elsewhere.
In a society that's really free, you don't have people using systemic and economic power to force other people to speak as you'd want them to. In a society that's really free, you don't have people using systemic and economic power to scare people into shutting up. That's not freedom, that's horror, and it's precisely the sort of thing that can go around and come around to bite the people who were once doing it to others. Those are precisely the tools bigots and hateful people used to use to suppress people different from themselves. Resorting to those are among the key signs that one is on the wrong side of history.
In a society that's really free, you have some people who find a genuinely better way, and other people join them out of their own free will. We used to know that in the US. We were proud of it, and the world admired us for it -- For the sheer intellectual generosity and triumph of the human spirit it represented. Now, our own younger generations have no clue, and just wish to cram their own opinion down the throats of people they other and despise.
I've seen it firsthand. You don't convert people with such disdainful and hateful tactics. You convert people by living with them!
It isn't some startling gotcha to point that out. "Good cinema" is subjective and meaningless, money can be quantified and is objectively reported as a number.
Anyone claiming the goal is something other than money is projecting.
I didn't like The Last Jedi but it got good reviews which shows how meaningless it is to argue about what is a "good Star Wars story" from a business perspective. Audience exit polls were also positive.
As far as I can tell the goal was to make Star Wars stuff as quickly as possible, presumably set by the Disney CEO not Kennedy. Presumably because he cared more about showing he was making back the money buying Lucasfilm than quality.
So they hired three writer directors and had them start banging out scripts immediately, instead of hiring a writer to outline movies in advance.
And the movies (except Solo) made a ton of money and 2 out of 3 had good reviews and good exit polls. So they are "good" by any "objective" metric.
I guess they've also been "good" for reactionary youtubers so the money trickles down.
None of us know what Kathleen Kennedy's involvement was in private office meetings or what notes she gave. The Youtubers version of Kathleen Kennedy is a fictional character. People are projecting meaning into PR statements about diversity.
An how would this claim be attacked by this passage:
> Yes, and I'm sure the Dutch robotically compute such numbers, and there is rarely or never any subjectivity in their decision making that is justified ex post facto by clever accounting.
How the numbers are derived is completely unrelated to how large the role they play is.
> The claim can be technically true, in that laws or cultural norms might require an employer to put numbers to paper to justify a promotion or termination (for example), while at the same time being misleading, in that the numbers can easily be used as an ex post facto justification.
So you aren't attacking the claim itself; you're merely saying that the claim is misleading.
> Bluntly, I am skeptical that the Dutch are any better at belaying their subjective biases than any other culture--anglo, asian, or otherwise.
Perhaps you are, but again, I never said anything of the sort, so I'm again pointing to that you are attacking a straw man.
As an side-note. I am sceptical of the existence of such a thing as “Asian culture.”; — I personally find that Chinese culture is further removed from, say, Japanese culture, than Japanese culture is from, say, English culture, especially after the cultural revolution in China. — I have viewed several cultural indicies which attempt to numerically classify various properties of various cultures and they do indeed tend to place Japan closer to England than to China in many respects.
> Your culture produced Pim and Geert: bluntly, it's hilarious that you think you're stating any truth, here.
None of which has anything to do with anything I said.
I find your claim that you aren't attacking straw men to be even more mystifying if you think this is an argument against what I said. This is an argument of the level of “If evolution be true? then how come atheists couldn't stop 9/11?”. — this is an absolutely bizarre connexion you made here of two completely unrelated matters.
The fact that you think that would solve anything, despite centuries of evidence against it is even worse.
You will never be able to fix the past, nothing will ever bring back those people and they will never get a chance to live a just and fair life, let alone a happy one. It is unjust that it happened the way it did, it is sad, it is inexcusable, but it is also already done.
The only hope we have, and if we owe them anything we owe them this, is to create a better future by not repeating the mistakes of the past.
But instead you are doubling down on them. Dividing everyone again. Putting everyone in boxes and forcing them to give up their lives and dreams for them. Opening vicarious wounds and making people find a hate inside of them that was never there in the first place. And then wonder why the pushback.
I realize you think you have all the answers and that is why you speak with so much superiority from up high above the rest of us so I’ll never be able to change your mind, but for others that might be reading this, be very skeptical every time someone asks you to forget yourself and become a label, as that is what brought us here. You are better than a label, you are much much more than that.
You will find many of the benefits of which you speak in other Anglo-Saxon nations such as Canada as well. In fact, Canada ranks far higher than the Netherlands in social mobility indices, and social mobility in the Netherlands is not very high compared to other developed nations, only average, but social mobility is very low in the U.S.A..
The arguments you raised here were not of anything that was spoken of in this discussion, but of how much less capitalist the Netherlands is than the U.S.A., which would similarly apply to any other developed nations.
The topic spoke of gender relationships, which is entirely unrelated, and I remain that I'm sceptical that it's truly as bad as claimed, for I have seen as many anecdotes that point to the opposite from Anglo-Saxons.
But yes, I have seen many an Anglo-Saxon rant on the internet that speaks of a ridiculous, dystopian doom scenario in Anglo-Saxon gender relationships, where the male cannot walk outside with his own children alone, lest he be arrested on the spot for child abduction, and the female cannot buy his own automative vehicle, for the salesman would first ask for permission of a male relative ere he be allowed to do so. — these stories seem very exaggerated, but I have certainly read stories that go to this length.
I have also read counter anecdotes that claim that there is no real problem, and that much of it seems to be outright whining of how bad it is for the home team makes me sceptical that gender relationships are truly as bad as they claim in the Anglo-Saxon world. What I do think is perhaps the big problem is the tribalist nature and tensions, and how quickly people see ghosts, and complain on being mistreated on their tribe. The Anglo-Saxon seems to very often be a team player by nature, an be quick to shout sexism or racism, when other factors might be at play.
I've had my haircut mentioned at work… because I'd had a haircut. It's people trying to be nice or make conversation, and neither of those things are unprofessional.
This point is universal and it doesn't matter on which side of the Atlantic it happened.
If you are gonna fight for historical reparations at least get your history right.
The US didn’t invent slavery, didn’t perform the first genocide, nor the last, and didn’t treat women any different than any other modern society did at the same point point in time. The constitution is not responsible for any of that, despite all the “he”s you might find in it.
These problems have been with us for centuries. There is no society that has ever existed that hasn’t encounter them.
Progress only comes from realizing we are more equal than we are different. We should not go back to segregation, we should not keep creating labels-americans.
That resonates quite strongly with my experience, especially at competitive workplaces (big tech companies in SV). I'm a white straight man, if that matters, though.
I think these are fair questions. Reflecting back on a younger and more arrogant self, I can see that I was quite more pushy with my opinions. And they were that, opinions. Having them challenged when I was no longer the best coder in the room was how I grew, but that required speaking in clear language, and having clear arguments. I think the sooner you learn to do this, the better, and it might challenge some bad ideas that you've held dear.
It is not, actually; it's fundamentally important. Your claim is in two parts: 1) numbers play a larger role in this context in Dutch society; 2) this is a direct cause of lower/non-existent incidence of, e.g., accusations of sexism.
I'm only suggesting that it's terribly easy for someone to use numbers to justify after the fact a decision based on sexism, and that I'm skeptical this condition is absent in Dutch culture.
> So you aren't attacking the claim itself; you're merely saying that the claim is misleading.
No, I'm not calling the claim misleading, I noted that the numbers used to justify a decision can be misleading (which is, in fact, a direct attack against your claim).
"It is unjust that it happened the way it did, it is sad, it is inexcusable, but it is also already done."
Ok cool, I guess we just do nothing and live our lives. Millions of people being practically sentenced to poverty, to lack of healthcare and education, specifically because of systematic discrimination against them - well, bygones should be bygones, right? After all, I didn't do it, it was some other people who lived before me, why should I do anything now. Best we can do is give everyone equal opportunity, and ignore the fact that certain groups can hardly meet those "equal" standards due to systemic injustices that were done to them. Is that fair to you? Is that equal to you?
>>The only hope we have, and if we owe them anything we owe them this, is to create a better future by not repeating the mistakes of the past.
I'll use my German example for the 3rd and last time(I promise) - Obviously after WW2 ended the correct course of action for Germany wasn't to just say "well, the best we can do is just promise we'll never do this again". German people actively try to make it right for the countries they attacked, even if they make their own population poorer as a result. That's how you create the better future - by actively trying to make it right by the people who have been wronged, not just ignoring the issue.
>>so much superiority from up high above the rest of us so I’ll never be able to change your mind
The funny thing is, the exact same applies to you. I also won't be able to change your mind, you're also completely solid in your beliefs. But that's the nature of the discussion - you might be able to chip at my beliefs, I might be able to chip away at yours. The problem won't be decided in some HN comments after all.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.", attributed to Cardinal Richelieu.
When I said it was sort of a pet peeve of mine, that perhaps sounds like I meant I was criticizing you and that's really not what I meant. I meant it aggravates me to see someone post in good faith, get downvoted to hell until they seem to be pissed off and no one will reach out to them and say "This doesn't work well on this forum for this reason."
I occasionally do try to make that effort in part because I'm a demographic outlier so I don't readily fit in here and have always had to really work at it and I sometimes get a lot of downvotes for what seems to be simply being a different demographic.
This forum skews culturally American to some degree. There do seem to be a fair number of Dutch members who post, but it is run by an American company and that helps shape the dominant culture here.
I'm American but I'm a former military wife. Like the Dutch, I tend to be pretty blunt.
Some people find me to be refreshingly direct. Others find me to be rude, crude and socially unacceptable. It seems to have little to do with my behavior and more to do with their cultural expectations.
I was only trying to tell you your bluntness will tend to be interpreted by most Americans as rudeness and disrespect, though some people with military experience will be more tolerant.
It's always a risk to say something to a total stranger and that's likely why it's common for someone to get downvoted to hell and no one tries to talk to them about that in some kind of helpful fashion: Because it can get misinterpreted and make the problem worse and make you a target of their ire.
I don't really care. I tend to do what makes sense to me and accept that sometimes it bites me in the ass.
Unlike a lot of people, I don't have to sit around justifying my guilty conscience. I don't have one. I don't stand idly by and say "Not my problem."
I'm sorry this didn't go well. I don't intend to discuss it with you further. If your take away from this is that I attacked you rather than that I was trying to reach out and bridge the cultural barrier you will face on HN, welp, you win some, you lose some.
Have a great day. Sincerely.
> In March 2018. Kennedy added that the series was an opportunity for a diverse group of writers and directors to be hired to create Star Wars stories, after the franchise's films had been criticized for being written and directed by only white men.
You don't need closed-room meeting comments to just look at her public comments and infer the motivations from there. Literally, go and look at any public comments she has made.
This is backwards.
You have no control over how other people think, behave or react, let alone how they interpret your words.
Your words can be effective or ineffective conveyors of your thoughts. You are responsible for your words.
Your listeners can be effective or ineffective listeners. They are responsible for their interpretation.
I was kind of expecting something more...respectful? Like, that's not at all "candid advice misunderstood". That's a person disrespected in a way that happens more to women than men, and people drawing conclusions.
The Socratic Method is similar. But it differs because it is trying to expose a contradiction in thought about a particular subject through questions. Whereas you can trick others into critical thinking about a subject just by helping them think critically in general, and it can be done without the use of questions.
As an Asian-American, I reject that Asians and other immigrants should be required to pay for the sins, whatever they may be, that white Americans have visited on black Americans in the past. If you're Asian and you're reading this, vote people who think as the above poster do out of office and make it clear why. We earned our place through hard work and education to become so capable that we couldn't be ignored in spite of racism against us. There's no reason we should be forced to sacrifice that for the ideological goals of others.
To me, talking with people is a really normal activity, but it's gone weird places with people who seem to think we have a super intimate relationship because I talked with them a little. And they reflect that back to me as being far more conversation than they've had with anyone in ages and now want to treat me like their personal possession or some nonsense.
Just being less share-y and drawing certain boundaries seems to be the only effective approach. Being what I think of as personable, polite and diplomatic just goes really weird places at times and then I can't get rid of people who latch onto me like obsessed nutcases.
Reading up on some Irish playwright helped me feel more at peace with some things.
I'm American. Born and raised here and spent most of my life here. But I tend to get misread a lot by Americans and tend to hit it off better with foreigners, third culture kids, people who have traveled a lot, etc.
Honestly, if it's so risky to give candid advice to anyone, why take the risk? There's no reason to. They can make it on their own afterall.
"internalized misogyny" is the term you are looking for.
You might unpack why you see hiring a diverse group of people as the opposite of "making good product" but the long and short answer is you are the sort of reactionary I was talking about.
Never mind the fact that all Star Wars directors so far have been white men, or facts at all, you are angry and upset because someone told you to feel that way and told you that article should make you angry.
Oppression is the symptom not the cause. Segregation is the cause. Every time you promote segregation you are nursing oppression, and it will grow. Group-think is segregation.
I’m not saying do nothing. I’m saying don’t do what has already been proven not only to not work but to make things worse. Segregation makes things worse.
I would personally never live in Canada either. As someone who can say from experience what this culture is really like, I tend to agree with the dystopian doom scenario and that entails all of North America. Try it for yourself if you like.
You really cannot speak your mind with a female coworker in the United States. My guard is fully up because I have experienced numerous difficulties with "just being myself" that have never caused issues here. Threatening to go to HR to get one's way is something that I have experienced personally and seen multiple times with peers, and the men never win. However, this is in the context of startup/tech culture, and it is a worse problem in this area.
In relationships, they know that they can always take the children. The government/society fully supports them regardless of the circumstances. A big female content creator in the U.S., neekolul, went on twitter to trash her ex-husband despite the fact that she was tried and convicted of felony domestic violence for stabbing him during a fight, but her fellow female content creators shrugged and supported her anyway. It's the most horrible example of many, but the point is, it's real. The people who don't believe it are delusional or have an abusive partner themselves.
I'm curious. Do you have any colleagues from the UK or from southern Europe? How do you treat them? I am similarly guarded with women from these places, although not nearly as much as I felt I had to be in the United States.
This is not the same thing. Being Asian is not something you "do". Homosexuality is the better analogy. And that's why we've made specific laws to exempt race, religion, gender, and now often sexuality from consequences. There are arguments that these things are different -- and except for religion now largely considered immutable aspects of personality that don't negatively impact the lives of other people.
In a society that's really free you can decide who you want to associate with. And that's our general principle in our society. That's why this is the default position that we take as a society. But we have called out very specific instances where we think that this can result in a tyranny of the majority or those in power, and we've made laws to exempt them.
It sounds like you want new laws so that we shouldn't be able to apply any consequence to people we disagree with? We should just always live with them, regardless of how vile we find their views? Do you really live this?
>In a society that's really free, you have some people who find a genuinely better way, and other people join them out of their own free will.
That is naive and not the point. Everything is not about "finding a better way" to do something. Some of it is simply if person A says they want to kill everyone I love then I probably want to let people know about this and if they happen to own a hamburger restaurant in my neighborhood then I probably don't want to eat there. Should my best friend eat there? I'd prefer they not. You're saying I don't have the freedom, in your free society, to say that I think this is a bad person and I think before your money flows to them I think you should know how bad they are.
It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. You want to be able to offend people and do things they find morally reprehensible, which is fine. You're free to do so. But then you want to limit other people's ability to react to it.
>We used to know that in the US. We were proud of it, and the world admired us for it -- For the sheer intellectual generosity and triumph of the human spirit it represented. Now, our own younger generations have no clue, and just wish to cram their own opinion down the throats of people they other and despise.
Have you studied US history? This is laughable. Blood was shed for much of the progress in this country. Fortunately, morality has tended to bend toward progress, but its because there were people strong enough to fight for groups that were marginalized.
I do lean towards the opposite opinion. But I'm in no position to judge definitively whether the net effect has been positive or negative so far, I'd need to interview a sizeable and representative sample of women for that.
Responding to your points:
1) What's missing from this argument is how we get to this point. IMO, the reason public shaming was used by the movement as a way to achieve justice, is because from their point of view, there was no other way to achieve justice. It's a classic example of "taking matters into their own hands" because the system failed them. Public shaming isn't the end goal, it should be a wake-up call to restore faith in the system.
2) I don't feel like anything meaningful changed in how I interact with female coworkers since metoo. But I only have my own experience to go on, so I won't make any big claims here.
3) Even if this is true (citation needed), it seems irrelevant.
The topic of discussion was whether #metoo was a net positive or a net negative for women. Simply saying that it has created an environment of fear does not address this question at all. Even if true, perhaps having some people be afraid is a net positive for women in the workplace? Or perhaps it is negative, but other positive outcomes of the movement outweigh it?
All it takes it is for a girl to even utter ‘that guy is kind of creepy’, and boom, people will extrapolate from something as simple as that.
Perhaps, but this is a different matter to how the poor are treated, wouldn't you say?
Do you feel that Canada also treats the poor poorly? or that it has merely also inherited Anglo-Saxon gender chivalry? As I'm sceptical of the former, but not the latter.
> In relationships, they know that they can always take the children. The government/society fully supports them regardless of the circumstances. A big female content creator in the U.S., neekolul, went on twitter to trash her ex-husband despite the fact that she was tried and convicted of felony domestic violence for stabbing him during a fight, but her fellow female content creators shrugged and supported her anyway. It's the most horrible example of many, but the point is, it's real. The people who don't believe it are delusional or have an abusive partner themselves.
Well, these would indeed be some of the doomsday stories of tribalism and gender relationships I often hear of Anglo-Saxon culture where everyone has decided who is right and who is wrong based on little more than “What team do you play for?”, that I have never experienced in the Netherlands.
But, then again, such stories, as in this case, seem to once again come from a team, and are anecdotal, so perhaps exaggerated. The other team frequently paints a doomsday scenario in the opposite direction, of which I am as sceptical as I am of this one due to it.
> I'm curious. Do you have any colleagues from the UK or from southern Europe? How do you treat them? I am similarly guarded with women from these places, although not nearly as much as I felt I had to be in the United States.
None that spent their formative years outside of the Netherlands, no.
The one very mild experience I had in life with someone who did seem to on some level believe in “gender relations” was indeed with a friend of mine who had Finnish parents, and was born in the U.K. but lived in the Netherlands since four years old and spoke Dutch accentlessly. Perhaps it's a coincidence that this is the one person who had such perspectives, but perhaps it isn't; it does make one wonder that the one person happened to be a natal foreigner, but his foreign ancestry was seldom something that came up.
There were certainly not gendered excuses or accusations of sexism, but there were sometimes remarks in the vein of “Are you even aware of that I'm female in how you treat me?”, at least initially, after which it mostly went away.
So if you don't help them out now, that's what's increasing segregation because their state doesn't improve, we never reach the state of equality of opportunity if some sides have a permanent handicap due to earlier injustices. You're saying that helping out is what perpetuates segregation - it's the exact opposite.
Adam Neumann?
https://www.ruetir.com/2021/03/29/writer-says-philosopher-mi...
I do not have these sorts of worries around people with whom I am well acquainted. I know I'm not prejudice and I trust my friends to interpret my words and actions in good faith. But I recognize there is a minority of people out there who will intentionally take what I say or do in bad faith if it benefits them. People like that exist in all groups, regardless of physical traits. When interacting with a minority or protected class, I have to worry just as much about interpretations of those around me as that of the person I'm interacting with. In a world where accusations of prejudice are often met with a guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality, any such accusation is very damaging regardless of who it comes from.
Anyway, your comments have given me lots to think about. Thanks! Hopefully you find ways to improve things for yourself too.
In my view there are few things more rewarding than taking control of our lives, and stop blaming others for our own shortcomings.
I'm not sure if this is irony or just sadness.
1) My "assume good faith" policy doesn't mean I'm okay with genuine harassment, and I have no problems standing up for myself. 2) I will always TELL colleagues if I'm uncomfortable and give them a chance to change their behavior before I escalate anything to HR.
But ultimately, this is something that comes down to trust. Trust in my colleagues to not take advantage of the "assume good faith" policy, and trust in me to use good sense to interpret my colleagues' behavior.
And, frankly, the modern workplace is a really hard place to cultivate trust in. But I do my best, and thus far, my efforts seem to have paid off.
However Brendan Fraser's character tries to phrase his wishes, the devil finds a way to mess him up.
It's sad, and sometimes frustrating, that I have to think in these "nuclear arms race" terms. And that's something else I try to be open about: that I'm really frustrated with this environment of fear. I think the more people openly acknowledge that, the easier it will be to move toward a healthier environment.
Sometimes the opposite action is not what is needed to regain balance.
Affirmative action is what is keeping them poor. Segregation is what is keeping them poor. Give them special treatment and that is all you’ll make them, special, not equal. Integration, real integration which includes competition is what is needed. They need to earn their place because that is the only sure way they’ll keep it, and that is the only way others will respect them enough to treat them equally.
My only comment was regarding the number of experiences of the parent. Nothing less, nothing more.
The main complaint that has driven this entire recent cycle of upswing in alt-right and far right movements is this preferential treatment and critiques of it. Young white men who complain about college admission inequality get sucked into a siphon of hatred at inequality and preferential treatment that ends in racism. So like the other person was trying to argue, "helping out is what perpetuates segregation". This inequality breeds statistically significant increases in racial hatred even if it has a good intent.
I mean, you went full on racist here. I imagine you weren't planning to, but just read that sentence back a few times.
It's like.....yeah we(as American society) treated you like shit, denied you every opportunity, and now the only way to make things right is for you to compete and prove that we can respect you and treat you equally.
Like, again, just read what you're even saying. It's far more scary than anything I've said.
And no, I don't think hiring a diverse group of people and making good product are opposites or at all mutually exclusive. I never said that, so please don't misrepresent me (as you seem very keen to do). What I do think is that people have priorities and if your priorities are out of whack then that is going to have an effect on your outcomes.
If Apple says that their goal is to have phones be made with as (racial and gender, not neuro) diverse a group as possible, rather than "we want to make the best phones", then yes, I absolutely would be concerned about the future quality of their phones. I don't care who designs/makes my iPhone, and so my priorities and Apple's priorities would be misaligned. In fact, probably the best signal for the future of Apple design recently (for me) was when they parted ways with Jony Ive, a white man. But that was not a good signal to me because of his race or gender, but rather because I think Jony Ive without Steve Jobs to curb his worst impulses was bad for Apple products.
Likewise, I don't care if Star Wars is directed by a straight white man or a pansexual black woman (my two favorite episodes of The Mandalorian S2 were directed by a woman and a black man) – I just want the focus to be on quality storytelling, which is clearly not Kathleen Kennedy's primary concern, if you (again) look at any of her public comments on the subject. Luckily it is Jon Favreau's concern, which is why with The Mandalorian we got both: compelling storytelling with strong characters (of all types), directed by a diverse set of directors.
I understand your point, of course, but it does not actually explain theirs.
> I understand the meanings of words like "sexist" and "racist" are changing and subject to opinion.
Also on this point, I think this kind of "words having different meanings to different people" is far more common than people realize and requisites more care in how we interpret others' statements. I think this is obviously true for any "ism" (sexism, racism, capitalism, socialism, etc). Pinning a definition to strictly our own interpretation ends up being naive and often leads to fighting because we have basic breakdowns in communication. We can't agree even if philosophically we agree. It should be the other way around, meaning triumphing over diction. Diction over meaning is just looking for a fight.
Saying that white men are confident and black women aren't is simultaneous bi-directional racism. You are generalizing white men and black women AND telling black women to act more white?
I'm sorry if it was interpreted this way (I know some people want this, but this is not what I'm advocating for).
> Isn't the entire point that we want less of it?
This is goal. But we also can't solve a problem if we don't acknowledge it. To do that expanding the definition helps. BUT if you expand the definition you need to also respond differently (this is where I disagree with what we see). We need to see nuance that there's a big difference between rape and not being as open with advice due to potentially becoming a social pariah. Our responses to these should be extremely different (which is what I'm advocating for). But this also means we need to recognize our progress (which I've been accused of for dog whistling having said that).
I just think we need to stop making our fights over diction and about philosophy. If we're placing diction over philosophy we'll never solve anything and always be fighting. We can never have unanimous agreement on diction, that's just not how language works (words evolve). So the question is if your disagreements with me mainly over word choice or if we have disagreements in philosophy (and are they minor or major?)
Removing any punishment isn't vague - just take it out of the hands of those who can currently inflict it:
1. Make it illegal to fire employees for any speech in the public square.
2. Make it so they have to be found guilty in a court of law in order to be fired or shunned for anything sexist or racist.
3. Make it so that any publicly funded institution (even partly) cannot terminate their relationships with individuals because of their speech in the past or the future.
Right now what we're seeing is extrajudicial punishment instigated at the will of anyone with a twitter account and following. The above suggestions reduce the twitter mob's leverage because they shouldn't have any to begin with. Anyone seeking damages should have to go through channels that allow some kind of defense. The court system is supposed to be systemized thoughtfulness so we should rely on it.
The way I see it playing out is that companies will force all employees off of social media with their own names or fewer people will attack companies because they know that the company can't do anything. Both cases are a positive change.
You're being optimistic about vengeful people online. I don't think you're being realistic.
I don't think it's unlikely. It was early in the chain of events, so even if it was six months it could have had a big impact.
Wow, the segregationist calling others racist.
Good bye.
If that's any consolation - so did I, but then you suggested that opressed groups have to earn respect to be treated equally. Should have come out with that line right at the beginning and saved us both a good amount of time.
It is a question of trust, as you have correctly pointed out... But there has been precedence of women behaving as you currently seem to do, just to go public with stories going back years, taken out of context and portrayed as extreme sexism.
Any interaction is a potential liability with very little potential reward.
It doesn't even matter if the characters in Star Wars are white or black or brown- they appear to live in a society with no human concept of race- so I don't even know why you keep bring up the topic of diversity? Human races have zero to do with the plot of any Star Wars ever.
From what i've seen of it Mandalorian depicts a color blind, gender blind social world just like the sequal trilogy, they are sort of the same, so why go on about it?
I don't know why you keep bringing up diversity? It has nothing to do with the characters or why Mandorian is different from the movies so who cares?
The fact you enjoy Mandolorian but not the films just suggests you like one thing and don't like another. It says nothing about gender, diversity, artistic intent (artists tend to try to make good art even if they fail at it. Business people tend to try to make money.) so I don't know how else to explain your posts other than reactionary.
It's cool you like the Mandalorian but you don't actually know the motives of anyone involved, you just know you like the art they made.
Your trick a great idea though, thanks for raising it!
The one concrete example that comes to mind is mentoring: Not wanting to take a special interest in a more junior team member's career development, or have lots of one-on-one meetings, because she's a woman and they're worried about accusations of sexual harrassment.
I would actually think that's rare, for someone who says "no porcelain skin" and gives one and one feedback. ("TELL colleagues if I'm uncomfortable")
Not saying it's never happened -- however it seems to me that in this case it'd be more well spent time to worry about the traffic and drive a bit slower.
Whatever you do in life there's always some risk, and minimizing all risks can create a boring life. Like, always working from home (the traffic!), and avoiding [giving feedback to this seemingly good judgement person and making a new friend].
Why is that more important for cybersecurity teams? Is it that other teams can sometimes look at security as something annoying that slows them down? So they care about security not because they care about security, but because you + team are their friends? :-)
What's different is the moral color of the sexism. If Eric treats women differently in his workplace because he thinks they should be raising babies, not writing code, our cultural norms say Eric is a Bad Person.
Now suppose Bob genuinely believes women and men should have equal opportunities and career paths in the workplace. But Bob treats women differently in his workplace because he's afraid of a false accusation that ends up with him getting sued, fired, having his reputation ruined, etc.
Then we'd say that Bob isn't a bad person. Or at the very least, he's not anywhere near as bad as Eric. He's just trying to do his best to protect himself from a social system he doesn't control, that will grind him up if he gets caught in its gears.
If you take the definition of "sexism" to be "treating people differently based on their gender," the case against Bob is airtight. Bob's literally a sexist: He treats women differently because of gender.
I think the reason you're trying to argue Bob's not a sexist is because the word "sexist" itself is normative. Sexists are Bad People like Eric. Bob's not a Bad Person, so we shouldn't use the word "sexist" to describe him, because "sexist" has a moral color -- part of the meaning of the label is that you're a Bad Person.
In other words, if you say Bob's not a sexist, you must be taking your definition of "sexist" to be something else. Treating women differently for a certain kind of reason.
With this more nuanced definition of "sexist," it's possible that Eric's a sexist and Bob is not, even if their actual actions toward women are the same.
To properly describe what Bob is, you might need to create a new word to describe someone who treats women differently, but in a morally neutral way (or at least a lighter shade of grey).
Racism might also benefit from having a term that fills this linguistic / conceptual niche. ("Systemic racism" might have fit the bill at one time, but I think that particular term has become colored -- pun intended -- by a moral connotation.)
All I can do is my personal best to turn down the fear notch. But I'll admit--if I were a male colleague, I would still hold onto some of that fear to some degree.
"I can't make it, but I appreciate the offer."
It's also very common for people to view cybersecurity engineers as people who needlessly make things more difficult just so they can "look like they're busy" and collect a heftier salary. (I've found this mindset especially common in non-technical teams.)
We're kind of like the dentists of the industry--everyone grumbles about how pricey we are, no one looks forward to visits from us, people question whether we're actually fixing things or just out to make a buck, and we have to hand out all sorts of annoying reminders (floss your teeth! don't install Chrome add-ons! brush twice a day!)
Having a strong relationship with other teams allows me to come to the table and say, "Hey, look, we both respect each other. You know I don't bullshit, and I wouldn't be asking you to do this if it wasn't a real issue. So please at least listen to my concern and try to work with me here. And you know I'll always listen to your concerns in turn, so we can do this as painlessly as possible."
So it's not exactly "getting them to care about security because we're friends." It's more of, "getting them to listen because we both respect each other." And if you can do that--get them to listen instead of having them immediately shut down, get angry, and convince themselves it's all bullshit--then usually they'll quickly understand there's an actual threat at hand. And once you convince them there's an actual threat, they're way more likely to do something about it, instead of throwing a fit and resorting to vindictive pushback.
This entire post is about diversity and gender issues, so, um, what else would we be talking about? In fact, I think the intersection of gender with the new Star Wars films is hugely relevant to the OP.
Perhaps the reason Rey was a Mary Sue is because nobody felt comfortable saying "hey, maybe this character should have some like, flaws she needs to overcome or something", because they were worried people would see that as wanting the female lead to be weak, and get pilloried for the suggestion. Sure, maybe gender had absolutely nothing to do with this poor storytelling decision, but based on the actual comments of the creatives involved, that definitely seems like the less likely reality.
Likewise, you talk about devoting your attention to the most important arguments -- but how do you decide which arguments deserve that attention? You can't be doing that 100% independently, you must at some point be allowing other people to raise issues to your attention, and to shift your priors a bit by virtue of the credibility they have earned via their track record (of being right, of being honest, of caring about things you care about).
Communicating "this is what I think of your work, some of it is negative but isn't intended as an attack against you" (without actually using any of those words, otherwise you run into the "my human trafficking shirt" problem) in a way that you're confident your criticisms won't be used against you, it's a skill you can and should train.
But it's work. Like, okay, social stuff is a part of the job, but when you're an engineer in a room with other engineers you'd like to be able to speak your mind without constantly simulating a PR team in your brain.
I think a strong part of what you're describing is that you need to be on point with your non-verbal communication; you need to both tell people that you won't take offense to constructive criticism, and signal it with a lot of cues.
Telling people "this is an example of prejudice, this is how I react to it, if you don't act like this you're clear" is a pretty smooth move too.
> 1. Make it illegal to fire employees for any speech in the public square.
So you can't fire an employee that is causing an uproar and a subsequent boycott of your product? Because that's why they get fired now, to prevent a decrease in sales. The only way maintaining the employee and the sales is for the public to recognize that an employee (including a CEO) does not represent the company (which in a case of a CEO can be shaky). This is a tricky situation that I think you're overly simplifying.
> 2. Make it so they have to be found guilty in a court of law in order to be fired or shunned for anything sexist or racist.
I feel a bit better about this. But this lines up with my tempered approach. I think this may be a bit too light handed though. For example, it is legal to be a Neo Nazi. That is protected by free speech. But if a high level employee is openly a Neo Nazi then that's going to affect your sales.
> 3.
Same goes here.
I think these solutions are too simple that they miss the nuance I'm asking for.
> Right now what we're seeing is extrajudicial punishment instigated at the will of anyone with a twitter account and following.
This is a huge problem that I'm concerned about. But I don't see a way around it without having society act better.
Well I do see one other solution, but it has a lot of consequences too. Twitter/Facebook/etc could change their algorithms to prevent these cases from going viral. But there's big consequences to that and makes them arbiters of "*ism". That's also a dangerous situation and honestly a position I don't think Mark or Jack wants to be in.
> You're being optimistic about vengeful people online.
I'm not optimistic about them. I'm optimistic about the public. That the general public will get tired of this shit. Getting tired will cause less clicks, which will cause less rage, and momentum will dampen the system. But right now we have media resonating with this vocal minority because it brings in dollars. People still click a lot on hate porn (articles like "You won't believe how dumb {Republicans,Democrats} are" or "Watch this {Democrat,Republican} get totally destroyed!"). People are already getting sick of it, that's why we're having this discussion. So I'm saying fight by not clicking. Increase the momentum back to normality.
There's nothing about wanting to hire diverse staff that implies she wants to make bad movies or doesn't want to make good movies or anything at all. So your quote says nothing that needs to rebutted. It's just a non sequeter.
Your argument stems on the movies being bad. Who is to say the movies are bad? Critics loved Force Awakens and Last Jedi and exit audience polls were positive. (Arguing over whether Rey is a Mary Sue is so 2016. Who cares? So she's a Mary Sue, cool. The reviews were positive so maybe she is and movies with a Mary Sue are the greatest cinema in the world?)
I didn't like Last Jedi but the exit polls were positive (I looked them up at the time). And the professional reviews were positive as well.
Who are you or I to say Disney made bad movies, let alone spin some tale of wokeness ruining Star Wars?
I would hope you could dislike a movie without stating reactionary sounding talking points.
You ask how this related to the topic? You seem to think the goal of diverse hiring is some sort of damning statement so I shouldn't have to draw you a map of how you sound like a reactionary.
> Hiring women because "we need at least one woman on the team because of the quota". Would you like to know you have been hired because the team is forced to have a women and everybody knows it?
I'm usually the token veteran at a company. We're a protected class too, and I won't be ashamed that I got hired because of that. I let my performance speak for itself and I bet any woman worth her muster would do the same.
> Same company. I have received an email that you can "get bonus if you refer a friend that gets hired." Then a list of how much you can get depending on position. Then a note -- "if a woman, the reward is tripled".
This is admittedly bad, but is probably reflective of the overall lower pool of women they have to hire from. Especially when that pool has to make it through your hiring gates.
> Promoting women before they got enough experience. Similar to above. You have been put on a fast track for promotion but you haven't had time to get the needed experience. Everybody knows this (and discuss behind your back) but nobody is going to tell it to you. Now you have two problems.
I've fast tracked men. So far I haven't had to stand in front of a review committee and explain why, but I'd happily do so. People are going to fuck up when they get fast tracked. If someone snubs their nose because it's a woman instead of a man standing in front of that committee with me, then that's fine. They can take my title too.
> On topic of feedback, people need feedback to improve, but female developers will not get it. All-positive feedback is no feedback at all because you are nowhere closer to knowing what you are doing wrong. I have personally been doing some pretty stupid things (like taking credit for other people work) until somebody told me and I fixed it. I wonder what would I do if nobody dared to tell I am doing anything wrong, or if my salary or position in the team had nothing to do with how well I am actually doing?
This is the same subject as the article. I suspect women who mean well will read this article and will be on a war path to fix things. I know a good amount of feminists (although they're from places like Texas) and I know they wouldn't stand for people who have willed men into fear. That's not what the feminists that I know want.
> Just because guys can't be hitting on girls in the office doesn't mean it isn't there, but now it is more comical.
> Just because people aren't supposed to discriminate women doesn't mean it is not there. Male developers seem to be in large part focused on the fact the words are spoken by a female rather than their merit. I have seen concrete examples. It kinda seems it is still true you need to (at least in some cases) work twice as hard to prove anything, but now male employees got better at hiding their discrimination. I am half decided that maybe all the focus on discrimination achieved is push the discrimination underground.
> Discussions quieting down when you show up. Or tame behavior when eating lunch. Guys reminding other guys that a woman is present. Supposedly because it is not proper to behave like that (but it is fine when only guys present?) Imagine this happening every time.
I don't think many of these policies will stand long term. Remember that many of them came about when _very few_ women were in the industry. Once you have a larger percentage of women present, commonality doesn't need to be enforced by policy. There will be a larger spectrum of womens interests reflected in tech.
You can't stop the dating train. I don't date where I eat, but that's a personal decision. Women are going to get the digs for other women and men and vice versa. A corporation can try to draw lines around privileged positions but those will always be tough until they're glaringly obvious.
- I didn't ask how this is related to the topic, you did. And I answered you.
- The 42% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes says the movie is bad. The -$700M box office difference between VII and VIII says the movie is bad. The < 5 user score on Metacritic says the movie is bad. The fact that lots of people felt the need to make videos about how bad it was says the movie is bad. The fact that you didn't like it says the movie is bad. The fact that I actually enjoyed the spectacle of the film in the cinema but found it borderline unwatchable when I tried to rewatch at home says the movie is bad. Is most of this subjective? Of course. Does that mean we're not allowed to try to figure out what went wrong? Um, no? Is your stance really "shhh don't ask why the movie was bad it's not for you to know"?
- It's still unclear what you mean when you say "reactionary", so it kinda just sounds like you're trying to use that as some sort of putdown / dig and honestly it's not working.
- I don't "seem to think the goal of diverse hiring is a damning statement". I don't think that hiring diverse staff (which is not even what I was criticizing so...?) means you don't want to make a good movie. I merely think when your primary goal (evidenced by repeated public statements on the part of Kathleen Kennedy) is to make your movies "woke", that will inevitably be the thing you are most likely to succeed at. I honestly can't believe you're trying to make the argument that a split focus does not negatively impact your likelihood of succeeding in one particular area. That's a given. You can't be good at everything, so if your focus is "being woke" it invariably means you will be worse at executing on other things, like telling a good story.
I work from home so the only person who remarks on my hair is my wife, and her comments, if overheard, might pass for misandry. I'm trying to forment a Twitter mob against her in response.
Anyway here are some references:
https://fortune.com/2015/12/10/elizabeth-holmes-sexism-thera...
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/elizab...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahart/2019/03/31/womens-his... (mainly a summary with links to other articles)
I definitely agree with the non-verbal communication bit. It took me a while to understand that, but now that I do, it makes things much easier.
> speak your mind without constantly simulating a PR team in your brain.
Certainly not what I'm advocating. But I would say, that off-hand and unexamined opining in a collaborative setting can have a deleterious effect. Particularly if you're in a lead or senior position where your criticisms may often proceed unquestioned, even if they are based on faulty or misapplied intuitions.
In my time as a consultant, I've found I've communicated best and reached the best outcomes when I've refrained from speaking until I'm clear about what I'm saying, and why. The initial reticence allows time for less confident voices to speak their minds, and as a side benefit allow a new perspective to move the conversation.
Risk is the combination of chance of occurence with effect. If the effect is large then a tiny chance is worth making active protections against.
Given what we've seen in the past few years and how such incidents appear to be on the increase, the chance doesn't even seem that tiny.
The people that are making these binary determinations to wield social power could not care less about the academic nuanced views everyone is discussing here in the comments. They are not acting in good faith, so reasoning with them will not work.
There’s a saying “the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent”
No, what’s happening there now is indistinguishable from a religious movement. You’ve got prophets, holy books, commandments, taboos and shibboleths, confessions, original sin, the whole works.
1) Do you have faith in the newfound public judgement system which by the way uses privately owned platforms for its media? Would you prefer it over the judicial system which has been developing over the past few centuries with all its flaws? Even with its flaws, the alternative for me is a hundred times worse.
3) Some women decided to pursue public figures and since they knew the damage that could be done to their target's image it was settled before court. I don't keep a record of such news and they are usually quickly buried as part of the deal.
Honestly, you could draw parallels to victim blaming. He deserved it because he didn't cultivate allies to defend himself against false accusations of sexism/racism/*ism
Do you agree that there is a substantial difference between stating "I think/believe X is true" and stating "X is true"?
In my view, you can only honestly use the second form if you can back it up at least somewhat. You don't need 100% certainty, but definitely more than anecdotes.
My first comment in this thread was a criticism of someone using the latter form without backing it up. In a trivial sense it is indeed a conclusion, but not one about the outcome of the #metoo movement, but one about the parent comment: that it asserts a claim with unwarranted confidence.
1) No, I do not have faith in a public shaming based justice system. I also did not argue that this should be the new normal. But our established justice system has evidently been systematically failing women, and it needed a wake-up call to take their grievances seriously. A justice system should never see its own legitimacy as a given: it is kept honest by the knowledge that if people stop seeing it as legitimate, they will seek justice in other avenues.
3) Again, I don't see how this is relevant to the question we are discussing, which is "has #metoo been a net positive for women?" It seems to be an argument for the statement "it has been bad for some men who did not deserve it", but that's a broader question.
I have the deepest sympathy for any hardship you have experienced. From the conversations I've had with my sister and colleagues, it's obvious sexism and its effects are real.
That said, your post frames it as if your career is not in your own hands. Please afford yourself some more agency. I have overcome a narcissist parent, academic failure, classism and depression, working my way up to programming and a college degree on my own dime. I find it's fundamentally unproductive to see yourself as a car vendor mascot, being dragged whichever the wind blows. Engage with the people holding you back to get what you need and change your environment if there's no other way.
I found "Nice girls [still] don't get the corner office" (the second edition added the "still") by Lois P. Frankel educational. The book's about her practice as a career coach for women and lists the mistakes her clients make to subconsciously sabotage their own careers. Of the 101 errors in the first print, I recognised a good 30% in myself. All this to say: it's not because there's sexism and perceived sexism that there's nothing else going on.
Sure, these women are talented, but behind their back everyone does say that they get in due to their gender, and not because of skills.
Men are refusing to giving advice, because there is past history of women falsely accusing them of being sexist when they do give it. Your claim purporting that it never happens - i.e. 'before having any occasion' - skews the time-perspective. And is against the odds that male investors have faced, which is why they now clam up.
This is nothing to do with 'segregation' - that's a silly interpretation on your part. Investors are wising up to hold their tongue, than to let aspersions be (falsely) cast upon them otherwise.
The point is that the line for what you are and are not responsible for is a grey and fuzzy one that depends on the context the the decision, the magnitude of the decision, and your own capabilities as an agent.
My point is that the limitations of trying to understand how your words may be interpreted are similarly based in practical considerations.
> all sorts of annoying reminders
Could that be the topic of a blog post? I'm interested in security and I've understood that I'd better avoid browser add-ons, but what more to not do?, from you & your team's perspective
> listen because we both respect each other
Ok yes "respect each other" sounds like a better way of saying that.
Fortunately, where I work, I can be as paranoid as I want wrt security :-) and postpone "deadlines" if needed, to do security stuff instead.
> And if you can do that--get them to listen instead of having them immediately shut down
I find it a bit interesting that soft skills (helping teams respect each other) can "convert" into and catalyze hard skills, I mean, secure IT systems
Yes, but we only have control over our own side and have to make it as easy as possible for the receiver to do their part.
What I do believe is that as the speaker I have to do my very best to make sure the receiver can understand what I'm saying, they have to do their part too, of course.
If the speaker neglects to choose their words with sufficient care, or the receiver doesn't make an effort in their interpretation then the balance of understanding tips away from being 50/50 and chaos ensues.
Sibling comments mention all kinds of secondary factors such as mood, bad faith, bias, but these are clear violations resulting from the offending side not making the necessary effort to meet half-way.
> People can lose a lot of information based on medium as well ...[including] different cultural context...
Perhaps I missed what you mean?
The power dynamics all fucked up. I'll risk ruin and death for greatness or adventure, not to hopefully benefit the very person who would be my ruin.
Criminal trials are the way they are because that's the best way we know to find out truth. If you don't care about truth, then just say so directly. No need to mention whether something's a criminal trial or not.
(disclaimer: I'm of Irish descent. It's a joke.)
There is a reason america is number 1 in confidence, but ranked 25th in math and 21st in science out of the top 30 developed countries.
Here's a link to the website for The Red Pill, a documentary by a feminist who talked to men's rights activists. You may not agree with the subjects of the documentary, but the perspective is interesting, and was interesting to the feminist filmmaker who created it.
I guarantee whoever flagged me for recommending it did not watch it himself (yes, it was a dude)