zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. pron+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-03-28 22:34:17
The people aren't monsters; it's the dynamics of such discussions -- an emergent property -- that breeds such results. My problem isn't bad faith of the participants; I'm sure people are authentic. It is that HN finds it appropriate to host and publicise a discussion in an overwhelmingly male forum on how to best treat women in the workplace (and not from the professional HR perspective). The very thing I was deploring in the first place is the thought that such a discussion in such a forum is ethically legitimate.

BTW, I am not talking about the actual article. It's fine. I'm merely talking about the ensuing "debate."

replies(1): >>hiofew+l7
2. hiofew+l7[view] [source] 2021-03-28 23:28:49
>>pron+(OP)
You need exactly 0 women in a discussion about how to treat women in the workplace to reach the right conclusion, it's ridiculous that you attribute having right perspective on things to sex.

You threat women exactly as everybody else. See? Wasn't that hard.

replies(1): >>dang+yd
◧◩
3. dang+yd[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-29 00:10:33
>>hiofew+l7
We've banned this account for trolling. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. Doing that will eventually get your main account banned as well.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[go to top]