Oh my god, it's a girl -- thoughts on gender imbalance on HN(novemberwest.com)
novemberwest.com
Oh my god, it's a girl -- thoughts on gender imbalance on HN
http://www.novemberwest.com/blog/2010/12/25/oh-my-god-its-a-girl/
14 comments
"Men do not hit women."
Right. Except all those cases of domestic abuse, I mean.
"Men are polite to women."
Have you ever actually been a woman? Typically men ignore women, except attractive women, who they ogle or patronize. In stores, men get served first or, if it's a couple, people assume the man is the decision-maker and speak primarily to him. People assume that men lead any social interaction. This is readily observable even if you're a man.
"Men put women first."
Except when it comes to childrearing, domestic arrangements, wages and promotions, poverty-reduction programs, marketing, healthcare (there's viagra and procepia, but it was only two years ago they figured out the structure of the clitoris), and in the classroom where boys are still called on first and it is routinely assumed that girls can't do math or science.
But otherwise, sure, you're spot-on.
(Oh, except, not identifying as a woman. We try. Especially online, where random threats of violence and rape happen routinely in certain communities like gaming as soon as you check the "F" box, often from complete strangers. But are you really saying that an entire group of people should just not be who they are to receive equal treatment? Right.)
Right. Except all those cases of domestic abuse, I mean.
"Men are polite to women."
Have you ever actually been a woman? Typically men ignore women, except attractive women, who they ogle or patronize. In stores, men get served first or, if it's a couple, people assume the man is the decision-maker and speak primarily to him. People assume that men lead any social interaction. This is readily observable even if you're a man.
"Men put women first."
Except when it comes to childrearing, domestic arrangements, wages and promotions, poverty-reduction programs, marketing, healthcare (there's viagra and procepia, but it was only two years ago they figured out the structure of the clitoris), and in the classroom where boys are still called on first and it is routinely assumed that girls can't do math or science.
But otherwise, sure, you're spot-on.
(Oh, except, not identifying as a woman. We try. Especially online, where random threats of violence and rape happen routinely in certain communities like gaming as soon as you check the "F" box, often from complete strangers. But are you really saying that an entire group of people should just not be who they are to receive equal treatment? Right.)
>> "Men do not hit women."
> Right. Except all those cases of domestic abuse, I mean.
I know there are sociopaths who ignore these rules, that is a valid point.
Thank you for writing this. I'm responding in lieu of a second upvote.
The other solution is to change society, the first part of which is to identify the problem and make it public, which is what this article is part of.
Which problem?
Previous problem: Women are prejudiced against because they are not men
<< begin 40-year positive discrimination campaign >>
New problem: Women are treated with kid gloves in any "men's forum" they deign to enter
I say again, which problem? Identify away because I am not seeing anything other than the natural outcome of a deliberate policy.
Previous problem: Women are prejudiced against because they are not men
<< begin 40-year positive discrimination campaign >>
New problem: Women are treated with kid gloves in any "men's forum" they deign to enter
I say again, which problem? Identify away because I am not seeing anything other than the natural outcome of a deliberate policy.
Those look like two facets of the same problem to me: "Women being treated differently".
So, have you ever worked in a modern mixed workplace?
You bloody well treat women differently. Hands off matey, nothing "inappropriate". Like I said, they are a protected class, ignore this to your great sorrow.
I know I sound cynical in these comments, but I'm not really. I'm just pissed off at commentors like Mz, who want to have their cake and eat it too. Most (highly intelligent) female friends of mine are well aware of the balance of power in our society, and tweak their behaviour accordingly, as do I.
You bloody well treat women differently. Hands off matey, nothing "inappropriate". Like I said, they are a protected class, ignore this to your great sorrow.
I know I sound cynical in these comments, but I'm not really. I'm just pissed off at commentors like Mz, who want to have their cake and eat it too. Most (highly intelligent) female friends of mine are well aware of the balance of power in our society, and tweak their behaviour accordingly, as do I.
I work in a modern mixed IT department. I'd say about 25% developers/analysts, taking a quick look around me.
And are you saying that where you are it's ok to treat men "hands on" and "innappropriately"? Because frankly, if so I wouldn't want to work with you.
And are you saying that where you are it's ok to treat men "hands on" and "innappropriately"? Because frankly, if so I wouldn't want to work with you.
Yeah yeah, you are such a professional. Never touching a colleague. Never making a joke. Never presuming to try to start a friendship. Never making a comment on personal appearance. Etc, etc, etc.
I suppose you'll never experience any female trouble either, at work or anywhere else.
I suppose you'll never experience any female trouble either, at work or anywhere else.
And where exactly is the "problem" part?
Why shouldn't they? Because one woman protests? Tons of other women protest if you DO treat them differently. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation.
Try treating women exactly like men and see how far you will go...
Why shouldn't they? Because one woman protests? Tons of other women protest if you DO treat them differently. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation.
Try treating women exactly like men and see how far you will go...
The problem is that you're making a decision about someone based on a single obviously visible facet of them, rather than based on _them_.
If you treat "men" one way and "women" a different way, then that is a problem, because you're treating them like a homogenous block, rather than individuals.
If you treat "men" one way and "women" a different way, then that is a problem, because you're treating them like a homogenous block, rather than individuals.
I don't want to be snarky, but can you please not insult our intelligence?
Of course we want to behave towards individuals based solely on their individual merits. We cannot, for various reasons, some of which are alluded to in the previous posts.
Of course we want to behave towards individuals based solely on their individual merits. We cannot, for various reasons, some of which are alluded to in the previous posts.
I'm sorry, you've questioned my experience, sworn at me, and used patronising language, but now I'm insulting your intelligence because I didn't assume you had good intentions?
It's great to know you want to treat women as individuals, but it's not actually clear what's stopping you, except for the fact that you have to keep your "hands off" and aren't allowed to act inappropriately.
It's great to know you want to treat women as individuals, but it's not actually clear what's stopping you, except for the fact that you have to keep your "hands off" and aren't allowed to act inappropriately.
"""The problem is that you're making a decision about someone based on a single obviously visible facet of them, rather than based on _them_."""
And the problem is, again?
Until I get to know _them_ (and that is something I rarely get to do, regarding the random people I respond to on HN comment threads) I can only make the decision based on whatever obviously visible facet of them I have.
"""If you treat "men" one way and "women" a different way, then that is a problem, because you're treating them like a homogenous block, rather than individuals."""
I don't treat people I don't know as individuals.
It's an evolutionary thing, we progressed by matching patterns and assigning things to GENERAL categories. Treating things individually comes much later. Here's how Nietchze puts it in his"JOYFUL WISDOM" book:
= = = = =
Where has logic originated in men's heads? Undoubtedly out of the illogical, the domain of which must originally lave been immense. But numberless beings who reasoned otherwise than we do at present, perished; albeit that they may have come nearer to truth than we!
Whoever, for example, could not discern the " like " often enough with regard to food, and with regard to animals dangerous to him, whoever, therefore, deduced too slowly, or was too circumspect in his deductions, had smaller probability of survival than he who in all similar cases immediately divined the equality.
The preponderating inclination, however, to deal with the similar as if the equal — an illogical inclination, for there is nothing equal in itself — first created the whole basis of logic. It was just so (in order that the conception of substance should originate, this being indispensable to logic, although in the strictest sense nothing actual corresponds to it) that for a long period the changing process in things had to be overlooked, and remain unperceived ; the beings not seeing correctly had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux."
= = = = =
See? It helps to generalize!
And the problem is, again?
Until I get to know _them_ (and that is something I rarely get to do, regarding the random people I respond to on HN comment threads) I can only make the decision based on whatever obviously visible facet of them I have.
"""If you treat "men" one way and "women" a different way, then that is a problem, because you're treating them like a homogenous block, rather than individuals."""
I don't treat people I don't know as individuals.
It's an evolutionary thing, we progressed by matching patterns and assigning things to GENERAL categories. Treating things individually comes much later. Here's how Nietchze puts it in his"JOYFUL WISDOM" book:
= = = = =
Where has logic originated in men's heads? Undoubtedly out of the illogical, the domain of which must originally lave been immense. But numberless beings who reasoned otherwise than we do at present, perished; albeit that they may have come nearer to truth than we!
Whoever, for example, could not discern the " like " often enough with regard to food, and with regard to animals dangerous to him, whoever, therefore, deduced too slowly, or was too circumspect in his deductions, had smaller probability of survival than he who in all similar cases immediately divined the equality.
The preponderating inclination, however, to deal with the similar as if the equal — an illogical inclination, for there is nothing equal in itself — first created the whole basis of logic. It was just so (in order that the conception of substance should originate, this being indispensable to logic, although in the strictest sense nothing actual corresponds to it) that for a long period the changing process in things had to be overlooked, and remain unperceived ; the beings not seeing correctly had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux."
= = = = =
See? It helps to generalize!
1. Make a hypothesis: Men are overly nice to female HN posters.
2. Make assumptions, like that HN's readers are predominantly male. Sure, the probably are, but who knows for sure? If I was asked for my gender when I signed up, I responded randomly. Reliable demographics are simply not available.
3. Test your hypothesis in a way that does not control most variables: Change your name and post on completely different topics. Maybe your male posts were dumber or more interesting than your female posts. Maybe you posted to newer threads with more active commentors. etc. etc. etc. Even your choice of names could bias the study.
4. Have no objective metrics of "niceness". i.e. Evaluate everything with your "gut feeling". (Note: Your gut is biased towards your hypothesis!)
5. Conclude that your assumption was correct based on a statistically insignificant amount of highly suspect data.
I'm not saying your hypothesis couldn't be true. I'm just saying it's going to be a lot more difficult to prove (to even a modest degree of confidence) than you thought it would be. I'm also not saying we should ignore an unproven theory. We act on unproven theories all the time after all.
2. Make assumptions, like that HN's readers are predominantly male. Sure, the probably are, but who knows for sure? If I was asked for my gender when I signed up, I responded randomly. Reliable demographics are simply not available.
3. Test your hypothesis in a way that does not control most variables: Change your name and post on completely different topics. Maybe your male posts were dumber or more interesting than your female posts. Maybe you posted to newer threads with more active commentors. etc. etc. etc. Even your choice of names could bias the study.
4. Have no objective metrics of "niceness". i.e. Evaluate everything with your "gut feeling". (Note: Your gut is biased towards your hypothesis!)
5. Conclude that your assumption was correct based on a statistically insignificant amount of highly suspect data.
I'm not saying your hypothesis couldn't be true. I'm just saying it's going to be a lot more difficult to prove (to even a modest degree of confidence) than you thought it would be. I'm also not saying we should ignore an unproven theory. We act on unproven theories all the time after all.
> 2. Make assumptions, like that HN's readers are predominantly male. Sure, the probably are, but who knows for sure? If I was asked for my gender when I signed up, I responded randomly. Reliable demographics are simply not available.
It's well-documented that men significantly outnumber women in the software industry (and other high-tech industries). Why is it unreasonable to expect that HN reflects this imbalance? It would seem more odd for there to be an imbalance in the industry in general but perfect equality on HN.
It's well-documented that men significantly outnumber women in the software industry (and other high-tech industries). Why is it unreasonable to expect that HN reflects this imbalance? It would seem more odd for there to be an imbalance in the industry in general but perfect equality on HN.
The hypothesis that men are too nice to women here is a statement by a member who indicated she hides her gender for that reason. These were my thoughts in reaction to that assertion. I initially posted here, in reply to her. Then decided that was not really a good idea and moved it to a personal blog. It is not intended to be scientific, comprehensive and so forth.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Idiot! NB: ironic insult :)
I'd love to say I agree totally with the article because it does raise some really good points and it is an extremely interesting topic. I'd also like to give the average (talking a mean average here not some kind of "norm") man, and cisgender males more specifically, the benefit of the doubt. Agree there are some intellectuals (read nerds) who are acting in the way the article suggests but personally I think the main cause of the "egg-shells" treatment is a basic view of women as being, again on average, inferior. Or, that all women are essentially the same (as the article hinted at with the "my girlfriend" comment).
I thought the use of the word "intelligence" in the post was an interesting choice too. By the description can only assume this is referring to IQ. What about EI? Surely we’ve progressed beyond the stage of thinking of IQ, which is essentially just processing patterns, as the be-all and end-all of intelligence!
I'd love to say I agree totally with the article because it does raise some really good points and it is an extremely interesting topic. I'd also like to give the average (talking a mean average here not some kind of "norm") man, and cisgender males more specifically, the benefit of the doubt. Agree there are some intellectuals (read nerds) who are acting in the way the article suggests but personally I think the main cause of the "egg-shells" treatment is a basic view of women as being, again on average, inferior. Or, that all women are essentially the same (as the article hinted at with the "my girlfriend" comment).
I thought the use of the word "intelligence" in the post was an interesting choice too. By the description can only assume this is referring to IQ. What about EI? Surely we’ve progressed beyond the stage of thinking of IQ, which is essentially just processing patterns, as the be-all and end-all of intelligence!
I homeschooled my gifted-learning disabled sons. I am very aware there are many kinds of intelligence. This piece isn't the place for getting into all of that.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Didn't mean to question your understanding of intelligence but of the intelligence of the people your post was commenting on
Women are treated different on hacker news in the same ways that women are treated differently in the world (US worldview) with some slight variance due to the makeup of HN posters. We have differences... while mostly physical there are differences in men and women's brains. Different is not bad. Many of us can relate in childhood saying one thing to a guy and that same thing to a woman and getting different responses. In addition, being "chivalrous" is still kept in high regard by most women and some men (though deteriorating rapidly). Chivalry amounts to treating women different from men in much the same way your hypothesis on your article espouses. Since the HN community is 1. Generally smarter than the overall populations and 2. Generally more introverted and thus has less female interaction they will tend to revert to social norms (chivalry) and from female interactions from childhood rather than adulthood.
sexist and generalist piece... you can't (and shouldn't, really) put all pieces of the same gender in a single bucket.
Plus, you have nicknames on HN. What can assure you anyone is (or isn't) a woman? If you feel unconfortable by "being one in the man's club", just pick a neutral nickname and be treated "like a man"...
Plus, you have nicknames on HN. What can assure you anyone is (or isn't) a woman? If you feel unconfortable by "being one in the man's club", just pick a neutral nickname and be treated "like a man"...
I'd much rather that women didn't have to hide their gender to be treated the same way that we'd treat men.
I never treated a woman in a professional environment differently than I treat men. Which I always thought be the right way of doing it.
But after having two women come to me and say that "I don't treat them like proper women" and making a former boss (also female) burst into tears during a technical discussion, I wonder if the sexism isn't something that I really SHOULD consider a right approach, in some cases. Like, appearently, the writer of this article...
But after having two women come to me and say that "I don't treat them like proper women" and making a former boss (also female) burst into tears during a technical discussion, I wonder if the sexism isn't something that I really SHOULD consider a right approach, in some cases. Like, appearently, the writer of this article...
Or, possibly, you should treat the men around you more nicely?
Not that you're necessarily treating them badly - but if you've got a manner that causes women to burst into tears you're probably causing some of the men to grit their teeth.
Not that you're necessarily treating them badly - but if you've got a manner that causes women to burst into tears you're probably causing some of the men to grit their teeth.
nope, I don't need to treat the men around like chinese porcelain vases, thank you! ;-)
Yes, because men generally treat each other with the outmost care and respect in internet forums, including HN, right?
She's not asking to be treated with the utmost care and respect.
The article states, actually, exactly the opposite.
The article states, actually, exactly the opposite.
There are plenty of women who do just that - hide their gender on HN or downplay it. That approach fails to change the social dynamic and, in fact, helps keep it entrenched.
But thanks for commenting.
But thanks for commenting.
Judging by your comments (http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Mz - I just skimmed through, didn't read every single one) - you specifically seem to talk a lot about "women in tech", "being a woman", "social issues" and non-technical stuff in general - I'd say you actually bring that fate of being treated "as a woman" on yourself: you won't get harsh comments threading these waters.
BUT judging by the responses your comments get, I'd say it's actually a cognitive bias instead of a fact. The comments don't seem any "nicer" than the usual response I read around here usually...
BUT judging by the responses your comments get, I'd say it's actually a cognitive bias instead of a fact. The comments don't seem any "nicer" than the usual response I read around here usually...
Also I believe the HN culture of "be nice" is being discounted here. As part of that culture most on HN are generally more polite, than much of the rest of the wild wild web. It can not be excluded from the discussion or else it becomes the elephant in the room.
I think you have missed something: I think I initially got treated "like a girl" but don't much get treated that way anymore. This piece is my thoughts on how to consciously make that happen if any other woman is interested in trying it. I'm pretty happy with how people here talk to me.
Thanks.
Thanks.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't even look at the username of the person whom I'm replying to. I just put in my two cents and take part in the discussion, only if it turns out to be really, really interesting do I actually look at the username to go to said person's profile. I'm quite sure a lot of other posters have a similar attitude.
HN is a forum about interesting stuff, and (dare I say it) similar to it's secular community, is also probably a very asexual (unconcerned with the gender of the participant) community. If the author of the post had included more examples, then perhaps we could come to some sort of statistical guess about whether gender really is a 'problem' or not.
I rarely look at username either. Well... until now. Now I feel I have to look at every username. So... thanks for that. :/
[deleted](2)
2 things:
1. As a socially-awkward smart dude, the last section of the post resonates with me, because I'm getting over a lot of my social awkwardness through interacting with women. And it's great.
2. I don't know what all the fuss coming from other HN-readers is about. As a man, I readily acknowledge that women sometimes see things completely differently than men, and while I could ram a lot of sociology theory down dissenting commenters' throats about women and minorities and how each non-male or non-white constituency develops a consciousness/worl-view particular to and shared with their respective cohorts, and that to males (white or otherwise) these world-views might be hard to parse... but I won't go into theory.
1. As a socially-awkward smart dude, the last section of the post resonates with me, because I'm getting over a lot of my social awkwardness through interacting with women. And it's great.
2. I don't know what all the fuss coming from other HN-readers is about. As a man, I readily acknowledge that women sometimes see things completely differently than men, and while I could ram a lot of sociology theory down dissenting commenters' throats about women and minorities and how each non-male or non-white constituency develops a consciousness/worl-view particular to and shared with their respective cohorts, and that to males (white or otherwise) these world-views might be hard to parse... but I won't go into theory.
(thereby sucking all the intellectual content out of their posts and killing any reason you have to post there).
Oh my god, it’s a girl and what if she breaks down and cries because I argued with her
What??
Who thinks that, where?
Oh my god, it’s a girl and what if she breaks down and cries because I argued with her
What??
Who thinks that, where?
My ex husband for one.
At the expense of sounding crass, that sounds like a personal problem between you and he, not you and the HN community (assuming you are the OP of this blog post).
I happen to be the OP. You asked for an example. I gave the first real life example that came to mind. No, not all men are like that. But some absolutely are.
Thanks.
Thanks.
TL;DR; woman frustrated by ex-spouse takes it out on the HN crowd.
Here. Now you can't complain that we didn't treat you aggressively enough because you're a woman!
;-)
Here. Now you can't complain that we didn't treat you aggressively enough because you're a woman!
;-)
[deleted]
To me the design of HN actually inherently helps the gender balance. Here comments are read at face value & not pre-judged according to who the poster is. I like that.
The comment is at the forefront of the post. The user name is not emblazened atop of the post in size 72 font (unlike in other forums) A distinct lack of user icons, real names & sigs make HN so comment-centric that I come back here most of all.
I've never felt what the OP has described. Welcome yes - no fuzzy warm comments when I declare "hey guys, girl alert" (just to clarify - I don't do that!). No unusual responses - even with a quite obviously female username.
I think where the community bustles here is on controversial posts. Personally, I don't comment on those types of thread.
Maybe it's the type of posts the OP is posting on or that she mentions that she is female within her comment that gets a skewed response.
The comment is at the forefront of the post. The user name is not emblazened atop of the post in size 72 font (unlike in other forums) A distinct lack of user icons, real names & sigs make HN so comment-centric that I come back here most of all.
I've never felt what the OP has described. Welcome yes - no fuzzy warm comments when I declare "hey guys, girl alert" (just to clarify - I don't do that!). No unusual responses - even with a quite obviously female username.
I think where the community bustles here is on controversial posts. Personally, I don't comment on those types of thread.
Maybe it's the type of posts the OP is posting on or that she mentions that she is female within her comment that gets a skewed response.
Just to clarify: I am not complaining and generally agree with your observations. These were my thoughts in response to a remark by someone who did voice a complaint.
Thanks.
Thanks.
It's an important topic and I read your post with interest.
Perhaps as I spend longer here it will become noticeable & patterns will emerge.
I certainly think HN as an environment is conducive to level-headed responses & is a welcoming community.where my views are taken seriously.
Thanks!
Perhaps as I spend longer here it will become noticeable & patterns will emerge.
I certainly think HN as an environment is conducive to level-headed responses & is a welcoming community.where my views are taken seriously.
Thanks!
The HN title is very confusing. I was full of righteous fury when, initially, I interpreted it to imply there's a difference in quality between girl-thoughts and boy-thoughts. Could you please replace the hyphen in the title with an em dash?
Edit: Thanks!
Edit: Thanks!
Of course there is a difference in QUALITY between boy-thoughts and girl-thoughts.
(Quality not as in better, but as in "different" [dict] character or nature, as belonging to or distinguishing a thing).
For example: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...
(Quality not as in better, but as in "different" [dict] character or nature, as belonging to or distinguishing a thing).
For example: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...
You are absolutely right. I never understood this idea that 'women should be equal to men in everything'. Outside of pure logical/scientific thinking it simply won't happen. Some societies are more accepting of the idea, while others sacrifice common sense in the altar of political correctness.
Commenting here is largely a waste of time, but I suppose it is an area for the pursuit of feminist ideals. Commenting generally has higher opportunity cost than reading comments. Aside from this comment, my activities here have been reduced to reading an occasional article and a few well-written comments, and to upvoting the downvoted.
TL;DR: We declare beforehand, without consulting any science (including Sociology and History), that men and women should have absolutely the same interests, and then lament about the existence of fields where men and women are not equally represented and condemn them as sexist.
Different groups of people have different priorities, likes and such. Not even Democrats vs Republicans -- even women vs men, black vs white, etc. Whenever you can make a distinction between two groups, you have attributes group A has that B does not.
Not everything is because there is some power at play keeping A/B different, and A/B not being absolutely interchangeable is not always a problem.
Get over it.
Different groups of people have different priorities, likes and such. Not even Democrats vs Republicans -- even women vs men, black vs white, etc. Whenever you can make a distinction between two groups, you have attributes group A has that B does not.
Not everything is because there is some power at play keeping A/B different, and A/B not being absolutely interchangeable is not always a problem.
Get over it.
The article doesn't say anything like that, and doesn't lament that men and women aren't equally represented.
As I explicitly wrote: "TL;DR;".
Tons of other articles on the same matter do, and though I saved myself some time.
Now I have to go read TFA. Thanks for nothing, killjoy.
Tons of other articles on the same matter do, and though I saved myself some time.
Now I have to go read TFA. Thanks for nothing, killjoy.
You may agree or disagree, but that's the state of society at the moment. If you don't want to be subject to different treatment than a man, don't identify as a woman. I'm not really aware of any other solutions at the moment.