Comment by justinsaccount | Hacker News Reader

Comment by justinsaccount | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yep.. Read the comments on stories like this

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/08/09/tar...

Target tries to make one step in the right direction (like making sure a chemistry set is not labeled as a BOYS chemistry set) and people respond with:

"You liberal POS idiots are ruining this Country. Just because you morons don't want to think there are boys and girls, doesn't mean the rest of us with a brain have to think in your warped ways."

"Complete stupidity. I want my girls and boys to identify with their gender."

"This is stupid! So you think my grandson's wants to sleep on a frozen bed set made for girls and my granddaughters wants to sleep on spiderman bed sets. I don't think so. You better leave well enough along before you lose your business."

"This is just stupid. Kids are being taught not be them selves such as a true boy or a true girl. Men now a days are not men, they are girly men. A lot of women are not women they are trying so hard to fit into a mans world. Leave kids to b kids please. Pinks and blues do not hurt any one!"

It's important to realize that this pushback you are seeing is not because people think girls should not play with chemistry sets. It's because, in point of fact, there _is_ a cultural force out there that exists, that insists that boys and girls are blank slates and if not for antiquated belief systems, all jobs or interests would be split 50/50 across genders.

They are pushing back against the pressure to conform to this new dogma, not that they would deny any particular girl access to a "boy's things".

A horrifying reminder of the capability for critical thought of the general population!

This is to be expected though. Removing gender associations is going to be seen as an attack on existing peoples' upbringings. Anything that falls into that category is going to be a painful fight.

There's an effect I forget the name of. Basically, if you give someone something and then some time later take it away they experience anger.

When you give rights to one group, you have to remove them from another (important: even if the second group had rights that were not rightfully theirs).

Men previously and incorrectly had exclusive access to jobs (and votes, and so forth). By giving women fair chance to those rights, you have to subtract the unjust portion of men's rights. I don't know why some (most? unlikely) of us can accept the truth, that those rights were never only ours, but as for the rest they experience anger. Just another way that equality is a hard fight: we're fighting a documented psychological effect.

This article isn't talking about taking away "exclusive access to jobs" from men. It's hinting at separating geek culture from software development. Let's be honest: the two interests correlate well. You're talking about stripping many practitioners of software development from their culture. Why is that just?

> You're talking about stripping many practitioners of software development from their culture.

Where did you get that from? I was merely attempting a theory (not excusing) on why these people act they do toward equality.

> You're talking about stripping many practitioners of software development from their culture. Why is that just?

Why is it unjust? Why do you have to bring your personal interests and preferences into the workplace? Why not make a neutral workplace where different kinds of people can integrate and feel comfortable?

You're advocating for sterile, culture-less workplaces. You're free to do that, and companies are free to implement your proposed policies. Personally, I wouldn't work for a company that prohibited my expressing nerd culture.

Yes, I am. I think work places should be neutral places where the focus is on work. I'm a professional--I don't need to bond with my teammates over unrelated bullshit in order to work effectively with them.

I think sharing culture can create an esprit de corps, improving morale and group cohesion, especially in times of crisis.

That's an argument that gets you a team of people who all like the same video games and all pick which beer to drink by maximizing IBUs.

There's a point at which can safely say that this kind of studiously groomed, exclusionary "cohesion" is doing more harm than good. I mean, there's obviously that point: if you refused to hire someone because they were a woman, you'd get sued; if you refused to hire someone because they didn't drink, you'd (rightfully) be ostracized in the community.

Look at the other extreme: the idea that I might be discouraged (or disallowed) from bonding with my coworkers over shared interests sounds dystopian.

You might argue that workplaces shouldn't endorse one particular subculture over another: that's fine. But unless you take stern measures to ban fraternization, you're going to get coworkers forming friendships based on shared interests, and we're lying to ourselves if we think that interests of software people tend not to cluster around what we think of as "geek" culture.

I don't see anyone arguing that people who like Star Wars shouldn't be allowed to wear Star Wars shirts.

Why can't the shared culture be a mutual commitment to high-quality work?

Let me put it another way: do you want to spend all day hearing about my toddler? If not--well that's how I feel about everything you're interested in. So let's just all do our work and leave our personal lives at home.

> Why can't the shared culture be a mutual commitment to high-quality work?

Because that's not how human beings bond. We don't bond over a single facet of our lives; we bond as a community. The modern world, in which we live different places, believe different things and pursue different jobs, is poison for any sense of community.

A group of middle-class white guys will bond more quickly and easily than a group that mixes white guys and low-income black women.

So where do you draw the line? It's clearly not OK, even in the name of "cohesion", to encourage a culture that excludes people of different income levels or ethnicities.

Here's your problem: You think that historically, the injustice is that men oppress women.

In reality, the injustice is that a small group of very powerful men oppress all women and nearly all men.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com