Comment by Nadya | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nadya | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've solved the problem the easy way. I absolutely under no circumstance speak to a woman outside of whatever minimal dialogue needs to be done for work. Not a word more. You can not and do not control what people take offense over and what one person takes as a compliment another person will take as an insult.

If I hold the door open for a woman - I'm a sexist pig in her eyes (remember, chivarly is benevolent sexism). If I slam the door in their face by not holding the door open - I'm a sexist pig in her eyes (by being a misogynist pig who "made sure the door slammed in her face", regardless of my intent). There's no winning move because it comes down to the individuals' perspective. If they want to see sexism in my action (holding the door open vs letting it slam in their face) they will see it there and there is nothing I can do to control that.

Should I stop entering doors with woman nearby in case I fail to read their minds and know if I should hold the door open or let it slam in their face?

And no - "holding the door open for everyone" is not the answer. That's what I was already doing before I got bitched at for holding the door. Thanks to that individual - the door now slams in everyone's face.

I hold the door open for everybody, and I've never been accused of sexism. I usually just get smiles from everyone. If a woman were to call me a sexist for holding the door open for her, I'd shrug it off. I'm not so fragile that I avoid speaking to anyone of the opposite gender just because I'm too thin-skinned to deal with the hypothetical situation where someone, somewhere, might think me a sexist.

Your first problem is assuming it was a hypothetical situation. Your second problem is projecting that because it hasn't happened to you it hasn't happened ever or that it is normal behavior. Then finally, you decide to tell me to grow thicker skin.

You argued against all of the above on the other side of the coin. But the moment its an issue that doesn't affect you, you're quick to resort to the arguments you're advocating against?

That "PC Minefield" is avoiding that "someone, somewhere will think I'm a sexist". Which is the problem you admit to existing but don't care about. You'll care when you're the one being seen as a sexist with a Twitter hate-mob at your employers' heel demanding you be fired for an offhand comment or action that wasn't even sexist unless twisted and taken out of context.

It's not about "growing thicker skin" it's about avoiding HR. If I don't speak to them or deal with them, there can be no case for harassment. I consider it job security.

I understand your point of view. From a pure job security point of view, withdrawing from women unless necessary is simply being sensible and and little more than an intelligent act of minimizing risk.

However when job security is taken out of equation (for whatever reason) and this situation is seen in a new light, it becomes evident that this whole thing is problematic for men as a whole. It means that the bully-boys and feisty-femmes are allowed to win via men giving up on standing up for themselves, ensuring actual equity (such as meritocracy) and defending against non-emphathetic SJWs.

I hear this from a lot of guys.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com