Hacker News Reader

Comment by rcba | Hacker News Reader

How active should men be in actually helping to solve the gender diversity problem vs sitting on the sidelines and sharing the work of women who are solving the problem?

I've been working on an initiative to encourage more of my male peers to do more to make their organisations more diverse and was recently criticised by a female software engineer who told me that I shouldn't "come into a feminist space" where "women are already organising, telling stories and advocating for themselves".

All views appreciated!

View on HN

I'm a male that worked with a feminist group about a decade ago. What I learned is that there are spaces/initiatives where men are welcome and, ones where they are not. As in any human relationship - respect of boundaries is key.

Like alaithea said, if you're not welcome in one space - you may be in another. You could also start your own initiative but, remember that top down decision making in the name of helping a group has alienated groups and stifled progress many times before.

Imagine men saying to women "you are not welcome here" in any context except a bathroom and you begin to see the problem.

I'm just baffled by this comment. You seem to mean as in "these women are setting a double standard, see!". As in, the cure these women are proposing is just more of the disease.

However, it implies you think that the women told "you are not welcome here" is currently a solved problem, a thing of the past, and that they don't actually face any scenarios were they are told "you are not welcome here". Or, at the very least, that there are more "girls clubs" than "boys clubs", so that you'd have to imagine the girls clubs as boys clubs to "see the problem".

There are many, many more de-facto boys clubs than girls clubs, and they usually afford much higher status in society.

> However, it implies you think

It does none of the sort. It correctly points out a double standard in supposed progressive culture and that's it. As for "clubs":

> "Putting on a man-tailored suit with shoulder pads and imitating all the worst behavior of men? This is the noblest thing that women can think of?"

-- George Carlin

But hey, what good old George surely didn't realize (being such a sexist as he was who would never make a whole track ranting just about how bad ass women are), is that "they did it first, they are doing it more". Very inspiring.

Yeah, I also say it's more of the same. Support and safe spaces are one thing, using them as fig leaves for some rather more sinister another. There are grey areas and who can draw the line and yadda yadda, but that doesn't mean there are not several "poles" to this stuff, very distinct things, some of them using the language and issues of others to cloak themselves.

Is it like communism? You have all these girl clubs to counter all these boys clubs, then ???, and then a society of humans who have first names and other fancy stuff and have grown beyond identity politics? At what point, exactly, would a vehicle for power and double standards cease to be one? All you said is that boys club's are worse - okay, granted, but if the proposed solution, is to make girls clubs just as bad and powerful, if looking any further than that is too "baffling" to even consider -- then what?

You really got caught up in your rant, but nothing up there in my post is a defense of said clubs. I'm not a fan of them, and my post wasn't about them.

The fact that two wrongs don't make a right is taken so, so far by some reactionary people, that they basically end up pretending that the first wrong is blown out of proportion or doesn't really exist.

Which is exactly what that poster implicitly revealed by offering up that thought experiment. Imagine men saying to women "you are not welcome here". Yeah. Imagine.

> You really got caught up in your rant

You may not have defended it, but you also didn't criticize it. So I added that, like draping garlic about, to increase the safety of this space.

> The fact that two wrongs don't make a right is taken so, so far by some reactionary people, that they basically end up pretending that the first wrong is blown out of proportion or doesn't really exist.

I know that, and I resent that as well. But I see nothing in the comment you replied to to indicate that at all, they probably weren't thinking of ALL kinds of groups that exist, but merely advocacy ones etc. I don't know, but why presume either way on this little data? You basically said the poster implied "exactly" that they are reactionary and in denial. Maybe you two have history, but this is a really odd style of discussion to me.

> Which is exactly what that poster implicitly revealed by offering up that thought experiment. Imagine men saying to women "you are not welcome here". Yeah. Imagine.

Yeah, we don't have to imagine it, and "we" for any given "we" know how we react to it in what we consider polite company. Hence the same reaction to girls clubs, at least where it crosses the line from immediate safe space and support to political outlook and whatnot.

In that sense, there is kind of a double standard, there are plenty of people who find that benign or even cute when women do it, but would instantly recognize it for what it is in other contexts. Hence an allergic reaction to anything that might contain it and doesn't contain proof it doesn't. I guess your reply was kind of similar, assuming an reactionary outlook of a specific type based on very little.

funny you find my style odd. I find your weird professorial affectation over pretty standard anti-feminist fare really off-putting myself. it's like you've read a million posts about "sjws" and are trying really hard to pretend like you haven't. "we" for any given "we" - c'mon dude.

anyway,

- "we" know how we react to it in what we consider polite company

- plenty of people who find that benign or even cute when women [discriminate]

- I guess your reply was kind of similar, assuming an reactionary outlook of a specific type based on very little.

It seems like your "polite company" is very outspoken about condemning what they imagine is distant and cartoonish sexism, and yet they have no problem characterizing women organizing as "cute" in your presence. Maybe your polite company hasn't allowed you to glean enough insight into how sexism manifests itself today, because bringing that up as an example of how women are favored seems completely out of touch.

Maybe one day you'll drop the defensive and charitably try to understand why these organizations happen in the first place.

I've not been convinced that 'the gender diversity problem' is a problem.

The only 'solution' I see is to force women who don't want to work in tech to work in tech, but since I believe in female agency - and that women have chosen something other than tech to do with their lives - that too would be wrong.

The problem is that some women who would like to be there basically feel forced out. As you point out, active inclusion does not work. But reducing exclusion can help enormously. However, it isn't an easy thing to make happen.

There are thousands of Men that are 'forced out' of technology jobs every day due to not making the cut during there interviews or leaving for a long list of reasons.

No one has shown that the general environment in technology focus businesses is more hostel to women then Men. It can be stressful and hostel to everyone equally. I believe that is the case. Woman have better options for careers in many professions with less stress and saner hours.

I appear to be the top ranked woman on HN. I have a Certificate in GIS. I have dealt with quite a lot of crap that I am confident is due to my gender.

I am aware that men are not welcomed with open arms merely for being male. But women can do everything "right" and find it still isn't enough.

It is a genuine and frustrating problem for me personally. It is a problem space I have worked on for some years.

I am sorry you remain unconvinced. It is extremely real to me.

Men also have a lot of 'crap' that is because of there gender also.

Lost jobs and being looked over for promotions for the explicit reason that there was an artificial quota for people with a Female genitalia to fill certain positions. Regardless of how unskilled or uninterested they were in the work. I am sure many Men have had this brutal injustice perpetrated against them.

There is a level of aggressiveness and bulling allowed towards Men which would never be allowed towards Woman. It is simply seen as 'survival of the fittest' in most organisations and even encouraged by management in many cases. Serious health problems, depression and even death have resulted because of these type of environments. Where is the outrage for this injustice?

"women can do everything "right" and find it still isn't enough."

Yes, and so can Men. This is not gender specific this is just the brutal reality of working life. Most people have been crushed at one point or another in there career by what seems like an undeserved attack on them personally. If you can not separate that personal experience from the larger Industry and world in general you are putting yourself into permanent psychosis of fear and oppression. The world does not owe you anything even if you're the best, smartest, nicest person in the world. You have to work through hardships and move on in life.

Add this to your men hardship list: if I find out any men-inists work for me, I will fire them. Not a culture fit.

> It can be stressful and hostel to everyone equally. I believe that is the case.

Eh, none of the men seem particularly perturbed by the term bitch, slut, whore, etc until I point out it makes me uncomfortable. None of them seem particularly disturbed by the subpar maternity leave until, again, I bring it up. None of them seem particularly concerned that they are assumed to be technical, and I am assumed to be administrative.

I wonder why all of these things do not seem to be equally stressful to them? Can you think of any reasons? /s

I literally was turned down from a job I later learned routinely had business meetings at a strip club. I highly doubt any of the men were uncomfortable and I highly doubt you're confused as to why I would have been.

Of your three examples, I can think of many woman who wouldn't care about the first two at all. They throw around bitch, slut, whore without concern and they aren't having kids so they don't care about the maternity leave.

Those first two seem more like your personal preferences than something universally despised by women.

Your argument is that it would "stressful and hostile to everyone equally" to casually use sexist language or not provide maternity leave?

I'm not suggesting an "all women" situation here, but I am claiming all three examples would be significantly more stressful and hostile to the average woman than the average man.

> I'm not suggesting an "all women" situation here, but I am claiming all three examples would be significantly more stressful and hostile to the average woman than the average man.

So you're saying women need to be treated differently? Sounds a bit sexist.

> Eh, none of the men seem particularly perturbed by the term bitch, slut, whore, etc until I point out it makes me uncomfortable.

There are plenty of pejoratives for men too, they are likely using those to refer to each other.

>None of them seem particularly disturbed by the subpar maternity leave until, again, I bring it up.

Did you ask about the paternity leave?

> I literally was turned down from a job I later learned routinely had business meetings at a strip club. I highly doubt any of the men were uncomfortable and I highly doubt you're confused as to why I would have been.

You don't think plenty of men would have been uncomfortable in the same situation? I have a hard enough time clarifying me thoughts fast enough in meetings, I really wouldn't want to do it with tits bouncing around and a raging boner. Side note, most men don't really like strip clubs, it's one of those things we are expected to pretend to love.

> There are plenty of pejoratives for men too, they are likely using those to refer to each other.

The words I listed were the ones they were primarily using to put down one another. I cannot even imagine the man who would use those terms in the workplace in America aimed at a woman and expect to keep his job. With men, it's often apologized for and then hushed under the guise of "harmless joking". I'm not in a frat house. I'm at work.

> Did you ask about the paternity leave?

Yes. I made the point that in order to not create incentives to hire men over women we needed to create an equal workplace where the business "harm" caused by a pregnancy in someone's family was equal regardless of gender. Otherwise, honestly, there's quite a good business reason to hire a man over a woman, all other things being equal.

> You don't think plenty of men would have been uncomfortable in the same situation?

Do I think that I was turned down from the job partially because of their assumption a woman would be less comfortable in that environment than a man? Yes. Considering the gender ratios in those environments, I'd consider that a reasonable assumption.

I'd find it difficult to believe the average man's discomfort rivals the average woman's discomfort in that setting.

I'd like to clarify what you mean. Do you believe that the tech sector is actually diverse and there are no underrepresented groups, or are you saying you don't think the lack of diversity is harmful?

From the second paragraph it seems like it's neither of your two options.

The second paragraph doesn't necessarily connect to the first one. It's possible to believe there are no good solutions, while still seeing it as a problem.

"Don't want to work in tech" isn't an atomic desire. There are lots of things that go into a persons decision of what kind of work to do. The tech world could no doubt win over some of the people (men and women) who are on the fence about it because of the tech world subculture. Of course, there are some things that people in tech don't want to change, but there are also some things that would benefit everyone to change.

I really do not mean to be confrontational, as I understand that this is a charged topic on all sides, but I'd like to ask why making tech more diverse (in terms of race or gender) is preferable.

My first instinct would be to say that if it's more diverse, women or racial minorities are more likely to come into tech because they might feel more comfortable there. But then we're back at square one: why do we want them to come?

Please make no mistake, I'm not saying that diversity is bad, but I don't see why it's good either, and further why it must be pursued.

A) I see the tech industry shaping the future for the world. The world is comprised of a diverse group of people. How can a narrow group of people understand the needs of everyone?

B) There are a shortage of labor in tech

> I see the tech industry shaping the future for the world. The world is comprised of a diverse group of people. How can a narrow group of people understand the needs of everyone?

People should build tech that they find interesting. It's not our job as engineers to try to save the world. I program because I find it inherently fascinating. If other people benefit from my work, great. If not, great.

> There are a shortage of labor in tech

When programmer salaries rival those of upper management then we can say there's a shortage. Right now there's a desire to maximize executive salaries while minimizing programmer costs. That what "women in tech" is really about.

I agree the shortage is artificial but the other part makes little sense. The parent comment didn't say save the world. It said understand their needs: also called marketing. From startups to incumbents, they make money by figuring out what people want or need then building it. Needs/wants are incredibly diverse across a diverse set of people. So, shouldn't there be diversity in marketing and product development side of tech to avoid missing good opportunities or getting on paths that were obviously bad (to another group in company).

> People should build tech that they find interesting. It's not our job as engineers to try to save the world. I program because I find it inherently fascinating. If other people benefit from my work, great. If not, great.

This is one of the attitudes that I dislike the most among certain parts of the tech industry. (I work pretty much exclusively in open source, where this is particularly strong.) Our work has real consequences for real people. Our decisions in setting the direction of projects, products and companies end up being good for some people and bad for others.

Sure, I program because I find it fascinating - but to ignore the broader social context of what we do is just selfish.

(FWIW, one of the other attitudes that I also hate among certain parts of our industry is that "engineers should try to save the world". That's just plain arrogant.)

We definitely disagree there. For me creating technology is like creating art. Sure some artists may have a mainstream social agenda but some may just be weirdos who need to paint to stay sane :) I don't see it as my or anyone else's place to dictate what a creative individual's motivation should be.

I'll also say as a user, some of my favorite projects started off as mad science type things that weren't created to push an agenda or social cause (some were though).

Bold question but worth asking for sure.

1) Equal opportunity for everyone regardless of race, gender, age, sexuality etc is just the right thing to do

2) The data suggests diversity matters commercially/financially, even if your interests are selfish.

http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-...

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/diversity-matters

Simple answer... people of all races and genders are smart and creative, so why limit the pool of talent to a small subset of all people?

That doesn't describe what's happening. What is happening is that people look at the race/gender/etc. makeup of companies and compare to an ideal makeup. When the makeup doesn't match the ideal, they infer that some groups are underrepresented. There doesn't appear to be anyone asking, "how does ideal representation compare to what's realistically possible?"

Why is equal representation of races and genders not realistically possible?

>Why is equal representation of races and genders not realistically possible?

Because, realistically, to achieve equal representation, people would have to forced into careers they are not interested in.

I want to work with the best people. Many of the best people are female. Some of these women don't want to work an an environment where they are the only woman and since they are excellent, they choose to work in places that already have female engineers.

Also, I generally prefer to work in places with a diverse mix of people as well. Given two job opportunities that are roughly equal, I'll choose the more diverse one because it's more interesting.

A while ago, I got an MBA. MBA classes are extremely collaborative and a lot of the learning comes from the other students, rather than the lecturer. Most good schools very deliberately to ensure that the student body is as diverse as possible because otherwise learning is stifled: if ALL the students are investment bankers, then the class doesn't really learn much about other businesses. I see work environments similarly.

If the initiative exists already, defer to the ones running it. Find out where you can help, but you don't need to be in the spotlight. That would be being part of the problem.

Basically: prioritize listening and helping out when possible. When you can't, when there's no initiative, then make it a priority to enable women access to positions of power over initiatives like that - and of the organization in general.

Otherwise, stepping in and taking over or preempting feminist initiatives is problematic.

> How active should men be in actually helping to solve the gender diversity problem

There is, objectively, different representations of different groups in engineering.

There is no objective reason to think that this is a "problem".

Whether it's a problem, a feature, or just an unimportant fact derives from one's value system...and different value systems are just that: different.

To assume that this is a problem - that it's obviously and necessarily a problem - skips past the fact that there are different opinions, and - values being values - no way to prove one set right and one set wrong.

We might as well talk about the "chocolate icecream" problem, or the "punk rock" problem.

Interesting, thanks for the response.

In my opinion, if people from different demographic groups have different opportunities to succeed there is a problem. Everyone should have the same opportunity.

Secondly, what about the data that suggests gender and ethnic diversity has a positive financial/commercial impact on businesses?

E.g http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-...

I think that woman's view is in the minority. If that particular community is not open to male allies, but you want to help, please keep looking and find one of the many communities that is!

Thanks alaithea, not one to give up easily so I'll keep listening, learning and doing my best to help.

That comment sounds like it depends a lot on what you mean by "help." Advocating for women, signal boosting, providing mentorship if appropriate, speaking out when women can't speak for themselves, etc. & I don't think anyone would disagree with those. But there's a difference between providing a space for a Women in Engineering meetup and leading the meetup or speaking over them in their spaces.

The primary thing men need to do is become more self aware of ways in which they unintentionally exclude women and stop doing that.

I am a bit leery of your description of trying to encourage more male peers to do more to make their organizations more diverse. In my experience, trying to be inclusive is generally a poor approach to this problem space. Just work on not being exclusive and the people who want to be there will show up, in essence.

Thanks Mz, I agree. What I meant to convey is that I'd love to see all of my male peers genuinely caring about diversity and ensuring that they listen, learn and actively prevent exclusive behaviours/practices within their organisations.

I find both approaches combined to be most effective. People do show up more often if you knock out barriers. This leaves the common preconceptions, expectations, and do on that can reduce entry attempts if its employment or sustained effort if it's something like getting women to learn IT stuff or enjoy computers. That said, I believe it's important that the situation stays meritocratic where women know they earned their place based on skill. It's why I favor mentoring, blind auditions, women-oriented events in parallel to business/projects, and so on. They get increase diversity without problems from approaches like pure quotas or focusing on employee gender more than skill in how they're treated.

My personal experience is that being very thorough in rooting out barriers to entry has a powerful impact, like water rushing downhill after a dam bursts. But you have to be incredibly thorough to get that effect.

I agree. Im just doubtful a full pull effect is as easy to pull off in most places as a good effort at pull along with gentle, steady pushes.

> I've been working on an initiative to encourage more of my male peers to do more to make their organisations more diverse and was recently criticised by a female software engineer who told me that I shouldn't "come into a feminist space" where "women are already organising, telling stories and advocating for themselves".

I think that is the silliest thing. It sucks but men follow men. I hate that reality, but a key element of my happiness at my current position is that I DON'T have to be the advocate for change or the enforcer. I had to at the very beginning, but once it became clear what my standards were (pretty basic things like don't call people 'bitch') the co-founders began to enforce it. That was fucking awesome. It made me feel supported and as if I wasn't being 'that women', but rather we all were acknowledging it was inappropriate. Not inappropriate because I was there, but simply not okay in a professional environment.

I often think the feminist movement would be doing a heck of a lot better if we had some Navy Seal as the figurehead giving most of the speeches. The point of sexism is that people don't respect women, so broadcasting "women are people and deserve the following" from a woman is clearly not going to do as much as having it broadcast by some alpha male.

Or perhaps I'm too cynical.

Dude, politics, stay away from that. Specially if you have to ask such questions.

Is this not part of the problem? How will anything get solved if we all shy away from difficult problems?

Im not answering your main question because Im not sure I have a good one. I will address the risk. What's happening is an Us vs Them situation developing around that very issue. You might end up fighting with this group in a way that impacts your career badly. If any SJW's in there, they will passive-aggressively bait you into saying or doing something they can portray as sexist or unprofessional while appearing blameless themselves. These people are small percentage of people who take action but quite effective and in groups like you describe more than average. It took me months to counter a talented one years back that wanted my higher position at any cost. I got lucky some women in power knew the both of us enough to find my evidence most believable.

So, it's the kind of thing that can be anywhere from a situation you can talk out to a hornets nest that will light you on fire. Be careful. Id say ask more women online for advise focusing on those with stronger, personal skills. Get more opinions.

It is not about not doing anything but you have to pick your battles.

It is like saving someone from car in flames. If it will blow up, you will not be able save anyone later. You can't save everyone.

I've done a little bit of volunteering and the attitude (by far) has been "we are working together for a better future".

If someone is asking specifically for a woman's point of view then stay out of that, but otherwise I wouldn't be discouraged.

As a guy myself, I am in favor of guys being active. Men, after all, embody most of the problem; leaving it to women to solve is putting a burden on people who are already getting a raw deal.

But yes, guys should be aware that their common instinct to come in and dominate a thing will often not be well received. Partly because dudes pushing to dominate is how the problem was created and is maintained. Partly because as men we are less likely to actually understand a problem that we don't experience and therefore have thought less about. And partly because there are plenty of women who have been traumatized by men acting like that in the past, and so reasonably see it as a danger signal.

So I encourage guys who want to solve this problem to spend a very large amount of time listening and learning. To always be seeking to defer to the people who are actual experts and/or who are already working on it. To pick up the work that is the least showy, the least glory-filled, the least status-gaining. In short, to approach the work with a deep humility, a high level of respect for the people who have lived at the sharp end of this problem for years.

If you see this as a problem that needs fixing then more power to you. Many however see no problem. Women have free will and can choose the career of their liking.

Also "Men, after all, embody most of the problem;" will not be winning many converts to your point of view. Men are not a uniform being. You're painting with some really broad brush strokes and the only people who are going to hear what you say are those that already fully believe it themselves.

> Many however see no problem.

This is true with most problems. How many people saw a problem with the Windows hegemony? That doesn't mean it's not a problem, just that many people are not in a place to see it.

> Women have free will and can choose the career of their liking.

Yes and no, in that order. "Career" is an essentially social concept. Consider, for example, that women got less than 10% of medical and legal degrees as recently as 1972:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/hua_hsu/cohen_do...

What changed between now and then wasn't women's free will, which they have always had. It was the social context.

> Men are not a uniform being. You're painting with some really broad brush strokes

Sure. So are you. I think most people here are smart enough to understand how a generalization works.

> "Men, after all, embody most of the problem;" will not be winning many converts to your point of view.

Sure, there are people who, for the moment, are such delicate flowers that they cannot admit that they might be part of the problem. But if those people "convert", they will not do much good.

An emphatic male absolutely does know more about what "women are going through" than, say, a narcissistic female just parroting lines she saw work for others, ripping other females to shreds as she strives for power. If you honestly have not ever seen that, keep your eyes peeled.

If anything, I'd say privilege based on treating people as abstract monoliths and having double standards, and being unfair and abusive towards others did cause and causes "the problem", one a symptom of which you call "the" problem.

You know nothing about what others think about, what they know or don't know. I grew up with mostly female friends, always loved to work in mostly female teams and am at the moment, too, and one of my proudest childhood moments was a 13 year old female friend telling 9 year old me that I'm "the only one I can really talk to around here". I believe in being fair irrespective of person, and being supportive to ANYONE who needs support, and that besides making them laugh surely is one of my qualities my female friends would not ever want to miss in me. If I was as I am to them because they're a woman, that would be regression, plain and simple. For me people are persons first, things like gender and age second, and people who think there is "being a woman" versus "being a human who happens to be female" I want to have nothing to do with. I feel exactly the same way about men who do the reverse.

Anyways, crawling on one's knees because of identity politics is BS. Don't interrupt others nilly-willy, listen, don't presume, don't be rash. Don't trample on "small ones", be a compassionate person and show it. This has nothing to do with where you are or who you're dealing with, and nothing to do with gender. It's called being a good person, and this talk about empathy is really like blind people talking about colors. Why not simply recognize the psychological make-up of people by dealing with them, not by gender or nationality or other statistical probabilities.

To sum up, not only is something way better, way more thorough and honest possible, it's being done every day, all the time. It's just those people quietly enjoy being decent to each other.

> emphatic male absolutely does know more about what "women are going through" than

Did you mean a different word here? Because as far as I've seen, the emphatic males are the biggest problem in this context.

> You know nothing about what others think about, what they know or don't know.

Do you recognize the multiple ironies in this statement?

Yes, I'm generalizing. That is a necessity in discussions about broad characteristics. You don't have to have a Not All Men explosion [1] because you don't feel like a general statement doesn't fit you perfectly. If you think you're better than average, good for you. Not everything written for a broad audience has to be about you; you can move on and read the next comment.

> Why not simply recognize the psychological make-up of people by dealing with them, not by gender or nationality or other statistical probabilities.

I agree with part of this, in that people have wide variation in nature and experience and I want to respect that, not put them in little boxes for my convenience. But there are useful correlations between external appearance and experience, especially where that experience is about how people are treated.

For example, when walking at night in my urban neighborhood, I go well out of my way to give women a lot of space, to not walk too close to them for too long. I'll slow down, pass them, cross the street, get on a different train car, or take an alternate route altogether. Why? Because women are highly likely to have experienced street harassment, stalking, or worse. To them, I'm Shrödinger's Rapist. [2] There's no need for me to make a personal inquiry into their history and psychology, which would be hella creepy and would ruin the effect I'm trying to have, which is just to give them room.

And giving women a different sort of room is what I was arguing for above. Your rant mainly seems to be about things that I didn't say. If you'd like critique some points I actually made, that would be swell, but for now I stand by everything I wrote.

As an aside, you seem to be tacking dangerously close to the shores of "I don't see color", which has a lot of issues. [3]

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=not+all+men

[2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_Rapist

[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=i+don't+see+color

> For example, when walking at night in my urban neighborhood, I go well out of my way to give women a lot of space, to not walk too close to them for too long. I'll slow down, pass them, cross the street, get on a different train car, or take an alternate route altogether. Why?

I do the same on long stretches of walk at night etc., but generally? Whenever I pass a woman in broad daylight I have to get away to make sure she doesn't feel threatened? Ever heard of body language, ever heard of not BEING a threat and so lively a person that the situations where you have to worry about this become rather rare?

> And giving women a different sort of room is what I was arguing for above.

How about this: ask them if they want to be treated like a wounded animal. Don't just presume. Or even better, read their body language, too. It's not rocket science, and compared to that your "useful correlations" are like trying to build a CPU with a bucket of sand and a spoon. It's not that I don't know all you say, it's that I know more. Allow for that possibility.

> It's not that I don't know all you say, it's that I know more. Allow for that possibility.

I do, but I don't believe it to be the case here. Random anonymous dudes full of hypocrisy and drama but low on facts don't score well on my credible witness scale, especially when the topic is the experience of women.

There are some great suggestions on ways you can be a good ally on the last question in the article.

> told me that I shouldn't "come into a feminist space" where "women are already organising, telling stories and advocating for themselves".

At this point, I think you have to ask yourself if these people really have good values, appropriate goals, healthy approaches to reaching those goals.

The lack of gender diversity in tech is NOT a problem. Women choose not to become software engineers for the same reason they avoid all STEM fields.

This recent push to make everyone a software engineer is such an obvious attempt by companies to push down wages. You will be wasting your spare time trying to reduce your salary.

If you would talk with some actual women in tech, you would learn that many women choose not to become software engineers (and choose to leave at 2x the rate of men) because it is often a shitty environment for them.

You would also learn that plenty of people are working on making a more inclusive industry for reasons that have nothing to do with pushing down their own wages. I'm one of them.

It's often a shitty environment for men, too. Now the question is: Is it really that much more shitty for women, are there other factors at play for them leaving (or not joining in the first place), or a combination of both.

I'd say the latter: The environment is a bit shittier on average for a women and therefore should be improve to be equally shitty for all, but there are other factors at play here too.

There's also a distinction to be made between "things are shitty for everyone, and men tend to handle it better" and "things are shitty for women in particular because of anti-female sexism".

Like, construction work is also a shitty environment that's shittier for women. There's significant danger and hard physical activity, and for men are generally better able to handle that. The amount of women in construction may also be driven down by sexist behavior as well - I'm not familiar with how working in that field is.

If men are more willing to put up with shitty work environments because it makes them more money, that'll both create male-dominated fields and be a problem that anti-misogyny campaigns are useless against.

female construction worker and FOSS hobbyist here. I've been to tech conferences and do residential construction for a living. I'm a member of the local VFD. I'm familiar with predominantly male environments. I wish there were more women doing the things I love to do, but oh well.

Predominantly male environments are much more verbally and physically confrontational than mixed ones, in my experience. So my presence is really awkward. No one feels comfortable ripping on the new guy if the new guy is a new girl who's a bit shy. Sometimes the awkwardness dissipates, other times it doesn't. If it doesn't, I leave. So I suppose that this is one reason why predominantly male environments tend to stay that way.

It's always felt like more of a group dynamics thing than pointed sexism when I've experienced it.

One more thing: just because a job is physical doesn't mean that men are better at it. This attitude is extremely annoying to me as it directly affects my day-to-day life. I train 10-15 hours a week, and I'm stronger than the out-of-shape old guys. This doesn't matter. They know so many tricks to make the work go faster. Work smarter, you know?

I'm not sure if there's any data on female construction workers and danger/workplace accidents, but I'm actually confused by your assertion that men are better able to handle danger. Like, I don't understand what that even means.

> I'm actually confused by your assertion that men are better able to handle danger.

When the poster said, "significant danger and hard physical activity, and for men are generally better able to handle that", they may have been saying that men are generally better able to handle the physical activity, and not necessarily the danger too. English is ambiguous about grouping clauses sometimes.

It's both, but "men are better at handling risk" is a really weird way of phrasing "men are more willing to engage in risky behavior". And that sentence was originally just about the physical activity, and then I realized that the difference in risk tolerance was also a contributing factor and I should mention that as well, and the phrasing vaguely worked properly so I kept it.

By "better able to handle danger" I meant that they're more willing to do risky behavior. Like, part of doing a dangerous job is deciding that it's worth doing, and men are more likely to do so in spite of the risk.

Essentially, I'm blaming part of the construction work gender disparity on the same thing that explains why only 14% of motorcycle riders are female.

>just because a job is physical doesn't mean that men are better at it.

Sure. I'm definitely not saying that women can't or shouldn't do physical jobs. Averages and distributions exist, though, and testosterone is a hell of a drug.

As for the danger part. It sounds like men are socially forced to accept danger and risk, I doubt most men really want to do it, but they are forced to be providers while us women are socially forced to be caretakers.

Sure, life is terrible. Sure, the patriarchal system we are embedded in is bad for everybody. But again, if you want to know what actual women actually experience, the right way to approach that isn't boldly stating your own answer. Try asking.

Unfortunately very few people have the experiences of both men and women in tech, which is what is necessary to get a comparison from someone who actually knows how much shittier it is as one vs another.

I'm not seeing why that's necessary. Historically, patriarchy is pretty obvious. Women were forced into specific roles for thousands of years, and that was clearly still happening during the lives of many people now in the workforce.

So I'm comfortable just taking women at their word when they say they're still experiencing problems. I don't need to carefully measure the exact relative degrees of shittiness. Worst case, I will listen to them and solve some problems that turn out to be for everybody.

But if you're merely curious, I'd recommend reading some of the articles where trans people talk about sexism from both sides. E.g.: https://newrepublic.com/article/119239/transgender-people-ca...

"This recent push to make everyone a software engineer is such an obvious attempt by companies to push down wages. You will be wasting your spare time trying to reduce your salary."

absolutely agree and it is obvious.This is simply about trying to expand the pool of qualified individuals to drive down the salary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com