Leap: An Online Community for Women
blog.ycombinator.com
blog.ycombinator.com
What you're describing has always seemed to me as an excellent example why women-only spaces are not necessarily about people-who-identify-as-women, but about people-who-others-identify-as-women. Other people treat you a certain way because of how they perceive you, and you want to have a place to talk about that with other people treated the same way. Does that sound at all correct?
A colleague was groped. She didn't report it. It would have likely diminished her future prospects. A friend was asked out on dates, unsolicited, multiple times by coworkers. She just had to laugh it off. Women at a previous employment reported not being taken as seriously as men in meetings, and being passed over for promotions in favour of less qualified men. A friend reported sexualized posters of women up in the office. In the chat of my company, a sexualized video of women was passed around.
I'm trans, so my challenges are a bit different. I try to hide the fact that I'm trans during interviews. A lot of people are uncomfortable with trans people (26% of Canadian men are uncomfortable moving next to one), and with interviews to see if I'm socially a good fit, that can end it. I actually changed my name to an androgynous one as to not out myself. I get misgendered at work by people who do it on purpose. I also get touched inappropriately by a coworker.
In all cases, what can you do to challenge these things without being seen as "the crazy one", "too sensitive", "party pooper", or whatever? Without hurting my finances? It's shit.
There was an employee like that at my last job who would speak up. Not forcefully. I was really appreciative of what he was doing. He was treated pretty awfully, and ended up quitting.
I’m a geek and don’t know the first thing about dating, but doesn’t at least one of the parties involved need to receive an unsolicited request? Isn’t that how it works?
When that happens, along with a gazillion other little things women are disproportionately on the receiving end of, it has the effect of dissuading women from pursuing their career in the industry.
It's a little ambiguous in how this is worded whether the same person asked multiple times, or if it was multiple people each asking once. BUT in the former case especially, if you get turned down for a date please respect the other's wishes and do not keep trying, especially at work. It's not cute or charming, it's just disrespectful.
Just asking cold calling style is not the only option for approaching such things.
This is cultural, no? I mean, I have a personal rule of never dating coworkers, but I have friends elsewhere in the world where this isn't such a strange notion.
Nonetheless, I was asked for a date by a senior programmer in the department I had been hoping to transfer to. This helped kill my hopes of having a real career at the company and helped me make my peace with just leaving the company shortly thereafter.
Some people know how to navigate such situations effectively. Some don't. Culture may help skew those percentages one direction or the other, but I think certain settings introduce inherent problems that need to be accounted for and navigated around. Working together is one such situation.
Merely curious, was the working relationship between the two of you already strained/tense? Said another way, were you already planning to depart from the company before the senior programmer asked you out?
I have a certificate in GIS. In the 5+ years at that company, he was the only person who knew what GIS was without me having to explain it. It never crossed his mind that I might have IT ambitions or that my technical training might have value for the company. He just saw an attractive woman, and that was it. This helped convince me that the company was simply not fertile ground for a serious career for me.
My department was a pink collar ghetto. I had no desire to remain in an underpaid pink collar job and use the company as a means to marry well. He no doubt made at least 3 to 5 times what I made.
Attractive sexually or intellectually?
And tech has the additional problem that women are under-represented so they get propositioned a lot.
I don't know about the US, but where I come from you never know that the answer is yes until you ask. Unless you are approaching a prostitute.
*Assuming that you are neurotypical
It can be a similar experience for men (although it's definitely not something talked about). I've had a female coworker walk up behind me repeatedly and give me unsolicited back rubs and ask me if I wanted to go to an empty office. I've been flirted with and hit on repeatedly. I've had a group of women at work, some of whom were in positions of power, socially shun me because I wasn't romantically interested in one of their friends, another coworker.
Most of this happened when I was younger, and I probably would respond differently now that I have more experience (I just kept my mouth shut back then). But, I still can't help but feel that I wouldn't be taken as seriously by HR, because I'm a man.
I'd like to see us move past the current narrative of "Men do this to Women" and get to a place where we recognize that People shouldn't do this to other People.
That said, women as a group are disproportionately on the receiving end of improper workplace behaviour overwhelmingly perpetrated by men.
And you can't address that dynamic without first acknowledging that it exists and putting words to it. And so, men as a group do this to women as a group and it has real-life ramifications for women. That doesn't mean we don't address what is happening to men. It's not a zero sum game. But it also means we can't ignore how gender is implicated in this discourse for women.
I believe the awareness of the #metoo movement is powerful, in that it allows me as a male, to say stuff like "that's not cool" when needed.
Yes, that is definitely the case in places where men outnumber women in positions of power, which is still most businesses. I can tell you, from first hand experience, that when that dynamic is flipped, men, perhaps equally as often, become the more objectified party.
IMO this is an issue of human nature and power dynamics, not the genetic proclivities of any one sex or gender identity. I know that my own experiences made me completely avoid mixing work and "attraction". I suspect that the higher percentage of women facing this abuse and coming to the same conclusion also drives the disparity.
But we don't have to single out men and give offending women a pass, even if it's supposed to be temporary, to solve the problem. "Nobody can do this to anyone and get away with it" also solves the problem without making the non-offending men feel unfairly singled out.
I can tell you, it's extremely frustrating to have people assume that I'm a potential offender, only because of my sex and gender identity when, in fact, I've repeatedly been the victim.
I think that notion is irrelevant to the problem.
It's the nature of SSD to get corrupted. It's the nature of the internet to be unreliable. Yet many companies in Silicon Valley build robust and reliable services atop those fundamental starting points. "Oh, I'm using an SSD, guess my repo will just become corrupted," is not something you hear technologists utter.
However, it's apparently accepted as natural that employees of some Silicon Valley companies might say to themselves, "Oh, I just turned down that project manager's sexual advances, guess I can't work on that project in my future." That can only happen if the company has no interest in addressing those kinds of problems. I know that sounds flippant, but GNU/Linux was built largely upon the initial work of Linus and Richard-- two developers who apparently wanted and had zero social interaction with one another. So even from a narrow productivity standpoint, it's insane to ignore those problems and throw that value out the window.
General principles of human rights broadly forbid notions of collective guilt and collective punishment: one formulation is that everyone is entitled to be treated as an individual before the law. This doesn't mean one can't sue a company or nation; but men don't act as a group in the sense of having a steering committee with clearly articulated policies on gender politics.
As a rhetorical device, it's so common it has a name. It's called "derailing".
This seems to be a pattern on HN.
Edit @ Brucephillips:
What beat is effectively saying is "Keep your mouth shut about your victimization. We're talking about ours right now." Is it surprising that that sort of callousness would be downvoted?
By the kind of people who would yell at an anorexic support group for saying that their attempts to derail said meeting with their traumatic history of obesity, was inappropriate? No. You’re a smart bunch, but I’ve figured out the reason that you all talk about “soft skills” like some kind of distant light you could never hope to approach.
Is it ironic that a discussion of women trying to establish a site for their own use leads to a subset of this site reacting badly? No.
Am I surprised that any time a group tries to address issues which disproportionately harm them, they get the “all lives matter!” attack? Also no.
I’m no longer surprised when people act like children because they don’t understand how to relate to others, or feel an overweening need to make any conversation about them.
Thanks for asking.
Edit 2: Rate limited.
Is it surprising that that sort of callousness would be downvoted?
What do you think should happen to people who grope other people?
> A friend was asked out on dates, unsolicited, multiple times by coworkers.
What's the alternative? How in your world are people supposed to date?
> In all cases, what can you do to challenge these things without being seen as "the crazy one", "too sensitive", "party pooper", or whatever?
I'm not implying that you are any of those things. Did you ever consider the possibility that maybe you are too sensitive?
If you interact with a diverse group of people, they will do and say things that will offend you, such is life, the only way to avoid it is to ensure that you only interact with likeminded people. Expecting everyone to adhere to your values is tyranny.
Edit: Sorry, didn't mean this as an accusation of shilling. I was just somewhat taken aback by the idea that there aren't any other safe spaces on the internet.
It reads like the often repeated (and ignored) experience of women in tech.
If this wasn't written by a copywriter I'll eat my hat.
Your question was a borderline personal attack in the first place, but I didn't chide you for it, even though this topic makes the downside of such an attack much worse than in a typical thread. Actually I did chide you for it, but then deleted the post because I remembered how sensitive HN users often are to booster comments posted by new accounts. I'm sure you're posting in good faith but this is a particularly poor situation in which to aggressively challenge a new user.
I work in a company with more than 50% women. Many of them worked in teams and companies where it was more than 80% women. They hated it. "Constant politics, catty behavior and backstabbing" is how they describe it.
If you identify as a woman and are interested in joining Leap,
please sign up for our beta here.
Obviously the invitation is meant to show that trans women are welcome. That's... moving, but I think it will only cause trouble. First you create a place especially for women, which is needed because like the announcement says, many women don't feel welcome, comfortable or even safe in online discussions that tend to escalate to shouting matches, typically among men (since it's the women leaving). Then you invite in to the community people who have been socialised as men, have grown up as men, have spent most of their professional lives as men and who have often contributed to exactly the kind of working environment that makes womens' lives difficult as tech workers. That's defeating the whole point of a "community where the core culture [will be] set by women".
I'm not trying to say that trans women are not women (I mean, duh; I'm one. Of both). But it should be kept in mind that most of us carry a great deal of baggage from the time we lived as men. Baggage that's very hard to get rid of and that many of us are not even aware of. In light of this, I think this big-hearted invitation to everyone who identifies as a woman, should be revised to something more cautious. I'd think, if someone "identifies as a woman" and works in technology, they'd respond to an invitation to just "women" anyway.
To be perfectly clear, I'm totally not joining and I invite any other trans women who read this to think very carefully before doing so. Just think of all the times you had a civilised and polite debate with other trans women about trans stuff, or about anything.
Societally, we have recently gotten to the point of being able to talk about the importance of having spaces where historically marginalized groups can forge a shared sense of belonging and build up the social support structures that historically less marginalized groups have long enjoyed, but I don't believe we've gotten to the point of being able to have a reasoned debate about edge cases where different groups overlap in some ways, yet diverge in others, along axes some might find incompatible.
I also don't necessarily think that this is for the group leader to solve: this is a process that will take years of successes and blunders, and cause everyone involved to tackle an additional layer of delicate subjects that they may not be ready for. It appears that the group leader has laid out their vision, so for now, the points you raise will likely be addressed in a distributed fashion, in the minds of every member or prospective member, as time goes on.
It took me a long time to start thinking of the effect of my being trans on others around me. For example, when I get hired in a job, is the fact that I'm perceived as a woman giving me a tiny advantage? Is the interviewer thinking it's cool to have a female SE on the team? And does that mean I'm taking some other woman's place? Or is the fact that I'm trans (which is never discussed in interviews) a convenient compromise between a development team that's 100% men and actually going out and hiring more women?
In trans circles, it was my experience that such questions were brushed aside and never given any consideration. Of course I'm a woman, of course I deserve everything a woman deserves and as a woman I'm subject to discrimination in tech anyway (maybe all the companies that didn't even reply to my applications didn't think it's "cool to have a female SE on the team"). That was the general reaction. Or I was just overthinking things (but I do that for a living).
Currently the only people who even broach the subject of how trans womens' rights could affect cis womens' rights are extremely unpleasant transphobic trolls and that's very unfortunate. We've left the conversation about what claiming our rights does to othes entirely up to the very people who want to take our rights away from us. My comment here is in the context of a half-hearted attempt on my part to reclaim this conversation.
Thank you for bringing this up, I had many of the same thoughts but it was not my place to say it. I think it is important, though.
This is certainly not the case for all trans women. You may not feel like you need to join a community like this, but I don't think it's fair to then speak for/to the trans community saying that none of us should.
I've heard things similar to what you're saying in the past, but I don't think it holds water. Trans women typically aren't welcome in male-only spaces, because we aren't. Often we aren't welcome in women-only spaces because of opinions like these. Usually there aren't trans-only spaces. It ends up with us being excluded _everywhere_ because of some dubious concept of "socialisation", as if every trans woman has the same experiences such that you can discriminate based on it.
>Just think of all the times you had a civilised and polite debate with other trans women about trans stuff, or about anything.
Often! I've also had civilised and polite debates with men, and been shouted down by cis women. People are people, not just their gender, and while there are trends that's all they are.
I accept that there are differences between trans women, but I believe my description covers a strong majority. I don't speak "for" anyone, of course.
>> It ends up with us being excluded _everywhere_ because of some dubious concept of "socialisation", as if every trans woman has the same experiences such that you can discriminate based on it.
I agree that the concept of "socialisation" is vague and hard to define. The problem is that there are differences in the way men and women behave in a social context and because these differences end up harming women (usually) they need to be addressed. It's easy to see that boys and girls are brought up differently (different toys, different advise, being told off for different things etc) so that's a likely explanation. The alternative is usually a biological explanation about male and female brains generating male and female behaviours. We don't really understand how brains generate any behaviours so I find the biological explanation to be very suspicious. The "socialisation" explanation sounds a lot more straightforward.
Of course there are differences between trans women, in behaviour as well as upbringing. There are differences between men, and between women. Yet, here we are with a tech indudstry that is, in aggregate, unfair or hostile to women, but not to men. You can't predict the behaviour of individuals, but you can make fairly accurate predictions for the kind of behaviours that arise in groups. That's why a community like Leap is needed in the first place.
My concern is that in the case of women-only spaces where trans women are welcome, many trans women will join, responding to their need to belong, which you express and which I feel myself. And that given enough trans women joining, a few of them will eventually display those behavioural traits you can expect from people who grew up like men and that are the traits the community seems to want to keep out.
I agree that feeling excluded from everywhere is harsh and feels extremely unfair. But we can't fix unfair by making more unfair. We can't make the world fair for ourselves by making it more unfair for others. At the end of the day, the way forward is true equality. If trans women are accepted as women, and women are accepted as equal to men (in technology, or anywhere), trans women will not need to feel excluded from anywhere.
But this is not yet the case and I really think that trans women need to give some space to cis women until it is and in order to help make it so.
>> Often!
And thanks for letting me have one, too. My experience is that it happens, but rarely.
I am cis-gendered female and exhibit a lot of conversational traits typically identified as male-patterned. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed?
Personally I love the idea of allowing trans-women into a woman focused community. Your perspective is going to be unique (and likely uniquely insightful.) You also experience the same discrimination as cis-gendered women if you aren't explicitly identifying as transgendered and may have the same needs for support and understanding related to that discrimination.
I concede I haven't considered women with atypical behaviours so I'll be honest and say I don't know how to answer your question. My guess is that cis women being a bit confrontational (if I intepret that right) is going to be much less disruptive, or divisive, than trans women doing the same.
>> Personally I love the idea of allowing trans-women into a woman focused community. Your perspective is going to be unique (and likely uniquely insightful.) You also experience the same discrimination as cis-gendered women if you aren't explicitly identifying as transgendered and may have the same needs for support and understanding related to that discrimination.
Thank you for your empowering words, I appreciate them. I hope you're right and that the trans women who join Leap will contribute positively to it.
Personally, I'm not out to my coworkers so yes, I'd benefit from a community like Leap, absolutely. But that can't be just about me (or others like me). If you look at complaints cis women have against trans women, it's all about us thinking only of ourselves and our need to be perceived as women, taking the place of cis women in employment, enjoying resources and structures meant to help cis women etc. The majority of the people who say those things typically turn out to be vicious trolls who don't really care so much about cis women as about hurting trans women. But I have to consider the possibility that in their hatred they have managed to latch on to a nugget of truth: that just by being perceived as any other woman, I end up taking the place of one. And that just shocks me to my core. I transitioned to find myself, not to usurp someone else's place in the world.
So I've decided to be very careful to avoid doing that, if at all possible. And one part of that is staying well away from spaces meant "for women", even if they're explicitly trans-friendly.
And I do think that other trans women should also be just as careful. Expressing your identity can't be done at the cost of others' lives. Well, unless you're Vlad the Impaler.
This is an issue I have been uncomfortably aware for a while. I have never before seen anyone comment on it.
Let me suggest that your awareness of it makes you someone I would prefer to have around in a women's group.
I say this as someone who has been burned on this very issue, repeatedly so. But I would prefer to seek a path forward for both cishet women and trans women, one that victimizes neither. That path won't be found without people like you.
If Leap is something you feel would benefit you, I hope you will reconsider your position and join it. If it doesn't work out to your satisfaction for any reason, you can always stop participating.
Other than those regarding genitalia, cis-women are probably as likely to fail to conform to gender stereotypes as trans-women.
In my experience as a trans woman in tech and very involved in the MN transgender community for many years, is that your perspective is definitely not shared by the majority. I know my argument is just as anecdotal as yours, but I only can recall a couple trans women out of the hundreds I have met through community work that would agree with you. Most of the women I work with absolutely want to join women's spaces and would be interested in Leap or similar industry groups for women. But again, this is anecdotal. Please don't speak for the "majority" of us without backing it up with polling data at minimum.
>> My concern is that in the case of women-only spaces where trans women are welcome, many trans women will join, responding to their need to belong, which you express and which I feel myself. And that given enough trans women joining, a few of them will eventually display those behavioural traits you can expect from people who grew up like men and that are the traits the community seems to want to keep out.
All groups have to manage certain individuals.
In your opinion, how much gendered socialization is enough for a trans woman to be acceptable to be able to join female spaces? ie. At what maximum age do you think they needed to start transition to access women's spaces? If not at all, then how does your socialization argument hold up against those that transition at a very young age? At what point is a woman "fully" socialized in their gendered role and ready to join women's spaces?
Additionally, how should facilitators of said spaces check to make sure the cis women joining had enough gendered socialization to join? Should they accept tomboys? Butch women? Lesbians?
What about trans men who were socialized as a women before transition? Or inter-sexed folk that identify as women?
Should there be any consideration that many trans women end up picking up (effectually) on many of the socializations women receive while growing up?
Socialization has its own issues with essentialism, and often feels stuck in the second-wave feminism of the 70s. No two women share the same experiences. Gendered socialization differs dramatically across intersectional lines and when referenced in such ways often assumes and superimposes affluent, Christian, and white experiences as the majority and proper socialization. Socialization arguments often remind of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Modern intersectional feminism embraces the intersectional identities of women, trans and cis alike (among many other informing aspects).
>> But this is not yet the case and I really think that trans women need to give some space to cis women until it is and in order to help make it so.
Often I find these lines of thought to be thinly veiled attempts at othering trans folk, erasing their identity, and forcing them out of gender spaces entirely. If transgender women are to stay out of women's spaces while not being accepted in men's spaces, where do they belong?
When it comes to gendered groups and spaces, I would maintain that identity should be the deciding factor.
I'm not speaking for the majority of trans women. I'm speaking of them. So when I say that "my description covers a strong majority of trans women" I mean that the traits I list describe a majority of trans women, in my experience and in my opinion. I don't mean that the trans women I describe in this way would agree with my description of those traits, or that a majority of them would share my views.
If you ask me, because I also have a bit of background in various trans communities, I think the majority of trans women would not accept the traits I ascribe to them. I did warn that my comment would probably be controversial. In trans cirlces, it would most definitely be.
>> Often I find these lines of thought to be thinly veiled attempts at othering trans folk, erasing their identity, and forcing them out of gender spaces entirely. If transgender women are to stay out of women's spaces while not being accepted in men's spaces, where do they belong?
While there is still need for gendered spaces? We belong in our own spaces. Personally, I'd feel a lot safer and not just a lot less awkward in a space meant for trans women than in one meant for cis women, or even all women.
I don't have to speak in the hypothetical. I have actuall been in trans spaces. Once as a representative of my country at a TGEU meeting, which was how I imagine heaven to be, a couple of days where I was between the only people in the world who can really get me, other trans women and men (the few cis people were friendly enough to not spoil it although I wasn't sure why we had to have a cis facilitator, but no matter).
Another time I went to a meeting of an LGBT group at the university were I studied. This was a meeting to discuss trans matters and it was open to everyone, but it was preceded by a closed meeting, only for people who identified as trans. And that was nice also.
Finally, I've been a member of a local support group for trans people, for a couple of years, before I started working and didn't have any time to attend the meetings anymore.
All those were places were I've felt I can really belong and where I don't have to explain anything, although sometimes this had more to do with passing privilege and women with less heteronormative presentation were less welcome, I'm very sad to say.
We need more spaces like that. For trans women in tech (whose numbers are legion, btw) we need a special place just to discuss our very specific needs and experiences. A community for cis women in tech is just not going to be that, I'm afraid.
And that's besides the fact that I fear we'll just end up making things awkward for the cis women also.
Again anecdotally.
>> I mean that the traits I list describe a majority of trans women, in my experience and in my opinion.
Well, here is where the wheels fall off. Prescribing negative male traits to the majority of trans women is beyond the pale. I disagree and find the connotation offensive and transphobic.
>> While there is still need for gendered spaces? We belong in our own spaces.
Again, I disagree, for reasons: 1. Size: The trans population is small, like very small compared to almost all other groups. It would be a greater burden on society to request that all spaces now accommodate unique and private spaces for trans folk, and extrapolated, a different space for flavor of trans. 2. Exclusion and Identity Erasure: Many trans folk (myself included) identify with one of the two binary genders. It is an affront and an erasure of our identities to segregate us from general society. I for one am not looking to wear my trans scarlet letter with pride, thanks.
Now, that is not to say that trans folk should not have access to our own support networks and industry groups. But to claim that we should stay out of the majority groups because we have a different past is offensive, as is the connotation that trans women make cis women uncomfortable. As a passing trans woman, I have been asked to leave trans groups because my "privilege" makes others uncomfortable. In this case, where do I belong? Should I make new industry groups for passing trans women with mixed Irish/German/Greek heritage that enjoy swing dancing and traditional music? Should cis women segregate by ethnicity or by tomboy-ness?
Intersectionality does not imply segregation. Trans women are women, full stop, and should have access to the same groups as cis women.
Unfortunately I'm totally rubbish at community building (wouldn't know where to start) so I won't be the one to do it. But it's strange that nobody has thought of it just yet. This is just anecdata but there are a lot of trans women in tech. We should just band together.
If you have never done this before, let me suggest that if you like the culture it currently has, you need to be really leery of making significant changes, such as deciding you will welcome men at some point after starting out as exclusively female.
I have been a member of predominantly female groups. If there is a single man in them, they fail to be some kind of female empowerment zone. He will have the largest influence any time he posts and he will be backed by vicious female allies who will have a huge problem with any woman standing up to him. It is bizarre stuff.
The one group I briefly belonged to that was initially exclusively female due to happenstance promptly crashed and burned when the first man joined. After ugly stuff went down, the list basically died. It was eventually disbanded, even though he quickly left because of the drama. The group never recovered from the debacle.
This theory is notoriously used by the military in many nations. By strengthening the in-group feeling you gain several traits such as increased confidence and feeling of belonging, and you increase tensions against the out-group which during a war is perceived as useful.
Benefits and drawbacks, one which many nations has gone with banning the practice of single sex education. I don't disagree with it and I find the science behind it to be rather robust.
Women have a tendency to be too empathetic and understanding and society tends to hang a lot of expectations on them to be so. If women want careers, being a little less caring and a little more goal oriented seems like a constructive outcome to me.
Where is the research on that?
I think this comment thread is a pretty good illustration of the problem. A group of women are saying, "hey, we think this is a beneficial project, for this reason and this other reason," and a bunch of men are saying "WRONG it's pretty much white supremacy except against men." Forums reflect their membership -- in an industry dominated by men, discussions will be slanted away from positions held by women unless compensatory measures are taken.
If the answer is "Men cannot understand" that's fair, but a terrible simplification. You'll find most men are at least willing to try to understand, and by vilifying the majority and hiding in a smaller exclusionary group you may just end up worse off than before.
To me, as a member of this minority group, I see this service as offering a solution to one aspect of (but obviously not the entire) problem: that of community and validation. A de facto understanding based on shared experiences. It does not mean that men can't understand and can't help, but that comes later or alongside this component of building strength in numbers.
If you are the only woman on a dev team, for example, who at work can you talk to openly about your experiences without fear of judgment/professional repercussion? We've seen what HR is (in)capable of in stories like what surfaced at Uber. And the men on your team may be the most emotionally intelligent, compassionate beings but they still won't be able to fully empathize. Maybe they will say, "I hear you, and I think that is awful, so what can I do to help?" (which IMO is a wonderful response), but they likely can't say, "I know exactly what you mean."
I hope people don't see Leap as a vilification of the majority. I have signed up for the beta but haven't used it yet, so I don't actually know what the overall culture is like. I sincerely doubt it was anyone's intent to alienate men, but rather to create a safer space for women than the tech world at large generally provides.
ETA: To address your point about a men's group--you're right that it probably wouldn't be received well, which isn't fair. But it also wouldn't be getting much of my sympathies, as its need for existence is altogether different.
Given that a "bro" was denigrated, persecuted and fired for trying to bring light to some of the causes, there is plenty of reason to think the imbalance being perpetuated is not the one you're thinking of.
Both speech and gender issues are complex, no doubt. But what I do have are my own very real, collected experiences as well as those of many other women I've talked to and read about on the topic. There is also plenty of data if you look. [0] It's getting tiring to have to continually explain to men that yes! This is actually a problem! No matter whether you think you've seen differently, no matter what your probably good intentions are. This stuff is happening all around you, and hey, maybe it's because you've enjoyed a lifetime of it not happening to you that you aren't constantly attuned to it.
[0] earlier post in this thread with some links to data https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16163130&goto=threads%...
Men don't need it - in technology and many other industry spaces, we are comfortable voicing our experiences because we know they'll be well-received and affirmed by much of our audience. We're the prevailing voice in the broad group, so we're already being heard.
If you're creating a space for men only, it's either because you're part of another group with a sidelined voice (e.g. gay men) or because you have Damore-esque ideas about the world and really do want to be exclusive.
Is there anything preventing you from going out and making it?
I do, that's why I asked the question.
Must a site or community have a bigger problem at its outset? My gut feeling is that the answer is no, that communities become their own thing, and that they can support and enrich themselves in unique ways.
> ...there is also the inescapable fact that at some point men and women will have to work together in engineering environments, and we still have a dearth of environments that foster those interactions.
I don't believe that something like Leap is counterproductive here, but, lacking a suitable algebra of online communities, that's another gut feeling. The Hacker News community is very interested in fostering those interactions, for example.
It's the most reliable "easy" way I know to determine this info. I remember an app called Lulu which did the same.
So far discourse has not gone off track. When participants disagree they've been able to discuss their views constructively and assume the best in each other. That's something I'm most excited about. I expect there will be cases where that's not true though, so members who don't contribute in a net positive way will lose access to the community.
On one hand, I think that it will provide a valuable resource for a large group of people, which is good! On the other hand, an online tech community designed solely for men would be met with hate and massive backlash.
If equality is our goal, how will self-segregation help meet that goal?
I don't know if it's a useful analogy, but I consider it akin to global warming being discussed by climate scientists in a totally public forum. The volume of anti-global warming sentiment and media coverage (both for and against) would completely disrupt such attempts.
Ps. There has already been discussion on Leap about inviting men to the community, and I'm sure it'll continue to be discussed! I don't think anyone wants to draw lines in the sand or create a "Us vs. Them" mentality. I do think everyone wants to have at least one person, one ally, in their corner though.
Do you intend to have admin/moderator actions visible in some way to the users? If posts are edited or removed (by users or mods) does that get indicated in any way?
Different approaches to these issues can significantly affect how a community grows, and I'm always very interested to hear how new sites choose to approach the problem.
1. I thought gender-based discrimination was illegal. How is Leap not illegal?
2. One of the main objections of "gentleman's clubs" was that their (male) members had access to important networking contacts, putting women in unequal foot in an unfair way when it came to businesses. Wouldn't Leap be unfair in the same way?
This assumption completely disregards the measurable advantage men have in the tech community. If you have identical programs, one for a historically disenfranchised group, and one for the group that's been in power for decades, only one of those programs is shitty.
edit: "Advantage" was a poor choice of words, but since it's been quoted in replies I'll leave it. I meant something more like "given the gender disparities in the tech community."
There is obviously an imbalance in the industry, but can you please provide proof that this is due to an advantage that men have?
> If you have identical programs, one for a historically disenfranchised group, and one for the group that's been in power for decades, only one of those programs is shitty.
Why would fighting racism with racism or sexism with sexism be a productive method of correcting imbalances? Wouldn't that just fuel and maintain the disdain between groups?
Is this the "all lives matter!" response to this project? It's not a crime to point out that some groups are poorly represented in an industry. Are you saying the solution to "hey, women feel isolated in the tech industry" is to say "Well, let's figure out how to include men too"? If women felt like their discussions were being treated fairly in public forums, they'd have stayed in them.
This so much. Most men in tech can have a majority male discussion in any open community, due to their numbers. The amount of disparity from men towards leap in this thread is a prime example of why we women in tech seek to have discussions in more closed environments.
No, my solution to a sense of isolation is instead to find ways for women to no longer feel isolated within their field.
A great example with the other sex would be male nurses. Male nurses are definitely the minority in their field, yet they manage to not feel isolated overall. Even if they did, creating a male-nurse-only group wouldn't do a thing to correct the isolation-causing systems in their place of employment, and would only work to further separate male nurses from the majority by isolating them from the wider nursing community.
If women feel isolated, we should try to find out why and correct that instead of just sticking them with other isolated women.
What is wrong with doing something like this until they generally feel less isolated, then moving on to something else?
IE Why is it unreasonable for this to be a step along the path?
This is possible. I do not know.
> What is wrong with doing something like this until they generally feel less isolated, then moving on to something else?
What I'm afraid will happen by taking this route(though I do not know that this will happen) is that this will divert energy that would have gone into converting work cultures to improve the interaction between men and women and shift that energy into an external forum that doesn't affect their real employment conditions in the slightest.
I'm also afraid of the optics of a double standard. If women can have women-only groups while men can't socially get away with having men-only groups at the same time that the number of women grows in the field, then that may make seemingly displaced men very angry.
I could be wrong. If you see a reason why this doesn't make sense, please let me know.
Here you cross into making this yet another same-old generic ideological thread, thus guaranteeing repetition and tedium. What more we can do to explain to HNers that this is where discussions become off topic because the light/heat ratio goes to zero? I realize the line isn't obvious when a topic starts out close to it anyhow. But you know, it especially isn't obvious when you aren't consciously looking for it in the first place. Since you have a habit of doing this in HN threads and stand out as a user who's done particular damage this way—unintentionally I'm sure—we need you to do a better job with this.
Perhaps the following heuristic would help. If a comment breaks away from the specific content of the specific story and becomes generically ideological, it's on the wrong side of the line and you probably should not post it.
Note that this doesn't have to do with the ideologies or politics in question, or what view you're arguing for. It has to do with generic discussions being boring in HN's sense of the word.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
This may seem pedantic, but what do you consider ideological? I said what I said because I saw it as a fundamental flaw of the community. I don't believe fighting discrimination with discrimination is productive, and I believe a woman-only community is discriminatory. Would it have avoided the genericism if I had tied it directly to the thread by saying "I believe this community is wrong because you can't fight discrimination with discrimination?" Or would mentioning discrimination genericize the conversation as well?
First, all of it is predictable. Each time something gets repeated, its potential to gratify curiosity diminishes. In the case of ideological squabbles, the repetition is so entrenched that there's no curiosity potential left at all. What is has instead is strong conflict potential, meaning that such discussions not only add no value here, they burn up and destroy what does have value.
Second, it's all generic. The larger a question is, the harder it is to say meaningful things about it. Signal/noise ratio goes down as topics get more generic.
I don't doubt that it's possible for people to find new, meaningful things to say about large generic questions. But internet comments are not the right genre for expressing them. Someone who truly has such ideas would write a book or an essay, for the same reason one wouldn't excavate the foundation for a house with a thimble.
What is that advantage and how is it measured ?
At the end of the day, women say they feel that they feel isolated by an industry that is overwhelmingly male, and that being able to connect with other women and discuss their experiences is a valuable way to stay in a career that they might otherwise bail on. I'm inclined to believe them.
That you feel compelled to apologize reflects the self-preserving power of this male advantage.
I would like to offer another point of view; A lot of the males who ended up in that industry are, to be blunt, social rejects. They were not the popular kids in high school, but those guys who were playing magic in the corner. Being a male in IT is a big stigma in the outside world. Nerd and Geek are still insults. There are entire sitcoms (IT Guys, Big Bang Theory) designed to laugh at them. Many dating website have the option to filter out men working in IT. I usually hide the fact that I work in IT and have found it very beneficial.
Now that there's money and power involved, things are changing a bit. But I still feel that a large reason that the IT community is like it is because it was simply excluded from society at large for a long time and still is in a way.
I think that people coming now and turning the table around with such righteousness is a bit insensitive. How would you feel about being excluded from the club you build for yourself after having been excluded from everywhere else ?
Honestly, I don't give a shit about "another point of view," and that you think it matters here is a great illustration of why women would run for the hills, whichever hills don't have you on them.
This is not about someone's experience as a "social reject," this isn't about sad boys not being cool in high school because they like comic books. This is about women wanting a place to talk to other women about an experience that they feel isolates them from their male colleagues. That men sometimes feel lonely too has nothing to do with it.
Nobody is trying to exclude you from these larger spaces. Though if we want to get rid of the stigma of tech, we can start by making them more welcoming and inclusive.
In other words: if seeing something like Leap makes you viscerally mad, focus on fixing the reason it needs to exist in the first place.
See:
https://blog.100tb.com/the-technology-industry-is-a-mans-wor...
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/women-in-tech-gender-...
https://www.witi.com/articles/1165/Men-Dominate-the-Tech-Ind...
https://qz.com/940660/tech-is-overwhelmingly-male-and-men-ar...
Also:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents
There are piles of data. Seriously, you are one google away from incontrovertible evidence.
Why is this?
There are only two possible causes that I can see - genetic, or cultural. The genetic argument is basically that men are, by nature, better at being programmers and leaders than women - that women are inferior. The cultural argument is that there is a social advantage to being male (and a social disadvantage to being female) - that, all else being equal, things tend to default in favor of men.
Personally, I reject the genetic explanation. Most people do. If you also reject it, then you're stuck with the cultural explanation, or finding something I haven't come up with.
The problem with tech in particular is that we're often viewed as an inclusive and progressive industry. But when you run the numbers, we're no better than the law firms.
From my observation, women are frequently proclaimed to be superior to men in numerous ways. My entire life I've heard that women mature faster than men. Women are proclaimed to be more nurturing. Women have higher 'emotional intelligence.' You'll see it almost universally proclaimed that if women ran the world, conflicts (eg war) would be far less common, this is a constant refrain in the US across all media.
There are very well understood differences between men and women when it comes to things like vision, physical strength, hand-eye coordination, spatial awareness, physical aggression, and so on. We also have many different health risks due to our genetic differences. All of these things add up to women universally living longer from one culture to the next, and women commiting drastically fewer acts of violence (and thus making up a far smaller percentage of the prison population).
If any of that is actually true, why can't men be superior at various tasks due to genetic differences? Why not programming? What I'm asking is: what's the scientific argument to say that men are not superior at programming, how can that be proven either direction? Just saying such is the case (either direction), is not enough.
Where men outperform women, that’s sexism.
There are other hypotheses as well that have nothing to do with social advantages--maybe biology or culture has women preferring to elect into other career fields? We also know that (for whatever reason) women prefer flexible careers that let them spend time with kids, and that women are more likely than men to take time off to start a family and that they take more time off than men to start the family. Perhaps men and women are equal in their desire to spend time with family, but society expects men to sacrifice time with family to provide for the family? In this case, the disparity is the result of a social disadvantage to being male.
These are just a few hypotheses that I could come up with in a few moments. Some of these I think are probable and others improbable, but the point is that we have more hypotheses besides misogyny and patriarchy. We shouldn't feel the need to buy into the patriarchy explanation simply to avoid the misogyny explanation (especially because the people who favor the patriarchy explanation also tend to propose some scary reforms, like restricting due process rights for one gender).
You can cut this cake a different way, too... race. White people are overrepresented (or non-whites are underrepresented) in IT, and in high-status jobs. And the male/female representation ratios are different, as well.
Consider historic example, as well. Right now, women are significantly underrepresented as CEOs and senators. But a century ago, there were no women CEOs or senators. Are women less genetically inclined to their "proper" path as homemakers now than they were a century ago?
At a certain point, I start cutting the cake with Occam's Razor.
They don't have to be. Only the majority, and I have a hard time believing that the majority of software engineers and leaders are of average capability or worse. I'm open to data to the contrary, however.
> You can cut this cake a different way, too... race. White people are overrepresented (or non-whites are underrepresented) in IT, and in high-status jobs.
Not sure what your point is here. Are you implying that because there are racial disparities as well, then both gender and racial disparities must have a common cause? That's obviously fallacious, but I don't know what else to make of this.
> Right now, women are significantly underrepresented as CEOs and senators. But a century ago, there were no women CEOs or senators. Are women less genetically inclined to their "proper" path as homemakers now than they were a century ago?
No. I made no claims about the cause of disparities a century ago.
> At a certain point, I start cutting the cake with Occam's Razor.
Good. Then let's hold off on the elaborate conspiracy theories until we can invalidate the simpler explanations, eh?
As for my point, it's that systematic bias against people by race looks remarkably similar to systematic bias against people by gender. That suggests a common cause, especially when one group (white men) is the beneficiary of both. Hence Occam's Razor. A single dominant group shutting out everyone who doesn't match the dominant traits is a simpler explanation than coming up with two entirely separate causes for the same observation.
As for historical disparaties... I know you didn't make claims about disparities a century ago. The historic example was an argument against the case you made that somehow, women are genetically predisposed to avoid certain career paths.
On its face, your explanation is simpler, but there is a whole bunch of evidence that forces the theory of sexism/racism to become more complex. Here are a few that pop into my head (in no particular order):
* Asians are kicking too much ass; a more complex theory is needed to explain why whites aren't holding Asians back when they're apparently happy to hold back blacks (and Hispanics, to a lesser degree).
* Women approached parity in medicine and law in the '80s and '90s when overt misogyny was the norm--long before million dollar diversity budgets; do we really believe that tech is more misogynistic than medicine and law in the '80s?
* Overt discrimination is on the decline, so we resort to increasingly improbable theories of microagressions and unconscious bias, however...
* Even progressive universities, industries, and companies aren't moving the needle on tech diversity despite million dollar diversity budgets and bias response teams
* Even the critical theorists can't pin it on sexism/patriarchy without calling into question math, reason, and objectivity
Also, what similarities are there between racial and gender disparities that constitute damning evidence in a common cause? What do these disparities have in common that (for example) the workplace fatality gap or the longevity gap lack? This seems much too loose to support your claim that sexism/racism is a simpler explanation than the dual explanations of "different gender preferences" and "artifacts of history including historical racism".
Again, my point isn't that the cause can't be a conspiracy theory; only that it has to be a very, very elaborate one. And it seems more probable to me that some combination of cultural and biological reasons drive women to make different career choices. I don't imagine you'll agree, but hopefully you can at least appreciate why I'm skeptical about the sexism/patriarchy explanation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2015/03/16/th...
Well- how do you explain the fact that "they're just not interested"? Why is cultural bias not an explanation of this lack of interest? And if it isn't, then what is?
You can't just stop the ball rolling wherever you like. At some point we have to figure out why girls are not into technology as much as boys are and it's very lazy to just dismiss it as "not a girl thing".
I presented the OP with a objective, data-based argument and limited myself to quoting only the article (of which there are many, many, many more I could have chosen from) exactly to avoid a subjective response like yours. I am not interested in ideological discussions about purely subjective arguments (Read: flamewars). You can ignore the data all you like, but please don't try to drag me into an argument with that.
[0]: https://flowingdata.com/2017/09/11/most-female-and-male-occu...
By analogy, it's like answering the question "why do cows eat grass?" with "because cows are herbivores", which is really just restating the question. An actual explanation would require understanding how cows have evolved to become herbivores in the first place, and not meat-eaters, like, say, wolves. Without such an explanation, there is no way to understand why cows are herbivores and wolves are not.
By analogy, without any understanding of why women are not interested in technology jobs, there is no way to understand the gender disparity in technology.
>> You can ignore the data all you like, but please don't try to drag me into an argument with that.
This is very unpleasant. First you assume I'm "ignoring the data" when I actually discussed what the data means. Then you assign a motive to me, that I'm "trying to drag you into an argument". Please don't do that.
The same goes for the sentence "how do you explain the fact". For example, if I asked the question "how do you invert a binary tree", I wouldn't be asking how a specific interlocutor would do it personally, rather, I'd want to know how it is generally done.
A more accurate way of stating the question would be "how does one invert..." etc. But that is a bit of an archaic turn of phrase that tends to make one look a bit of a twit, so one tends to avoid it. I do.
Not when you look at it subjectively and only focus on the specific subset that supports your argument. I believe that's called 'selection bias'.
> without any understanding of why women are not interested in technology jobs, there is no way to understand the gender disparity in technology.
The scientific understanding is there. It's just not the answer you want it to be and hence you ignore it.
> This is very unpleasant. First you assume I'm "ignoring the data" when I actually discussed what the data means. Then you assign a motive to me, that I'm "trying to drag you into an argument". Please don't do that.
>> that is a very intellectually dishonest passage.
>> You can't just stop the ball rolling wherever you like.
Of course it's okay if you do it. To a quoted article, no less, not even my own words. But when I point out what you did then I'm the bad person. This is why I had no desire to get dragged into this kind of discussion.
For the sake of the argument, I presume you are a woman (personally I don't care if you are male, female, a tree, or whatever else). You think that, just because you are interested in tech, every other woman must also be. That is false. The fact alone that you are a woman in tech means you are part of a minority. It doesn't matter how vocal that minority is, it still is just a minority that does not represent the interests of the majority. Just because you chose a career in tech, while most other females did not, does not inherently mean that there is a problem and that that problem needs fixing. Vegans aren't "sick" just because they chose to eat no meat. Salafists aren't bad people just because of their choice of religion. Cat owners don't hate birds just because they have cats. Most women just have no interest in a technical career. Be that (software) engineers, mechanics or truck drivers. It is a choice they made based on their interests (you can prove that yourself by just asking random women on the street) and it is on you to accept that you are part of a minority and that isn't going to change.
I myself am part of a minority too, being autistic. Unlike you, I have to deal with it no matter what I do and where I go. Would it be nice not to have to live in a world tailored to neuro-typicals and not having to face (extreme) prejudice everywhere I go? Hell yeah. But that is wishful thinking and not reality. Just like gender equality in tech is wishful thinking, but not more. The sooner you accept reality instead of chasing a dream based on wishful thinking, the sooner you can start making a difference for the women that made the same choice you did.
Now have a nice day. I have nothing further to add and won't answer you again.
You keep assigning motives and thoughts to me, even though I made it clear that I find it unpleasant and asked you to stop it. I clarified that my original comment was not addressing criticism to you personally and that the use of word "you" did not mean you personally, either. I don't see what I did to justify your confrontational tone, other than disagree with your interpretation of some data.
As to the rest of your comment:
>> Most women just have no interest in a technical career. Be that (software) engineers, mechanics or truck drivers. It is a choice they made based on their interests (you can prove that yourself by just asking random women on the street) and it is on you to accept that you are part of a minority and that isn't going to change.
I'm not as uncommon as you think. I'm originally from Greece, where it is quite common for women to follow careers in technology and the sciences. It is not common in the UK where I live, but that suggests some sort of cultural bias. Additionally, I've worked with several female developers from India over the years and they also don't think it's uncommon, or that it's a job that's not suited for women- quite the contrary; they see it as "office work" which is definitely better for women than manual work.
But let's stick to women in the US and the UK, which I'm guessing you're more familiar with. The point remains that observing that "women are not interested in technology" does not explain why they are not interested in technology. Which means it doesn't explain why women are not pursuing careers in technology, either.
This has nothing to do with subjective or objective analysis. Data alone does not explain anything. It does not have exegetic power, one would say. So the observation that "women are not interested in technology" does not explain anything not because I don't want it to, but because it can't.
Theories do have exegetic power. But observations alone do not constitute a theory.
-Pay Gap: https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gen...
-Employment Gap: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinawallace/2016/10/20/gir...
-Leadership Gap: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-02/why-so-fe...
-Visibility Gap: https://hbr.org/2016/09/to-succeed-in-tech-women-need-more-v...
-Sexism/Hostile Workplaces: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-...
-Hiring Discrimination: https://www.aauw.org/2015/06/11/john-or-jennifer/
-General Discrimination: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/the-tech-indus...
And just in case you missed it the last time: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents
I’m sure if it is “measurable” you can provide some numbers?
However, I do wonder about comments like this:
> "a community where the core culture was set by women, and the software and product decisions were also made by women"
Progressives are currently combatting this same kind of toxic / exclusionary behavior in men that exacerbates the inequality between men and women to this day.
In some states, AFAIK the "women-only gym" is allowed, but in others it isn't. The point, if I remember correctly, is "exercise requires such compromising clothes and positions, that the right to personal privacy trumps the right to not be discriminated based on gender". And even then, this is not a 100% clear case. Toilets and physical activity follow a similar (although less polemic) pattern.
Having said that, and as far as I understand, you need to show that discriminating based on gender is so important for your activity that it can't be done in any other way. My gut feeling is that, should anyone sue Leap, clearing that barrier would not be trivial.
I would appreciate a lawyer's point of view, and was hoping that Leap had already talked to one that could give a properly researched answer.
Edit: I found a very interesting article[1] about the law when it comes to all-female health clubs. As expected, the conclusion seems to be "it's complicated".
[1] http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
Any man taking such an action in 2018 would likely lose their career over it.
> Gender is a protected class
Which means that businesses doing public accommodation are restricted from discriminating, but 'private clubs' (such as the Boy Scouts), who have a narrowly tailored interest that is benefitted by discrimination against a protected class is generally allowed (subject to variances within state law).
For example, a group for men who have been sexually molested by men would likely be considered presumptively lawful, but a group for men who also happen to be car salesmen would likely not be.
There are a number of details that need to be considered as well, as (loosely) prescribed by _Rotary Club of Duarte[1]_, such as exclusivity (it can't be publicly available to be overheard), and purpose (already covered), but if neither conditions are met, and a state law prohibits such discrimination, then it meets (at least) a rational basis standard.
I think you could argue that Leap is somewhat similar to that. It's a support network for a group of people who face a particular challenge and need a safe place to talk.
It also may give a clue to other women as to how exactly may the Leap community be beneficial for them, or what’s the culture like, before they decide if they need to join.
I've definitely noticed a dynamic at play in male-dominated soft eng spaces online that silences women. It has to do with men's behaviour and shitty comments in those spaces. Not all men, of course, but enough men - and almost exclusively men. It's why I'm no longer on r/programming. I'm tired of having to put up with that and I'm glad you created this space.
I look forward to checking it out.
Is Leap for people who are i) female, ii) identify as a woman, or iii) both?
I ask because I have a few friends who are biologically female, but genderqueer (by which they mean that they don't prescribe to the cultural stuff that is usually attached to gender). Would this be suitable for them?
As a more general note, since this looks to be a community that's about inclusion and addressing discrimination, it might be worth taking care not to conflate "female" and "woman".
Look, if want to create a female only website then go for it. But you have to own your actions. You can't exclude half the population then claim you care about inclusion. That is rank hypocrisy bordering on the delusional - you are doing the exact opposite of what you claim.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
Obviously Cadran was talking about making Leap inclusive within the scope of being a forum for women—that's what the question was about. You don't have to agree with any particular view to see that, it just takes basic respect. If you can't or won't abide by the rules here, please stop commenting until you can.
That's not to say that there's necessarily anything wrong with exclusion -- it is a fact of life in many ways, and can be fruitful. I am a member of some exclusive clubs and I find them to be highly rewarding.
Perhaps "hypocrisy" and "delusion" are inflammatory words, and should not have been chosen. I think a better way to characterize cbcowans' comment is "doublespeak," as the inherent nature of Leap is quite the opposite of her description.
Still, in regard to that particular HN site guideline, sievebrain's point applies to even the strongest possible interpretation of cbcowans' comment. There is necessarily a logical inconsistency between establishing an exclusive organization and then describing it as "an inclusive community."
In this case the context is the question. Q: are all who identify as women welcome to join? A: yes, we want to be inclusive of all who identify as women. It's clear what "inclusive" means there, the same way it's clear that "join" doesn't mean sticking things together with carpenter's glue.
It does take a little work to remember that the same word can have two different scopes in the same discussion. Similarly, one might not use the same variable name to mean two different things in the same function. Nevertheless the meaning was reasonably clear and certainly plausible.
The problem is that when a word carries an emotional charge and the topic carries an emotional charge, outer-cortex nuances get flooded by deeper defensive reactions. This happens to all of us. It's one reason why discussions like this need moderation and the moderators need a lot of practice—and a lot of support—in order not to get flooded themselves. I'm dangling by the same thread much of the time, so I have empathy for it, but it's not ok for commenters to let themselves become disrespectful.
No space is being taken away. A new space is being created. This space is to give a voice to a population who reports, as a group, being silenced and undermined in other spaces by the dominant group.
This allows voices to be heard that weren't heard before. That's inclusion. Having those voices stay silent is exclusion.
But what we don't always realize is that the internet isn't terribly inclusive in the first place. There's a prevailing atmosphere in well-populated tech spaces - Reddit, HN - that tends to shut down women's voices, especially if they're talking about an experience that men on the internet can't relate to.
I'm all for this project, hope it works out.
You may have noble intentions, but refusing nearly half the population simply on the basis of their anatomy is not inclusive.
Does the fact you apparently require participation in Facebook to register signal that you agree with Facebook's policy of outing trans and gender-non-conforming individuals in the enforcement of its "real name" policy?
(Not to imply that's anywhere near the only problem with Facebook's "real name" policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_real-name_policy_cont... )
1) If someone put you on the spot and asked you to pigeonhole Leap, would you say it's intended to be a Hacker News for women?
2) Has there been any discussion of a observer/lurker status for men?
3) Do participants primarily shift their time spent on other (open?) tech/social forums towards Leap, or do they increase their total amount of time spent on forums to make space for it?
2. We haven't discussed a view only public mode in any depth. The idea of eventually allowing men to join has come up on Leap. No idea if that will happen though.
3. I don't survey users about that so I can't say with any accuracy. I also expect it depends on the person.
lobste.rs has a invite system where a person who invites someone may potentially be kicked if the person they invite is a problem. See https://lobste.rs/about#invitations
Organize a booth or representative at women-focused tech events like FFC or GHC, or have events/meetups for Leap members to meet face-to-face where prospective members are also invited. The invite system would make this easier to implement.
Are transgender females allowed?
If you identify as female, you should obviously be allowed.
Of course like everything else, there are trade offs, especially when this community is female only... While as a male I was aware of the existence of gender discrimination and harassment, I did not realize how ignorant I was of the subject and how terrible the situation was, until I read Susan Fowler's account at Uber. It was a paradigm change for me. How will Leap mitigate from potentially becoming a closed echo chamber? i.e. will this limit needed but hard discussions between the sexes? How does Leap prevent that?
Do you have anything you're doing that you find particularly interesting, beyond the self-selection?
But it looks like your topic discovery is "feed" style, although that could (I can't tell) lead into branching discussions (Reddit/HN) or sequential (FB/forums)
This sort of gender-specific walled garden is nothing new and I suppose will always attract a certain stereotype. Here's an old Anthony Lewis post from 1994 that may sober folks on the idea: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/14/opinion/abroad-at-home-tim...
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would have me as a member" --Groucho Marx
Call an obnoxious speaker a jerk: what a useful formula, what an intelligent way to get the resentment off your chest without starting down the legal road to suppression of speech. It would have worked well, for example, in the notorious case of Prof. J. Donald Silva of the University of New Hampshire.
I find this section to be a disturbing summation of the author's attitude on the subject. And, the Groucho Marx quote has no bearing on any of this; it's self-deprecation.
Walled gardens are for suckers.
Is there a difference between a community for Women vs a community for anybody who wants a civil community?
From the discussion, I gather that women like 'women only' communities primarily because there are no "ill behaved", threatening men that turn away women.
Is there a place for a community for civilized human beings where everyone is included regardless of their gender identity?
I think gender specific communities creates a mono culture and punishes men who are civilized and know how to behave around other gender(s).
The real issue to address is to keep out the unruly crowd - regardless of gender.
I've been part of some online tech communities for women, but I found they were too US-centric and it was difficult for me to obtain value from it, hoping Leap will be different
EDIT: If you're not "out" as trans I don't see why you'd use this service that would ask you for your real name and identity. If you are "out" as trans then you're just another woman, I would think, and would do just fine.
> If you identify as a woman and are interested in joining Leap, please sign up for our beta here [https://leap.ycombinator.com/]
I am interested in finding a mentor and a supportive community. Is there a forum like this for general public.
Facebook groups, linked-in groups and subreddits for any discipline already exist and are waiting for you to join them.
This segregation stuff does not make sense to me, it almost feels like prison rules - keep genders/races away from each other because if they interact it will probably be violent.
I wondered what would happen if I created a community where the core culture was set by women, and the software and product decisions were also made by women
-> This also seems strange to me and counterproductive. If we build a society where any interaction happens without confrontations against the people that may be causing the issues, in this case "men", then how are we to make progress? Do men and women think differently about the merits of different software technologies or not?
Even when members have opposing views, they’ve given each other the benefit of the doubt and continue to talk productively.
-> Are you implying that men are incapable of this? Or that an environment where men and women interact is incapable of achieving this? Seems regressive...
Women and men are different -> This justifies different outcomes in certain areas such as tech but promotes diversity due to the fact that they think different and could provide a much needed alternative viewpoint in a homogeneous environment. (this is mostly my perspective)
Women and men are the same -> Then there is a problem with the outcomes being different but the diversity argument goes away because men and women view and interact the same. If this is true we have to forcefully equalize all professions to 50-50. This also doesn't make sense in the context of leap - if men and women are the same why do we need environments that are for one gender or the other?
As far as bootstrapping less masculine communities I'm all for that but the execution of it might turn a bit bizarre when you start letting men in.
This is tangential to your point, but I'm pretty sure what you're referring to isn't being "triggered." It's, I don't know, disagreeing? It has a specific and important definition, and it seems to be getting thrown around in other scenarios, to the detriment of those with PTSD.
[1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/triggered
[2] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Triggered
>to initiate or precipitate (a chain of events, scientific reaction, psychological process, etc.)
"Psychological process," in this case, is what I was talking about, and what I think the original commenter was referring to. "Trigger warnings" aren't warning you that you might feel "anything that will cause a reaction," they're to help people suffering with PTSD avoid having a panic attack.
I agree that the colloquial definition is trending the way you describe, and I think it's irresponsible to just sit and watch it happen without speaking up in favor of the more specific psychological definition.
If some women feel that way anyway, are you suggesting that making more people feel that way helps or makes it not sexist?
Tech pushes many people out, male and female. Even if the men in tech are the same, what about the men who would like to be in tech but were pushed out? Or are all men the same?
I'd wager most men "pushed out" of tech weren't fleeing sexism and gender-based isolation. This whole thing seems like looking at a team of 10 -- nine men and one woman -- and, when the woman says, "Gee, it'd be nice to have another woman to talk to," responding by saying "Well how about you just talk to us nine guys instead? Wouldn't that be just as good?"
Should we also end racial violence by increasing racial violence?
Problem: Women feel they don't have anyone to talk to about their experiences as a woman in tech.
Solution: Increase their access to people they can talk to about their experiences as a woman in tech. Like, say, an online community.
But lookup discriminate and it has a few meanings. One of which refers to prejudicial or unfair treatment. That is the definition implied when referring sexist discrimination.
Every major dictionary specifically uses terms like "prejudice", "discrimination against", "stereotype". There is obviously a consensus that it is referring to negative/unequal treatment.
If you are interested in assessing this through some idealized, absolutist lens, it is totally sexist and discriminatory against men. If you are interested in pragmatic solutions that help genuinely reduce the sexist drama in the world, this model has a track record of success.
So you need to pick one. Do you want to double down on abstract ideals? Or are you interested in what works?
Women who are interested in the latter can potentially find benefit in seeking out a sisterhood and turning a deaf ear to the accusations of "reverse sexism" that inevitably get leveled, typically by people who have no constructive alternative to offer and who aren't actually interested in being supportive and inclusive of women.
Specifically, 90%+ of all comments are of the "you're wrong, because..." variety. Note that there's nothing wrong with such comments: they make up a large part of any group's pub conversations as well, for example.
Yet there are other sentiments that are possibly underrepresented on HN: self-doubt, questions, or comments expanding on others' ideas come to mind.
None of these can obviously be categorised as singularity "male" or "female". And there isn't much shouting going on, even metaphorically. Yet it may, from time to time, be a good idea to step back and examine common assumptions,
I puzzled for years over why people would say things like "90%+ of all comments" that are so obviously (to me) untrue. But now I think I know why: those kinds of comments stand out more. It is as if they burn a deeper impression into the brain of the reader, usually a more painful one, so one comes to feel like they're "90%+" even when they are not. This perceptual loop is hard to break out of, so I've begun to see it as part of the moderator's job to inject new information when people post like this, in the hope of opening the loop back up. It's important for the community to see the good in itself and not just the bad. Otherwise why bother to take care of it?
HN has problems with disrespect, incivility, aggression, but one must evaluate this from multiple sides. Every large, public, anonymous place on the internet has this problem, usually worse than HN does. The problem is systemic, but that doesn't make it hopeless, it just makes improvement slow.
Every HN reader I've met has a love-hate relationship with the site. There's something deep in that, and a lot to say about it, but here's one that gets back to the topic of this thread. In my opinion, the aggressive dynamics of open internet argumentation relate to the gender dynamics of what tends to make women feel more or less welcome in a place. An atmosphere of hostility—or anything above a certain toxic baseline—causes many people to want nothing to do with a place or to feel deep ambivalence about it. I have that reaction myself, and my sense is that women tend to have it more than men do. This is what came to my mind when Cadran wrote that she started Leap because she doesn't feel welcome in "shouting matches".
On a more serious note, I wonder whether it has something to do with the fact that on HN it is frowned upon to express agreement in comment form (that's what upvotes are for), however when disagreeing/expressing disapproval, it is accepted practice to explain why one disagrees (and rightly so in my opinion).
This could give the casual reader the impression that most of the interaction on HN is adversarial, simply because comments are more prominent than upvotes.
Interested to hear your thoughts on this dang.
Empty comments can be ok if they're positive. There's nothing wrong with submitting a comment saying just "Thanks." What we especially discourage are comments that are empty and negative—comments that are mere name-calling.
I joined HN fairly late (just a few years ago) and my subjective experience of the rules (as they are lived) is that a 'thanks' comment is almost invariably countered with a snarky 'that is what the upvote button is for' response.
For what it's worth, the vast majority of my experiences here on HN have been positive, and I greatly appreciate how often someone with significant domain knowledge turns up and replies to me in a way that seriously challenges beliefs which I had previously taken to be fact.
I will also happily admit to be part of that dynamic, and I don't think it should reflect negatively on any comment, or commenter, or even any single online community.
It just seems valid to believe that there are other modes of communication, and that it could be worthwhile to explore if there are mechanisms to bring those to the front more often.
It happens that the two styles are often categorized as female (agreeableness and pleasing others) and male (bluntly challenging). And indeed, in American society, men and women are in the broadest of terms socialized in those ways.
Personally, I wouldn't trade this norm for the world. I'm much too familiar with the Dale Carnegie crap of wrapping every point in senseless complements and false uncertainty to want to waste more energy on it than required. My own or anyone else's. I recognize that this preference leaves some people feeling uncomfortable. But that's my preference, and I am keenly aware that others may prefer differently approaches.
(EDIT: But read dang's comments instead. They're better than this.)
On HN the goal is to gratify intellectual curiosity, so we're looking for a sweet spot of, let's call it, playful substantiveness. Under the constraints of internet discussion, it's difficult to get there. Environments become boring when they're predictable, for example predictably negative or predictably positive. At the same time it's obvious that intellectual curiosity will fare best in a culture that is welcoming to all, since if we exclude some—whether actively or passively—we deprive ourselves of the intellectual curiosity they would otherwise bring.
I do think HN's culture falls short in this way. We can't fix that by imposing any formulas, e.g. a positivity rule, because that would make the site more predictable and thus more boring again. The fixes need to be more subtle.
Which is not to say that many women wouldn't enjoy that kind of high-octane environment! Hey, different strokes etc. All I know is that for me personally — someone who goes online to have fun, not to be right — it's a lot more pleasant to hang out in mixed-gender communities than in male-dominated ones.
(Then again, here I am on HN, slingin' ideas again, sooo...)
(Also, I have to apologize for responding to a question directed towards women in the most stereotypical "as a dude" kind of way. To be honest, I should have probably held off...)
Conflict is ultimately what drives all innovation.
(note: I don't mean physical conflict.)
>“I’ve found that some conversations online escalate to shouting matches quickly”
How many people can find a group of people IN GENERAL (online/offline/anywhere) that doesn't rapidly devolve into power/politics/passive & active aggressive behavior? Go spend some time on a forum like metafilter where you have to pay $5 to comment and the moderators aggressively prune any opinion that doesn't tow a nominal progressive line. Even with all of that you end up with some of the most breathtakingly toxic behavior I've seen on any forum.
In my opinion Leap is a wonderful innovation. It will help lots of people realize being an asshole does not know gender.
As there are things you won’t probably speak out at work, so there’re things and emotional responses you keep to yourself in a professional community. Is it good? Is it bad? Haven’t figured it out yet.
I got really sick from reading the neverending, overblown feminist headlines in YC Female Founders group on FB. Leap has been growing into something else, luckily, which I suppose is provided by the fact that it was built and nurtured by female engineers (thus partially sharing a certain mindset and culture).
Also, with a decent amount of supportive culture present, I still woudn’t call Leap an emotional support group. The responses so far have been consistently useful and constructive.
I've posted on lots of non-anonymous internet forums/communities since the mid 90s, when I first started reading and posting on usenet while still in grade school. Something Awful in particular stands out, because moderation there (bans and suspensions) were primarily handled by women in the mid-2000s (Ozma, Icequeen, Fistgrrl), and they were just as abusive and toxic as the male admins and mods that came before them, if not more so.
I think internet communities in general just attract certain kinds of people who seek out drama and conflict, and you'll never be able to avoid them completely despite exclusive membership. Even if you turn the majority of them away at the gate, or ban most of the ones that manage to slip by, some will be able to blend in and inevitably end up rising to positions of power, because seeking out and then abusing that power is simply their nature.
Even more so for exclusive communities, which, in my opinion, always end up with its members developing a feeling of superiority to those who are not a part of the group. The community itself will splinter into its own subgroups as well.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the current quality of discourse on Leap (and its utility as an app/service) is primarily due to the fact that men are not allowed to read or post. I would theorize that Leap's current success as a platform primarily comes from the fact that most (all?) of it's current users are closely networked to each other, since it's grown through direct invites and word-of-mouth between people who have direct relationships with each other. They are mentally and emotionally healthy working professionals who have vetted each other through their relationships, whether professional or otherwise. I have no doubt that the quality of content and contributions would not be negatively impacted if the same level of selectiveness and scrutiny was applied to vetting male members.
Now that invites are being opened, people who aren't part of this pre-existing network will be allowed in, and potentially outnumber the current/original community members. There will be conflict, not just for things like moderation power and the ability to control and influence discussions, but also because some people just like conflict for its own sake.
Based on what I've seen in private Facebook groups and on Twitter, I don't think that tying a personal identity to a forums account is adequate once you have lots of people who don't actually know each other.
The most successful community I've been a part of has extremely lax moderation on its main forums, an anonymous forum that is completely unmoderated (with the exceptions of guessing the identities of others and posting illegal stuff) where users can go blow off steam so they don't shit up the main boards, and then a "Serious" forum where trolling and shitposting are absolutely not allowed, and moderation is very strict.
If I were going to make an internet community, I would follow a similar approach, because when you need to enforce strict moderation at all times, you will eventually reach a point where you need to delegate that responsibility to people who enjoy moderating a community for the sake of power (if you don't want to pay them).
If you enjoy moderation to the point of pleasure and don't think that you'll ever get sick of it, then you can actively shape policy and staff throughout the community's lifecycle, but if not, you'll ultimately just want to throw your hands up in the air and walk away in disgust, and that's the point where you potentially lose control over your community and its direction.
(in the past this would be sarcasm but these days who knows)