Hacker News Reader

Comment by masterofnone1 | Hacker News Reader

Definitely a great article and the math part was incredibly interesting.

At the same time, I had a bit of a nagging fear by this line -

> As a semi-androgynous queer woman, I think that I kind of fit in in the mathematics community better than I would if I were a cis, straight female. I think it also means I’m less likely to get hit on, which is a horrible thing that has happened to a lot of young women in fields where there aren’t enough women.

Obviously without defining "hit on", I do not want to draw too many conclusions. But as a guy, it makes me quite scared that just asking a someone out for a coffee (which I do to people regardless of gender / sex), might get construed as "hitting on" and a horrible thing. All due respect to the people who have been subjected to sexually predatory behavior though. Would like to hear others opinion on the same.

View on HN

This is a generic tangent veering into outright offtopicness. We try to avoid generic tangents in HN threads because such discussions are more or less all the same, and replacing an interesting specific discussion with a repetitive generic one is a bad trade.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

That goes 10x when the topic is an ideological one. It's clear you weren't starting an ideological flamewar on purpose but that's what generic ideological tangents lead to.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

The best way to avoid this is to stay grounded in the specifics of the article, especially the ones which have the richest diffs from past repetitive discussion.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

Apologies. New to HN and I understand this comment did not add to the discussion. Thank you for hiding it and I will try to keep the rules in mind.

Appreciated!

I think there’s a saying, “when in doubt, don’t” or something like that, but seriously

As a guy I kind of get where you’re coming from. Sort of. I think being “scared” is a bit much (or can at least be portrayed as the “wrong” connotation to those that care). The way I’d phrase this is, “I want to respect people’s boundaries and certain situations can be trickier to navigate than others and I’d rather not mess it up.”

You can’t account for how someone else will perceive your actions/intentions. In fact, they could probably vary (ie what if someone is looking to be hit on on Tuesday but not Wednesday? What if a person thinks “everyone hits on them”).

For me, I try to treat everyone with respect. Maybe I want to talk more about something, but the other person doesn’t—I’m aware this could be the case so I always try to leave/create/make space for them (ie always provide a way out of the convo for the other person).

I also try to ask myself if “grabbing a coffee” over some conversation is necessary. Interesting people have a ton of people wanting to grab coffee, so maybe a group thing would be better. I also try to consider the persons time (male or female); of course I’d love to steal some time from them or make a professional connection, but you can’t always get what you want.

Just asking if they’d like to go for a coffee and a chat is not intrinsically “hitting on” someone. Obviously tone and context can change everything, but there is no need to be paranoid in general.

> might get construed as

> is not intrinsically

Your post does not contradict the parent.

For better or worse, any type of interaction (professional or not) is occasionally used as a side channel for romantic interests, and so risks getting misinterpreted as one. Cyber-optimist hopes that online dating platforms will pull this ever-present shadow out of everyday socialization, or at least de-mine the workplace, have proven futile; enough people want the ambiguity. The only reasonable option is to grow a thicker skin and learn saying no and laughing it off.

> might get construed as

The uncertainty comes mostly from the interpretation of the asked.

> is not intrinsically

The uncertainty comes mostly from the way in which the asker asks.

I believe the latter is more representative.

I've thought on this a lot in the past and the only thing I have hope of addressing it is making any sort of personal/professional relationship spill overs societally verbotten. When folks are at work they intend to work and making any assumption against that line is just going to lead to pain. I really like the team I work with, but I don't ever want them to mix with the group I socialize with solely due to the fact that while at work I want to work.

You want to avoid even social (not just romantical) mixing?

Sorry, but I don't think this is viable with the workers I know (including myself). It is in head-on contradiction with the "do what you love" maxim that most people in my generation are trying to follow. We aren't robots and we don't want to live two completely disjoint lives (or, rather, when we do, we have internet forums, video games and what not for that). In order to have a job where I could completely dissociate from my coworkers, I'd need to find a second skill at which I'm good enough to find employment yet don't care enough about to let it bleed into my life. People are struggling enough with building one skill...

There is probably some good middle ground to be found (how far should my job be from my interests to avoid crossing the streams too much yet allow me to keep it? how much should I let my colleagues into my life?), but no one seems to have invested much in finding it.

There are some people who lean this way and that's fine - there's nothing wrong with it - but there are other people who don't. This will tend to follow an age distinction (with older folks being less interested in having more personal/professional crossover) but I strongly disagree with it being generational.

Your team at work will change over time and new people will join and leave, as you are forced to reconcile changes of employment with the destruction of your social circle I think you'll find that it's easier to move to keeping the two separate. Having children and a strong life partner can also contribute to this - there are a lot of relationships you care deeply about outside of the workplace and you don't want your time at work to be complicated by drama from the fact that you don't value your relationships with your coworker over that of your partner.

Social events at work can be fun and build a stronger team, but viewing your coworkers as your primary social circle probably isn't a healthy long term choice since at some point that relationship will be severed (hope that you don't have to fire a bestie) and someone will be left in an emotional lurch without a shoulder to cry on. I've found it quite helpful to be able to empathize with coworkers and chat about what's going on with work bits in a more safe environment but going into work hoping to find good relationships (social or romantic) is placing a large burden on those you're working with and can end pretty terribly.

I'd also point out that strong social bonds are a reciprocal thing and that while you may be entering the workplace hoping to form those bonds your coworkers may not and the visible existence of cliques in work that exclude some employees that may simply be uninterested in such social activity can lead just as easily to drama in the workplace.

I agree, in the context of the article it means something more sinister than just coffee. But regardless, does not leave me with some fear. Thanks for your reply!

I'm not sure of your point. You're scared of being seen as a predator while women are scared of being preyed upon? So wouldn't you want to try and make spaces as safe as possible so that women wouldn't have to be afraid?

Translating "hit on" as "prey on" might be a sign that you have an unhealthy view of human relationships.

>I think it also means I’m less likely to get hit on, which is a horrible thing that has happened to a lot of young women in fields where there aren’t enough women

Do you think my framing is inaccurate given what she said? How would you describe the negative association with being hit on in the quote above?

>Translating "hit on" as "prey on" might be a sign that you have an unhealthy view of human relationships.

Seeing someone cute at a wedding and making a pass is a far cry from what's been happening in academia for decades where power dynamics are often obvious. There's a reason why very few people would have a problem being (tastefully) hit on in a social situation and why people complain about it happening in a professional situation.

I don't think asking someone for coffee is really what she means by "getting hit on"...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com