Re: Women in Tech, Don’t Apologize, Just Recognize | Hacker News Reader

Re: Women in Tech, Don’t Apologize, Just Recognize

michellesblog.net

32 pointstswicegood24 comments

I think the HN title of this post is misleading to the actual article content. The HN title here implies that the women in tech are apologizing, when she is actually saying to men "Please stop apologizing for other offensive males in tech, just recognize the situation in general, recognize your female co-workers, and strive for improvements".

The title is confusing, indeed. She's trying to say, 'Men: Don't apologize for the situation'.

And I totally disagree. As a man, I know what happens when we don't: We get lambasted for not caring.

We do care. We care enough to apologize and defend.

While I haven't worked with a female programmer, the ones I met socially were very competent. The female QA Testers I've worked with have been amazing. Even the female phone tech support reps I've worked with have been great. (For the record, most of the males filling those positions were better than average. I'm not disparaging them.)

The negative stereotype of women and science/tech/etc is undeserved and wrong.

But ignoring the situation is not the answer. Not-apologizing is a form of ignoring it. It doesn't help the situation at all.

Apologizing, however, shows support and that the vocal minority are just that: A minority.

You can other things to show that you give a damn besides apologizing, which is kind of her point.

Would a woman apologize to another woman about the behavior of a crude man? No, because she hasn't done anything wrong. Apologizing explicitly externalizes women as being outside your group. You're saying "gee, I'm sorry one of us did that to one of you." That just reinforces the idea that "Women in Tech" are a separate entity from "People in Tech". She's asking you to stay at the "People in Tech" level.

Not-apologizing isn't a form if ignoring. There are many other things you can do than pretend to be part of the offending group so that you can apologize. If a caucasian American said to an African-American, "Gee, I'm sorry about slavery, that was really wrong of us", that would be horribly offensive, wouldn't it?

Are we all in this together or not?

You hit the nail on the head, bellaire. The best thing you can do is support competent people and call out people who bring others down. It doesn't matter if someone is a woman, African American, or has a crazy lisp or something. If someone brings value into the workplace, which according to research, women do, we should protect them for the sake of us all. I don't want apologies. I want you to have my back, because I'll always have yours if you are good people.

She may not have what you just expressed in mind, but she is also trying to cultivate a culture where men would not be criticized for not apologizing for another man's sexist remarks after the fact.

No, NEVER apologise for something another man did. It's not your responsibility. Just ignore/mock them, help their victims if necessary and keep on being a nice guy.

Apologising even makes things a little worse (implies you have more in common with that particular man than your [female] audience).

"Ask Michael Arrington what Heather Harde has brought to TechCrunch, or Larry Page what Marissa Mayer means to Google. Ask Mark Zuckerberg what Sheryl Sandberg brings to Facebook."

Maybe it's not that they're women. Maybe it's alliterative names that makes the difference.

Does it really count as alliteration with only two words?

Yes

I find it ironic that the gist of her argument is a little sexist itself: Don't call us victims, call us your valuable assistants!

I find it ironic that the tone gets so bellicose at times, and also kind of wonder what the purpose of the implied threat at the end was in an article that started out so reasonably.

In all fairness, even if someone is your boss, they are a piece of meat. Cause we're made of meat. Unless there's something you want to be telling us..

>Almost a year ago, a flurry of TechCrunch commenters repeatedly called me the “C word”, insisted that my brain somehow was incapable of quantitative tasks, and one even told me if I didn’t like my female body, I could euthanize myself legally in the state of Oregon. Awesome.

There's one big problem right there, taking a bunch of online comments seriously. Anonymity seems to be bring out the worst in people(both men and women), there's no point whatsoever mulling over it.

Anonymity seems to be bring out the worst in people

It can be argued that anonymity presents people in their most honest, unfiltered form.

So, the same anonymous commenters calling her the c-word may "intellectually" argue that women are merely incapable of succeeding in tech when in polite company.

I think it actually makes some people go overboard. Instead of being themselves, they start doing things to achieve certain goals, like being noticed or getting laughs. I don't doubt that there's some truth to their actions, but it goes beyond that.

Sometimes.

If the online presences of anonymous people are the truest representations of humans as individuals, I think we my have bigger problems than misogyny.

An anonymous poster's behavior is indicative of what that person is really like. With nothing to fear, there is nothing to inhibit you. Absolute power has a similar effect, with demonstrable results throughout history. Very few people have the moral character and discipline to comport themselves in a civilized manner without an external counterbalance to their impulses.

I find myself hearkening back to the old musing, "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear, does it make a sound?"

Humans are social creatures. Is what a person behaves like when traditional social structures are removed necessarily what they are "really like"? What makes that any more "true" than how they behave elsewhere?

You could remove a wolf from it's pack and examine it's behavior. Do you know the wolf on some deeper level now? I'd argue no- the wolf is part of the pack, and without the pack you do not know the wolf.

Humans are not social creatures like dogs. Dogs are pack animals. We are not. That is a bad analogy.

If you want to know a human to the uttermost, put him under tremendous stress and listen to the thoughts he thinks in his head. That is who he is.

I beg to differ. I think it is actually a pretty good analogy. Humans originated in tribes, no? Besides being a bit more complex socially, how is a tribe so different from a pack?

Have you ever noticed just how well dogs integrate into the human family? It's weird sometimes- I find dogs in general behave almost exactly like a particularly stupid but happy human.

Agreed. TC commenters do not reflect reality.

Good point. I've been called many, many nasty things myself.

I wanted to see what she had said that had started such a remarkable flamewar, but apparently it was flagged for review and not visible. Does anybody have a copy?

>And the next time you say something crude to a woman at a happy hour, remember that one day, someone could wise up and hire that woman in a senior management position. She won’t be a piece of meat then–she’ll be your boss.

With respect to this quote: 1. Crudeness is, at times, appreciated and welcome, depending on context and consent. 2. This is a horrible reason to treat women with respect. This is literally the same argument religious people use to demand believers to not sin (i.e. "If you sin, you might go to hell"). 3. A good reason to treat women with dignity and respect is that they're conscious animals, just like you, the reader of this comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com