Hacker News Reader

Oh jesus. Before anyone considers responding to Gavan, take a look at his comment history. He has a habit of posting completely unsubstantiated opinions, presented in the most odious manner he can manage. He relates to his confabulations as if they were fact and expects you to do the same.

Edit: I am only talking about your history on social issue threads. You appear to be quite talented otherwise, apparently you wrote Genesis 3D which was pretty awesome. Still, you present yourself on social questions in a way that is pretty much indistinguishable from trolling.

Seconded.

A number of these sorts of comments pop up every time something about sexism or racism in tech hits the front page, and all they do is prove the original article's point.

Classic ad hominem...

Actually, a classic ad hominem would be "you shouldn't listen to gavanwoolery because he is a terrible human being." "You shouldn't listen to gavanwoolery because he is not engaging in good faith. His commenting history demonstrates a pattern of unsubstantiated opinions posted with the apparent intention of provoking a reaction and add no value" isn't ad hominem at all. It is a substantiated opinion based solely on the work presented and makes no judgements of his character.

What tiresome bullshit. Just because you wrap it into elaborate sentences doesn't change the fact that you (or who ever started this) called for a dismissal of his arguments not because of the contents of the arguments, but because of his alleged bad personality.

Troll Level: Master ;) Yes, I am definitely political-correctness-challenged (to put it in politically correct terms). I intend no harm, but I do like to challenge social norms. I used to think identically to those who think the opposite of me, so I understand where everyone else is coming from.

Challenging social norms just for the sake of challenging them is not something to be lauded.

You would be taken more seriously if you provided a well-reasoned response based on facts rather than throwing out opinions like "for every woman that really experiences sexism, there are two that exaggerate their circumstances".

You are setting up a simplistic straw man and arguing that because you believe you have "seen some very average women programmers get hired into high positions just to fill diversity quotas" (how do you KNOW this, btw?) that reverse-sexism is rampant. You do not acknowledge that your understanding of their promotions could be limited, that they might have other skills besides simply programming, or what the position actually required.

Because of these things it's very hard to take you seriously, and if you have a habit of doing these things, I understand why someone would dismiss you as a troll.

It would be more interesting if you argued in a reasoned matter acknowledging the variety of experiences in the real world, instead of drawing generalizations from a few things you have seen.

I can only argue from what I have seen, heard of, etc; The glass I look through might not represent the world. Needless to say, I have acknowledged that sexism does exist, it is only my perception that many people tend to complain about trivial cases, whereas serious cases are usually handled with silence (could be wrong here as well). I personally know recruiters at Microsoft, AOL, and Google, so they have provided me with some of my insight (note that each of these companies has very different hiring policies though), other things I get from news stories, comments (like or unlike my own!), so like any propaganda take it with a grain of salt. From the instances I have seen, women are not only treated fairly (doing otherwise would be grounds for a lawsuit), but they are given special attention (I have seen more women greeted into tech with open arms than otherwise...males tend to want females in their male-dominated workplaces). Again, just pointing out what I observe, not claiming to be the Oracle of Truth. And actually, challenging social norms is a good thing. We tend to think like sheep, which is a good reason we only have two significant political parties in the US. It took somebody challenging my views for them to change (I hope for the better).

In common usage, "sexism" doesn't mean what you say it means. You're technically correct, sure. But "sexism" is commonly used as a label for any socially unacceptable behavior related to gender.

Also, a word of advice: claiming something like "a third (EDIT: actually two thirds) of sexism complaints are exaggerations" should always be backed up by some sort of data if you don't want to look unreasonable.

True - when I say for every x there are two y's, I mean it more in colloquial terms (understandably that is not necessarily clear here), not hard statistics: that is, it is only my perception that there is more complaining about sexism than actual sexism occurring. It seems that the most vocal sexism victims actually experience the least amount of "real" sexism (like the girl who complained about being hit on at DEF CON). Again, these are just my perceptions/opinions, and I could easily be wrong. However, one thing I am certain of is that we focus too much of our effort on trivial cases of sexism, when we should be battling more important cases like countries that do not allow women equal rights.

"we focus too much of our effort on trivial cases of sexism, when we should be battling more important cases like countries that do not allow women equal rights."

This is ridiculous. I can't affect Saudi Arabia's cultural norms. I can affect the tech industry's cultural norms, and it's my responsibility to do so when those norms are harmful.

This DEFCON incident? http://singlevoice.net/2012/07/12/sexism-redyellow-cards-at-...

It was more about sexual assault, and it was more about behavior at parties than at DEFCON. I know the line blurs, but once alcohol is served, it is hard to say the event is a professional and reputable one.

"a third of sexism complaints are exaggerations"

Was not how he phrased it. It said there were multiple people experiencing similar activity. So that could be read as not everyone considers XYZ to be sexism. While anecdotal, the comment that this "should always be backed up by some sort of data if you don't want to look unreasonable" doesn't make any sense. The data quality, by definition, are what is being questioned. You don't solve such a problem by quoting similar data, and you most likely won't find "proper" data given the nature of the observation.

Your analysis of his comment is overly charitable. He did not question anything. He stated his opinions without backing them up with facts.

I'm sure there are plenty of studies about the rates at which gender-related behaviors are considered inappropriate. Sexism isn't a new issue. Universities have entire departments dedicated to this sort of thing.

There is always one of these replies in every discussion on this topic, isn't there? Some guy comes in and tries to define 'sexism' for the rest of us with a greatly simplified version and then gives us an anecdote about how some nice guy (he kindly asked her out) gets accused of harassment by a women, and uses this to segue into 'reverse-discrimination' as though that could ever be an actual thing (let alone suggest that it is more prevalent than the discussed sexism) when the oppression only occurs in one direction.

Oh hey, my sexism bingo card is full and I didn't even need the free space.

Which companies have these diversity quotas? I want to avoid them, as their work environments (and perhaps products as well) are rather unpleasant.

ThoughtWorks is the only place I've seen go on record as having one. It doesn't seem to have hurt them, though: http://www.cio.com.au/article/437603/creating_more_gender_ba...