Hacker News Reader

> Why create something separate for women? Isn't that further separation?

Segregation is not considered segregation if it has good intentions. The political term is "affirmative action" [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

Well segregation is segregation, with positive or negative overtones depending on the context like how we still to this day segregate restrooms by gender norms.

Affirmative action does not necessarily mean segregation either. The NFL's "Rooney Rule" requires a minority candidate to be interviewed for head coaching vacancies but doesn't require one be selected. We'd still call that affirmative action.

Rather it means merely that instead of just stopping the negative action applied against a minority and letting history take its course, that some positive action is taken to repair the damage done to the minority group, in order to actually have a chance at real equality in the future. This could include means such as segregated advocacy groups but encompasses much more.

> Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning.

Is sexism not reason enough in itself? Is this not the very thing we're trying to fight against?

I fully acknowledge and lament that there is a severe lack of women in tech, and were it up to me men and women both would have equal opportunities in all regards, but you only debase your message and dilute your efforts when you try to level the playing field by making an environment that is more hostile towards men rather than one less hostile towards women.

The overarching goal is to be inclusive, of people of all genders, races, and the spectrum of people that fall in between. Yes, celebrate successes, find role models of all types and praise their accomplishments. Bring them forward to share their wisdom and experiences so that everyone can learn and benefit.

Edit: To clarify, I have no issues with an initiative that seeks out role models specifically within a category of minorities, such as by gender or race. My only qualm would be in limiting the audience.

To put it simply, sexism against men does not exist. You can discriminate against men, but let's be clear: sexism is systematic oppression by those in power on the basis of gender.

So...having a series of talks that is for women by women cannot possibly be sexist. You can say it discriminates by not allowing men to be speakers, if you so wish. I can't say I'd find it to interesting to listen to a man tell me what it's like to be a woman in tech, though, so you could also just say that they're just featuring people who are interesting to their audience: women.

Also -- who said anything about hostility? What I meant was, "This is about women...why are you bringing men up at all? Don't they have their own spheres which they already dominate?" I just get tired of all this "reverse sexism" nonsense.

Edit: To be clear, I agree with your last paragraph. I don't think it's limiting the audience to feature women speakers, unless you don't think that men can find women interesting. ;)

Sexism towards men does now exist, thanks to attitudes like yours. Fighting fire with fire? What a pity.

Exactly. It is rather ridiculous that people like mlent spew their own definitions for sexism and feel that women cannot be sexist. It destroys any sort of reasonable discourse by being so ignorant.

I must vehemently disagree with your argument that discrimination against men on the basis of gender is not sexism, and I take offense at the notion that it is "nonsense", however that is only a pedantic tangent in the context of this discussion. To avoid further pedantry, going forward I will simply refer to it as discrimination.

Whatever your definition of that word, discrimination of any sort is morally and ethically wrong, and I must persist my argument that introducing more discrimination into an already discriminatory environment will only further escalate hostile feelings.

Regarding your point that this series is about women and therefore "[...] why are you bringing men up at all? Don't they have their own spheres which they already dominate?" I did not think that was the goal of Passion Projects. Are you trying to say that you would prefer a separate industry of women's technology and men's technology? The ultimate success of this project and others like it, I had assumed, was integration of all peoples into a cohesive community free from discrimination. To that end, I celebrate GitHub's initiative and hope that it is as successful as it can be.

Why is it necessarily hostile towards men to have a series of talks oriented towards women in tech? I don't imagine they're going to spend their time talking about how terrible men are, how we should undermine them at every turn, and do our best to tip the scales of systemic oppression in their favor. It seems to me to be about inspiration and encouragement, which can be a benefit to anyone, regardless of gender.

It is about creating an integrated community. But women need to come together and find the collective voice that most individuals currently do not possess. Sometimes the presence or involvement of men can be detrimental to that progress. Not all men, not all the time, but sometimes. So why bring up the "what about men?" argument when this is just not about men?

I am sorry you disagree with my definition of sexism. To my knowledge, that is an accepted academic definition.

You misunderstand my point. I happily support talks that feature and target women in tech, as I believe I have stated several times, I only worry about such initiatives excluding men from the audience or other means of participation. To achieve integration and inclusion, everyone must get involved to show their support and to learn about the issues at hand.

As to the definition of sexism, I would implore you to closely read any available dictionary entry of the word. The core definition is "discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex". It is unfortunate that this definition, in some dictionaries, will also include such lines as "typically against women", but that does not negate the possibility that sexism against men may occur. I would hardly refute that in a large number of cases sexism targets women, but by no means are men free from its effects.

My perspective is this: people write the dictionary just like people write any other book. It's not the end-all-be-all of any word. There are probably many sources on sexism that agree with me, and many that do not. It goes without saying, such is the nature of a controversial subject. I am not trying to be sarcastic here: Have you read any books on sexism or feminism? Because realistically, I think it's hard to grok those subjects with only a dictionary entry at your disposal.

I agree that sexism affects men negatively, as well. While men benefit the most from patriarchy, they also suffer. In order to reap its benefits, they have to play into the system. Most guys don't want to do that, and are appalled by people who do. But a future in which men and women overcome sexism is quite uncertain, and it is far easier to passively support male domination rather than to fight it. So yes, while I agree that men are negatively affected by sexism, I would disagree that men are negatively affected by sexism in the way that women are.

"Have you read any books on sexism or feminism?"

Books written by women for women examined at female studies classes at Universities which host Women's Centers? See what's wrong with this picture? It's very one sided.

Egalitarianism would benefit greatly from having the male point of view in these gender-based studies. You will however find a very small percentage of men compared to women in these courses.

If you actually want such an informed view, and you actually want to get closer to knowing what sexism really is, men should be much more involved in these courses and thing's shouldn't be so one-sided.

It is a fallacy to say that you cannot say that just because a woman wrote a book about women that it is inherently going to be incorrect. What about every other class at the university? Books written by men for men examined in classes about men. Historically, every other subject has been that one-sided.

Personally, I know just as many male feminists as I do female feminists, and several of the former are Gender and Women's Studies (GWS) majors or minors.

I'd love it if all students were required to take a GWS class. I'd love it if more male voices were engaged in the feminist discourse. We need more male voices in the feminist discourse. But frankly, it is easier to stick with the straw man argument "feminism is about hating men, going against nature, or being a lesbian!" rather than reading a wide range of literature that discusses its true goal: ending sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. Should be something we can all get behind...

I said books written by women for women, not just ABOUT women. These books examine relations between the two sexes and society in general. If you have primarily 50% of the population writing these books to examine society then yes, it is a fallacy and it is a distortion of reality.

This very much differs from subjects like physics or math or biology, written primarily by men. It doesn't matter who writes these books, they are science based, based on logic and facts.

This differs entirely from gender relation based books, which are based on observations. Again, if you primarily have one sex leading the discussion and writing books about observations (NOT science) then it is a distortion of reality.

As such, you now believe that sexism can only be done by men, and other ignorant statements. The problem is now that you TRULY in your heart believe this, because you were told over and over that all the problems which face you are a result of patriarchy and that women can't possibly be sexist against men! This goes against what has been ingrained in your brain, and you've never had any opposition to this naive idea until now, so it will be difficult for you to accept.

Yes, there are many male feminists which actually believe some of the things which you say, but why wouldn't there be? Feminism is a now long-established and UNCHALLENGED institution. Of course there will be men who will be feminists.

All students should definitely not be required to take any GWS classes. First off the problem is in the name already, Gender and Women's Studies. Already biased. Gender implies that women are a part of that gender. Make it simply Gender Studies or call it Gender and Women's and Men's studies.

Until there is a shift in attitudes and Gender Studies actually moves closer to reality, no one should be required to take such classes. There should be simple encouragement for men, however, to attend these classes to dispel decades of myth and ignorance.

sexism is systematic oppression by those in power on the basis of gender.

I think you're using the wrong word then. Discrimination against men is sexism. Maybe a better word for what you want is hegemony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory#Hegemo...

The key element is that women are not able to systematically oppress men for being men, as they do not have the social privilege to do so. You need all the elements in order to produce sexism.

A single individual event or person can be sexist. I understand the idea you are describing. That idea is not what the word "sexism" refers to. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexism

Sexism is an institution, so to speak. A single individual could not "bring sexism into existence". Women do not have enough power, as it stands, to impose a systemic oppression of men. Perhaps in the future, or in some female dominated societies, sexism against men exists...but not in the United States.

There is such a thing as institutional sexism, but that is not the only kind. I have already linked to the definition if sexism. There are many possible manifestations if it, and you are only describing one of them.

> Women do not have enough power, as it stands, to impose a systemic oppression of men.

And men don't have enough power to impose a systemic oppression of women -- for that, they need women to cooperate in their own oppression. Women voluntarily rise to the challenge.

> Perhaps in the future, or in some female dominated societies, sexism against men exists...but not in the United States.

No. You may have meant effective, oppressive sexism, but not sexism per se. There's plenty of sexism directed at men.

"If men knew what women said about them in private, the human race would cease to exist." -- W. H. Auden

I don't think I can buy the victim-blaming argument. Is a woman who is born into a culture with female genital mutilation, or forced arranged marriage "cooperating in their own oppression"? Both of these acts can occur at young ages.

When female genital mutilation occurs, which is largely a problem in non-Western countries [or at least is perceived to be a non-Western problem, I'm not informed enough to say], white feminists historically attributed that to those people being 'uncivilized', which is obviously racist and white supremacist, rather than it being a result of those women experiencing a different manifestation of oppression in a male-dominated society.

So yeah, that's one way women can contribute to their own oppression. Obviously most forms of women's oppression are not the result of that woman "doing it to herself," but I can definitely see how that line of argumentation can be a slippery slope of victim-blaming.

> I don't think I can buy the victim-blaming argument.

With respect to the topic of women who cooperate in their own oppression, they aren't victims, and no one is blaming them. Would you blame someone for choosing a lifestyle that didn't suit your personal tastes? No? Then we lose the right to "blame" women for making the choices they do. This is what personal freedom means -- the right to make choices others may disapprove of.

> Is a woman who is born into a culture with female genital mutilation ...

Surely you're aware that's not the topic. Such things aren't volunteered for, but the sorts of behavior we see in the West are often chosen by women who have options and rights.

> ... or forced arranged marriage "cooperating in their own oppression"?

Again, not the topic of discussion. Consider the all-too-common example in which a woman, removed from one abusive relationship, promptly seeks out another. How is that "forced"?

Real liberation will come, not when women are given the rights they deserve, but when they accept them.

> Consider the all-too-common example in which a woman, removed from one abusive relationship, promptly seeks out another. How is that "forced"?

That is a really poor example of women being instruments in their own oppression. In cases like that, women are likely suffering from internalized problems that result from patriarchy -- such as a desire to be dominated, to fit into the patriarchal framework, to fill out the role of the victim that they are told is their identity. Sure, some choice is involved, but it's more like Stockholm Syndrome than "I think I fancy having the living daylights beat out of me today."

My much less dramatic example is a woman who claims that she doesn't enjoy the company of other women, finds them to be too catty or bitchy, would rather hang out with men, etc. Commonly, this woman is seeking the approval of her male peers at the expense of...basically all women ever. She wants to come off as a "pretty tomboy" -- 'cool' enough to be one of the guys, but also conforming to sexist expectations about her appearance. This is obviously a stereotype, but I personally encounter it a lot. How can anyone truly respect women when their own kind are debasing them left and right?

> Real liberation will come, not when women are given the rights they deserve, but when they accept them.

I don't think I even need to explain how absurd this statement is. I'll agree that women are part of the problem in fighting for women's rights, but frankly I see and experience sexism far too often to be so dismissive.

I totally agree with you. Many women participate in the oppression of other women. White women have historically done this to women of color, but it can happen within the same race/class/etc.

Isn't sexism, by its nature, oppression? So what is sexism without oppression? I choose to call that discrimination or prejudice based on gender. You can call it "sexism minus x/y/z." I think the difference is that I see those other components as necessary for something or someone to be sexist, and you do not.

Frankly, I disagree with the wikipedia article and definition. As I've said -- these are controversial topics, something like the dictionary or wikipedia can't just be taken as sources of definitive truth in my opinion.

Did you read your link?

"Disadvantage or unequal opportunity arising from the cultural dominance of one gender over the other."

Women do not have cultural dominance over men.

mlent is saying that discrimination is not enough to constitute sexism, and specifically that discrimination against men cannot be sexism.

No one is trying to make the overall industry more hostile to men. Some people are trying to make certain spaces that feel safe and encouraging to women, which often means minimizing the maleness of the space.

Most don't fully exclude men, but they have legitimate reasons to want to make it feel like a female space, and if that means taking measures that prevent some men who would like to attend from attending, that's not necessarily a problem.

I say this as a male who has attended campus women in CS dinners and talks. These events are open to all, but aimed at giving women interested in computer science a community, role models, etc. When I go, I am always prepared to leave if I feel that my presence is hurting the overall atmosphere, because I realize that the events are a powerful force against inequalities in society, and the least I can do is stay out of the way. And when you ask the organizers if men can come, they say yes, but they do mention that it's important for it to feel like a female space, and that if it got to the point that so many men attended that this compromised that feeling, they would start discouraging men from attending.

Not every event needs to serve everyone in the industry. There are probably some language-focused meetups where you wouldn't feel especially comfortable or welcome because you don't know the language, or maybe even actively hate it. I understand that you feel it is different because you'd at least be allowed to attend a meetup for a language you don't know, but it still illustrates that not all events in the industry have to cater to you. When they're catering toward a disadvantaged group, they deserve even more leeway to make sure they achieve their goals. As long as the network of women-focused events doesn't become so large and meaningful that it is systematically disadvantaging men, I don't see any problem with some events excluding men in various ways.

You're concerned about sexism in the small--in this one event. Others are more concerned with sexism in the large--the pervasive social environment that systematically discourages women from entering an extremely rewarding and lucrative industry. Both are suboptimal. In the ideal world, there wouldn't be any women-only tech events. But in the ideal world, there wouldn't be any cultural problems in the industry that make women feel less welcome and free to speak at an event with significant male attendance than at an event that is all or nearly all women. Understand that if organizers choose to, say, split the tickets so that at most 25% of tickets may go to men, they're not doing it because they want to discriminate against men, but because they worry that allowing too many men to attend will make their event less effective at correcting an injustice that we all believe is worth fixing.

> Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning.

I doubt it would go very well if someone hosted a men-only event and said "I promise we're not sexist against women."

I don't think anyone is against having women-focused groups any more than having other interest-based groups. Women exclusive groups, though, do send a very conflicting message that it's okay to exclude a gender.

  > Women exclusive groups, though, do send a very 
  > conflicting message that it's okay to exclude a gender.

Please clarify... You're saying that the currently enfranchised group (males) will get further encouragement for their exclusionary behaviors because the disenfranchised group (women) exclude males from some of their activities? Does't this completely ignore the current power imbalance between the two groups?

The thing is, when women's groups are formed, they aren't to "keep men out". The point is that women aren't even thinking about men, they are thinking about other women. So no, I don't think it sends that message.

All this line of thinking does is shift attention towards men, thus reinforcing a male-centered culture.