Comment by GarvielLoken | Hacker News Reader

Comment by GarvielLoken | Hacker News Reader

This article strikes me to centrer around concepts such as "impressionable", "self identify" or "feel like a hacker".

1. The author tries to blame society ( everybody except herself ) for not noticing the field of computer science. This is a very strange statement. Anyone using a computer must realise it didn't appear on the earth from god almighty him self. "stumbled upon opportunities early on" here again the author is trying to blame the society for the personal problem of a lack of willpower and curiosity for finding out how computers works, instead she comfortably chooses to say that the society did not do its part.

2. "Still, I imagine that this is unfortunately more common among women due to the ongoing sexism surrounding the field and the effects that this has on young, impressionable women.". Again with the personal lack of willpower. Being impressionable is a personal problem and the solution is not stopping to peruse an interest. Frankly I don't have any sympathy for anyone who refuses to do their own analysis of a subject and instead trust and conforms to other peoples view on the matter, which is what being "impressionable" is.

3. " In addition to being unable to self-identify with the "hacker" stereotype,". This is at the heart of the authors argument, "unable to self-identify". How on earth can this ever be a problem? What does it even mean? She wants to erase her personality and become a profession completely? If you like something I assume you are interested in the technique, art or science of the sport or hobby. Not because you want to "feel" like a practitioner of that sport/hobby? I really can't understand an argument that is based on how much you feel like a practitioner. If you are doing something you are doing it because you enjoy it or find it fascinating.

Every child will during upbringing become exposed to computers and if they are interested they will ask as how they work or how the programs are made. Anything after that is a pure personal problem, a willpower issue. Blaming others for ones own failings is not a valid argument and I wont respect it.

I get furious at the types of comments that plague these submissions to hacker news. usually it starts when someone submits an article that in some way holds society at large accountable for things like the lack of women in STEM, or someone’s difficulty in entering the “hacker” or “maker” culture.

this article hits both targets really well. and, like clockwork, the top comment does the following:

1. immediately suggests that it’s absurd that the author could blame society in any way for her difficulty/inability to enter the field of computer science.

2. uses his now-accepted theory that it is always, unfailingly, willpower (and only willpower) that prevents one from doing anything to basically posit that sexism doesn't exist (because it's all willpower). he implies that sexism in tech is a fault of a character flaw - impressionability

3. completely invalidates the concept and social power of identifying as part of a larger group. this guy is so privileged and used to identifying as a “hacker” that he can’t even comprehend the concept that someone might want to identify as a hacker (but have trouble doing so, say, because of comments like this)

if it’s not something like the above, it’s a comment that completely ignores the content of the article, and nit-picks about something like what the author _actually_ meant by the term “hacker” (which, if it was spoken by a man, would most likely not raise such questions)

I know I'm spitting venom, but I see this stuff so often and say nothing...I felt like it was necessary here.

I really don't see how you are countering or disproving anything I said, you aren't bringing forth any own arguments for a meaningful discussion, which you yourself admit.

2. If you would supply an argument or article or lines of reasoning to what exactly "sexism" is in the tech field and how this hampers the individual in pursuing ones interested I would be thankful. In my view only the law dictates what you can and can't do, anything else is choice.

3a. I recognize that people want to belong to a group, but I personally find it weak and ultimate foolish to let ones life be dictated by groups. I guess it is more important in the US were you have hundreds of school student groups for every interest available. I find the word "hacker" to be a childish Anglo-Saxon world word used for group identifying and I would never call myself a hacker, I am nordic country based.

3b. Well if you would consider someone who grew up out of the city with one parent working at factories as privileged I let you stand for that definition.

Thank you for saying something this time. I agree this "impressionability is a character flaw" business is bull. As if reacting badly to other people behaving negatively toward you and excluding you is something only worthless people do. As if humans don't have profound effects on other humans through their words and actions. As if the author is somehow above being in anyway influenced by other humans. I'm sure he's not, but he wants you to think so.

So much talk about games and making an appearance. I assure you that I don't care either way what your opinion is of me.

It is always choice to handle your reaction. Also you are strawmanning, it is a far cry from that society didn't actively shove a computer and a programming book to you as a child and people behaving negatively towards you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com