Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pxtl | Hacker News Reader

Point.

It's such a shame that gender politics have created so many thorny issues in our industry, but you can't bury your head in the sand and pretend they're not there. If we had good female representation in the industry and we didn't have a small cluster of vocal misogynists, we'd be able to make cute jokes that play on gender. But sadly, we don't live in that world.

Yes, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and yes it sucks. There is no firewall around the industry - we live our professional lives online so everybody can see the messy internals of software development world... and software development has a serious gender-issues image problem. Now, depending who you talk to, that might be just an image problem, or it might be a really large slice of our industry who are sexist. But the the truth of the issue doesn't matter for this case, the perception does.

And we all need to work together to change that perception.

It's a funny joke, I love the name.

Change it.

View on HN

Who are these vocal misogynists in this industry? I've never heard of them or seen them...

Then you haven't worked on my current team. I used to cringe on a daily basis for the one woman on the team, until she left. They think they're being funny, and they think they are somehow "standing up" for their right not to be P.C. I honestly don't know if they know or intend their tone to be bullying.

This comment is a binding site for the following comment-pattern: It's Your Job To Stand Up To Them.

Maybe the correct solution would be to do more than just cringe? If you did indeed confront them, then I apologise for assuming otherwise, but it seems to be the case that there's an awful lot of posturing as a warrior for social justice on HN, yet very little actual, difficult, real-life work towards any social justice causes.

Ah, there it is.

That would require actual effort/danger, which SJWs would never put themselves through. Moral superiority is their goal, not any sort of change.

Read a few comments in this thread for some examples.

Here's a recent example. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/09/business-inside...

  It's a funny joke, I love the name.

  Change it.

A higher standard? How about an individual having backbone and integrity to stand firm, hold the line and not supplicate?

I feel this, "Change it.", as if you are some castrating, sky-god feels eerie. Like you are some judge of the highest moral purity, when in reality, you're the enemy of purity. You are taking an honest, organic creation and molding it for your own ability to feel powerful on the internet.

Change yourself.

Feel castrated?

edit: What really bothers me here is the "Change it.", it feels like a summary judgment. I don't think the author should be intimidated by popularity or political correctness. If he makes a joke, sometimes is best to own it. Personally, I don't find it funny, but I think it's an O.K. name and helps me remember its an app for reference purposes.

Really? You call another HN commenter "some castrating, sky-god"?

You tell them "in reality, you're the enemy of purity."

You ask, "Feel castrated?"

I don't care what your point is, this isn't the place for those kinds of insults and personal attacks.

rds2000 is literally saying that being a man is pitiful and should be shamed, and then argues elsewhere in this very thread that the real problem with our industry are the feminists.

Me thinks he doesn't read what he types.

> How about an individual having backbone and integrity to stand firm, hold the line and not supplicate?

I have the backbone and integrity to know that as I walk through life, I am responsible for stepping carefully and thoughtfully.

I have no problem stepping forward to call people out when they're well-intentioned but wrong, or ill-intentioned. Even if it costs me karma, or sales, or popularity, it is sometimes the right thing to do.

In this case, I am calling you out on the word "supplicate.' I choose to make the world a better place. I'm not supplicating, or white knighting, or anything like that. It's not about appeasing anyone, it's about doing the right thing for us.

The very word "supplicate" implies a them vs. us dichotomy which is itself a problem. YOU are furthering these problems by using divisive language.

The library is an organic creation. Organisms grow and evolve and CHANGE FOR THE BETTER. If you think it would be better with a name that many find offensive and divisive, that's your opinion.

But you can guess what I think of the premise that when things are offensive, it's everyone else's responsibility to change. It sounds like a spoiled brat who thinks the world should revolve around them, and everyone else should change so that they can do as they like without pushback.

Standing firm on something dumb is not a matter of integrity. Backbone and integrity mean you do what's right even under pressure not to. Sticking with this name isn't right. It's not particularly wrong, but it's not some noble thing.

> It's a funny joke, I love the name. Change it.

Women everywhere will appreciate your valiant display of chivalry. They shall chant "Thank you Pxtl, for saving us from male privilege!".

Your premise is flawed. For example, I don't give a damn what women think of my calling people out on misogyny. I am not pro-women, I am anti-jackass. Comments like yours are jackasstic. I can dislike them without a moment's consideration of what women think of your words.

> I don't give a damn what women think of my calling people out on misogyny

That's what you're doing. You're like MLK for women's rights.

Dude(?), I'm not MLK, and I'm not into women's rights. I'm a selfish bastard who wants to double or treble the number of productive brains in my environment. Exclusionary behaviour stands between me and my dream, and I will crush it by any means necessary.

If you must compare me, think of Malcolm X. Do not make the mistake of thinking I'm nice to women, men, other people of colour, or anybody else.

> Exclusionary behaviour stands between me and my dream, and I will crush it by any means necessary.

I like your sentiment, but I have a hard time imagining women out there who feel excluded by things like the name of a software package. I would love to see more brains in software, but I don't think word play is a major barrier. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I would like to hear from first hand sources -- not a bunch of dudes on a software forum who claim to know what women want.

Edit: Instead of arguing if the word `bro` is offensive, could you point me to people who are offended?

I would like to hear from first hand sources -- not a bunch of dudes on a software forum who claim to know what women want.

How very odd that despite all of our behaviour being so non-offensive and non-exclusionary, we don't seem to have any women who want to hang around this forum with us, and especially don't want to engage in discussions about exclusion where the immediate response to any questioning to for the questioner to be shouted down in vituperative terms.

No evidence? Because "we already scared them away"? Okay champ.

"How very odd that despite all of our behaviour being so non-offensive and non-exclusionary, we don't seem to have any women who want to hang around this forum with us..."

Correlation -> Causation?

Is that seriously why you think there aren't more women on HN? Because it's offensive and exclusionary against women?

I can think of a number of my colleagues who specifically avoid HN because of that very reason, so, yes.

Is this the part where I should say something about how they need to "toughen up" and they must be "too sensitive"? jk. That's actually a real shame. I'm not going to venture a guess at the % of threads that any woman would find offensive but always thought HN was roughest on people's work when seeking feedback, etc.

I'm a woman, and I've been in the tech industry for more than a decade. I avoid HN like the fucking plague, precisely because of the fact that it is so exclusionary and hateful toward women and other marginalized groups. (Tonight is absolutely the first time I have EVER commented in a thread.) So there's at least one data point for you.

There are threads like this one that become explicitly about gender. They aren't particularly inviting. Sometimes they make the front page, in which case there is a semblance of discussion. They aren't a great advert for hn as an inclusive space though.

In general the problem is more with the atmosphere in threads that aren't explicitly about gender. This means things like the language that people use or the assumptions that they make when writing a comment. Sometimes these aren't very welcoming to women (other groups too), or are just offensive.

When people get called out for this behaviour, it can spark a big shitstorm of argument in which people often lose all concept of polite discussion and ask for rigorous proof that someone does in fact feel marginalised. This isn't very encouraging.

Links to geekfeminism seem to provoke a strong reaction from some people, but here's one for you:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Male_Programmer_Privilege...

I encourage you to read this (even if you don't agree) and then spend some time on hn just thinking about the content of discussion knowing that some people might feel this way. Empathy is the key.

Not all of the examples on that page are applicable here because this isn't a physical space or a workplace. Yes, a lot of them are anecdotal - it's a wiki and a collection of peoples experiences. I'm not saying that you are necessarily privileged. Treat the page as it is - a collection of experiences.

I've bothered to type this out because you seem to be reasonable and to argue in good faith. To understand why people feel marginalised can take a bit more than logical argument though. You need to be open minded and to attempt to empathise with other people.

If we're talking about for example, a woman being the first one on the team everyone expects will take notes, I identify with someone that feels it is the symptom of a larger problem very easily. Same with things like, "C'mon guys, deadline coming up" and "Oh, you're not just working the booth?" Common sense stuff.

Of course, if someone gets offended they aren't "right" by default. The word "bro" is not offensive but people are using it to shoehorn in bigger issues they feel passionately about. It's like when someone is rabid about politics and tries to force it into conversations (thinking of an old family member here that goes on about Obama being a socialist at the drop of a hat). Clearly, the list you linked to is, for the most part reasonable. But reading this thread, there's that same propagandized vibe of people who have lost perspective.

On the other hand, there's a comment in here about a guy who said the people who used to beat him up used the word "bro" all the time. He was obviously traumatized by that, so his visceral reaction to the word is completely understandable. I can only speculate that others in this thread that genuinely are offended by the word "bro" in this context have had experiences that make them react similarly, whether it's physical assault, things said to them or being marginalized at work. I can have empathy for these people, but it doesn't make naming this tool bropages offensive.

Edit for clarity.

Thank you. Sorry if I came across as condescending in my previous post - I'm writing to the thread as much as you and I was just trying to be very clear.

Of course, if someone gets offended they aren't "right" by default. I agree, but it should give us cause to think critically about the thing that offended them.

Personally, I didn't initially feel too strongly about the 'bro' usage here - offense is subjective. However on seeing how other people felt, my default position is to side with the group that is feeling marginalised and work from there.

I actually think the operative word here is 'marginalisation' rather than 'offense'. Whilst some might be viscerally offended by 'bro', I am more concerned about the maintenance of an atmosphere that makes people feel marginalised and unable / unwilling to participate.

You're right, this thread has become about more than the OP. I think this has happened because whether 'bro' is a poor choice of word here depends very much on your perspective and background, and there are a variety of those represented here.

I feel there are two issues here: the OP and the wider issue of HN as an inclusive space. I feel that this latter issue is important and that this thread is an appropriate place to bring it up.

I would be happier if we could all discuss the OP politely, without making wide generalisations, ad hominem attacks, othering, being aggressively antagonistic and disregarding the lived experiences of other people. Until that happens I am going to keep calling people out, because I feel that the otherwise excellent standard of discussion on HN should be accessible to everyone.

Having seen this happen in a number of internet communities, where women have described the reasons they would no longer visit, and having watched these communities change from reasonably well represented by both sexes to almost exclusively male-only: yes. It's almost certainly because the community at HN is offensive and exclusionary towards women.

This seems to be something of a hot button issue within the community at the moment, probably spurred on by pg's comments taken out of context, but the last few threads on similar topics have been filled with bile, reverse sexism claims, and general attacks against women. It's sad to see, because at this stage it's essentially too late for this place. The last community community I was (and still am) a part of made a conscious effort to change its moderation and terms of use to be more inclusive and punish individuals who stepped over the lines, but it was too late for them too - the sense of community was already destroyed for most of the visibly female members there. I haven't noticed them come back.

I don't see a single attack against women in this entire 600+ post thread.

I haven't read the entire thing, however.

Would you mind sharing a link?

Due to the Internet being anonymous, it seems much easier for people to just dismiss people outright. Making dismissive comments about women in the workplace is difficult when you have to actually deal with the fallout of your actions. Meanwhile, the Internet enables everyone to just say whatever comes to mind.

I live in Arizona. When someone cuts me off on the freeway, my instinctive response is to look at the license plate. If the license plate is from a northern state, my reaction is "Fucking snowbirds. Goddamn." I'm in my car, and I'm just reacting - I'm not thinking. Five seconds of thought calms me down, but until that happens, I'm making a pretty nasty comment about the elderly.

The Internet is similar to my car - it's a consequence-free space where people can just say things without thinking. The difference is that unlike my car, where I could spout off the worst racial profanities I can come up with, the Internet actually has people reading the posts.

As for Internet communities being devoid of women, I can think of exactly one general community that has women. It has three things that I think are vital - a small community, a draconian moderation team, and a userbase that calls out bullshit very quickly.

Have you considered that, if women are uncomfortable around techies, maybe it's because people make such a big deal about them being around in the first place? Like maybe it's really uncomfortable being treated with special status when you just want to fit in?

I'm not a car guy, but if I went to a meetup of car enthusiasts and all the sudden they dialed back everything they said so that I didn't feel like an "outsider", I would feel incredibly self conscious about being there. I probably wouldn't show up again. Whereas if they just treated me as a noob and gently brought me up to speed, I'd feel included.

Maybe it's the same thing with tech? Maybe all these social justice warriors going "ERMAHGERD SAVE THER GERLS" are just making women feel really fucking uncomfortable by highlighting the fact that they really are outsiders at this point? Maybe the nicest thing you could do for women in tech is just, you know, treat them like regular people?

I don't know if that's the case. But I will say: I have just about as much proof as you do on your theory that women aren't in tech because men are exclusionary jerks.

You rang? I normally avoid commenting on crap like this because people like you are a pain to talk to, but since you seem to want to take advantage of me not engaging with people like you to argue that I don't exist... hi, I exist. Now please stop it with that terrible argument.

I would probably not have put it like this, but me too..

Honestly, if I were in a better mood today I'd probably put it differently, but this thread...

The correlation between people with attitude problems and those who feel excluded is surprisingly strong. Thanks for your input!

The correlation between people with attitude problems and those who make others feel excluded is unsurprisingly strong.

The behavior here is only exclusionary if people feel excluded by it, so the legitimacy of your concerns is based in how women (in this case) feel. If you can't find a person who thinks he/she is being discriminated against here, you're obviously tilting at windmills.

the legitimacy of your concerns is based in how women (in this case) feel. If you can't find a person who thinks he/she is being discriminated against here, you're obviously tilting at windmills.

Now what you're presenting me with is a proposition that if "X" is false, then I should reconsider my belief that "Y" is true. So before I give this further thought, let me call your bet:

Will you in turn agree that if "X" turns out to be true, will you reconsider your belief that "Y" is false?

I would hate to go to a lot of work to show you that there are offended women, only to hear you mansplain to me that well, there aren't enough women, or they're the wrong sorts of women, or even if they're offended that they shouldn't be offended, or some other such weaselling out.

First of all, I think you're confusing me with the people you're arguing against (who explicitly deny that calling some website "bro" is exclusionary). I'm not arguing for that; I'm objecting to your disingenuous claim (as I read it) that you're NOT trying to act as an advocate on behalf of women.

We're talking about a social construct here (exclusionarity), so certainly the more women you find, the stronger your case is. No women is no evidence, one is weak evidence, etc. But even if you find such people, why don't you let them speak for themselves?

And why use the word "mansplain"? It's inflammatory language.

I'll take that as a "I want you to burden yourself with justifying your position, but I'm not going to commit to any movement on my own position, and for that matter, I won't even commit to a position, I'm just lobbing a burden at you."

I choose not to play along.

> so certainly the more women you find, the stronger your case is.

It's a problem. Enough women have spoken up about it. They've expressly asked that their friend speak up when they see it happen. They aren't coming to every single stupid thread on every single website just to satisfy your needs.

> But even if you find such people, why don't you let them speak for themselves?

It's a problem. Enough women have spoken up about it. They've expressed they don't feel comfortable, or they don't feel welcome. These are my friends, my colleagues. It makes me feel bad knowing people are doing things that hurt my friends. I speak up, because it makes me feel uncomfortable.

> I'm objecting to your disingenuous claim (as I read it) that you're NOT trying to act as an advocate on behalf of women.

Both men and women have a problem with this mentality. We aren't advocating on behalf of women. We are advocating on behalf of ourselves. It's because that same culture that we are fighting against is the same type of culture that will mock someone for their sexuality, or race, or hell, even if they are wearing glasses. It's a immature culture. It's one that holds us back.

I don't have to be gay to fight for gay marriage. I don't have to be black to fight for equal rights. I don't have to be a woman to fight sexism in the industry.

In the end, I speak up because it affects me. That you think that's not possible is a problem with you, not me.

Indeed, if your point really was: "why don't you let them speak for themselves?", why aren't you asking that same question to everyone supporting the bro name? After all, unless they are the ones who named the software, why don't they let the author speak for himself?

This is kind of a non sequitur. It sounds like you're trying to argue against someone who denies that women in tech are sometimes made to feel uncomfortable. Maybe you didn't read my post carefully, but just saw "why don't you let them seak for themselves" and assumed that was my position.

You're begging the question here. If the name of this site really belongs to the same category of things that make women uncomfortable, of course it is bad.

> only to hear you mansplain to me that well

Nice, you just ruined any legitimacy your argument may have had by using the word 'mansplain'. You can't argue against potentially sexist or othering words by using a deliberately sexist, othering word.

Note that any attempts to explain why 'mansplaining' should be accepted despite its sexist, othering connotations will also apply to words such as 'bro'.

The word 'bro' has nothing to do with women. There is too much internet dork white knighting going on in this thread.

I'd respect peoples opinion more in this thread if they said 'Hey! I know there is a small percentage of us guys who are offended by this rubygem name, and I dont like it! You should change it.' vs. trying to frame the argument that one is trying to save the poor helpless women from themselves.

Of course this is his desired outcome, because every man who works for gender equality is doing it for praise or because he wants to get laid.

For pity's sake, it's not like I said that his patriarchal name encourages rape-culture and that he needs to check his privilege and properly understand the intersectionality of female geeks.

I said it was funny, but that it's probably best for the health of our industry that we try to avoid the whole "gender" subject matter when it comes to jokes.

A little professionalism never hurt anyone.

I get really fucking tired of seeing men who are helping derided as "white knights". Trust me, women can TELL when someone is putting us on a pedestal and deciding that we have to be defended because we're such delicate flowers, and we're quick to call that bullshit when we see it. Most of us actually appreciate when our ALLIES step up to talk about this shit.

It's not about "saving us" -- we aren't fucking damsels in distress, and yes, we can speak for ourselves. But assholes like you have made eminently clear that you don't actually LISTEN to women, and so it's nice to know that some men actually have our backs and are willing to do the utterly thankless work of trying to explain shit to you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com