My First Hand Experience With Sexism | Hacker News Reader

My First Hand Experience With Sexism

becomingmedium.com

46 pointsinteresse71 comments

> “Women are incapable of making the tough decisions necessary to run a profitable company on low margins.” - CEO of a Women’s Product Retailer

Frankly, I think the CEO was pulling this guys leg and wanted to see how he reacted when his buttons are pushed. That is a situation that frequently occurs in customer meetings and you don't want your rep to blow up in the customer's face.

That said, did you see the recent Swedish study of 125.000 companies that proved women-run companies makes 15% less profit? SOURCE: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&art...

> You should know this about me. I don’t do well around alpha males.

Yeah, so the blogger can't deal with CEOs and other authority figures. Wouldn't hire him/her either.

> That said, did you see the recent Swedish study of 125.000 companies that proved women-run companies makes 15% less profit?

Proved is a strong word, especially when evidence to the contrary also exists: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2438150/More-female-...

> that proved women-run companies makes 15% less profit?

Correlation != Causation. What if women are more likely to start companies in fields where profit margins are lower?

Even if correlation is not causation, that's not evidence that causation is not an explanatory factor.

Okay well...go ahead and prove it then.

Acting like a total asshole but not being one is a silly way to interview someone, but if true the interviewer should have made the deception clear before letting the interviewee leave. Anything else reflects too poorly on the interviewer and the company.

Yeah, so the blogger can't deal with CEOs and other authority figures

You've mistaken "hyper-competitive dickhead" for "CEO" and "authority figure".

Pretty funny, because "Google For Entrepreneurs" has spammed my G+ timeline all week with studies on women led companies making more money. Well actually not studies, just infographics making that claim. Glad to see some counterexample - I think it is always naive to assume "just put a woman on top and the company will do x% better/worse".

Both claims might be true, it could very well be the case that women-led companies have higher revenues than average, but re-invest more of their profit margin in the workforce than average.

Maybe - I actually don't think it's very interesting, because I doubt "women" are the deciding factor. It seems more likely to me that women prefer certain types businesses, that for random chance did well in recent years (ie Social Networks vs mining or car manufacturing).

I dug up one of those papers, by Credit Suisse, and it was exactly as I thought: counting from 2006 onwards women led companies performed better than others. But if women were the factor, why didn't that effect show before 2006? (Not sure if it was exactly 2006, but some recent year). It's well known that if you are allowed to pick the time frame, you can make any investment look good ("if you bought stock x in year y, you would have tripled your investment in 10 years" - but you would have lost everything in year 11...).

It's actually not that easy to distinguish "test" from "jerk/idiot" in an interview ...

> you see the recent Swedish study of 125.000 companies that proved

Just a minor nitpick, studies don't prove anything. Even experiments (in Physics) don't prove anything unless different people can reproduce them repeatedly. But (statistical) studies prove nothing at all, they merely hint at a correlation.

Minor nitpick of your minor nitpick:

Statistical studies do measure something. The parent comment didn't claim the study proved causation, just correlation.

> that proved women-run companies makes 15% less profit

If this quote doesn't claim causation to the common person, then I don't know what does...

What if I told you there are standard meanings of "prove" that aren't so strict?

At the risk of jumping into a flame-pool...

That study is interesting, since it seems similar to studies indicating women don't negotiate for higher salaries as often as men do.

He says he doesn't like "alpha males" because he believes that code for "type of person is an inexcusable justification for being an asshole". Then he goes through with the rest of the interview and realizes "How could I just sit there and not say anything?".

An alpha male[1] would have stopped the interview right there. Expressed his displeasure that the CEO could even think such a thing, particularly since he was running a company with products for women, and further speculated on how appalled he is that the CEO would then utter such non-sense[2]. Get up and walk the heck away.

Defend your damn convictions, when the need defending. Not is some whiny blog post afterwards.

1) or an alpha female, although they wouldn't have got an interview and no one is that stupid to say those things if they did to them (right?!?)

2) my Dad's favorite saying when his sons did something foolish as youths was "I am amazed and appalled. Amazed you though up such a thing and appalled you did it."

You did the right thing, IMO. Silence is tacitly condoning the status quo. Be the change you want to see, and when you're in a relative position of power (like being able to turn down a job), do something.

> You did the right thing, IMO. Silence is tacitly condoning the status quo.

But that is what the author did - he didn't confront the CEO, nor did he name the company.

He told the company it was a reason he wasn't accepting. After the fact, I think that's still laudable.

I'm actually less surprised by the sexism than by the strange ranting behavior from a President during an interview. Even if the rant was about something less controversial, it's just bizarre. If that's normal behavior from the guy, I wonder how they ever recruit talent.

I say name some names. If this really happened at a company that sells products to women, I say it's time for a boycott.

Live the way you want the world to look, and then it has begun to look that way.

I'd have cut the interview short to show them that this is unacceptable. They know what they've done and that it's wrong. After the fact, there really isn't much that one can do. Move on and try to find a place where the CEO isn't an asshole. As for it being a test, I doubt anyone is that stupid. He knew what he was saying.

> I doubt anyone is that stupid

Apparently you haven't met many CEOs.

Am I sexist for assuming that the author was a woman right up until the point where he says "Surprisingly most of my women friends and my wife" ?

I'm sure this article will spark a serious, reasoned, and very civil discussion on sexism, which will include verifiable citations for all claims and absolutely no hearsay or strawmen.

You could fit Steve Ballmer in this sarchasm.

Author ought to have mentioned the name of the company--otherwise, it's just more vapid hearsay. If we don't know who was supposed to have done this, what does it matter?

Morever, this quote got under my skin:

"Now I really empathized with all the women who were victims of assault or rape. To me, this was equivalent to videoing an assault or rape, doing nothing to stop it and later claiming you didn’t have a part in it."

That sort of comparison cheapens the suffering of those people; it's hyperbole of the worst sort.

As someone who has been a victim of sexual assault (rape) I would like to up vote your comment about a hundred times. The author apparently hasn't had to deal with the years of healing needed on so many levels. And yeah, it happens to men, too. By women.

> "Now I really empathized with all the women who were victims of assault or rape."

You interacted with a bad person or two and suddenly you're able to empathize with victims of assault and rape? What? Exactly how minimal is your understanding of those issues to equate them accordingly?

You're right, of course, but comments like these teach me only one thing: don't blog, write or talk about sexism. Someone will find one sentence that you wrote or said that's not OK and flame your ass about it.

And then you'll get super defensive about it and refuse to actually accept the useful feedback provided. Everyone loses!

I didn't read that as the author actually claiming to have some understanding of what it was like to be assaulted, but rather that he gained an understanding of how people often blame women for their own assaults.

Here's a fundamental problem with text-based communications. You interpret, "Now I really empathized" as "I've never empathized before but now I do", whereas it seems the intention was to state, "I empathized with them before but now that I've had a new experience I can understand their situation more and have greater empathy."

Actually I didn't think he wasn't empathetic before but even if I had, that's not the issue here: I interpreted him as saying experiencing workplace sexism provided him with first-hand insight into sexual assault and rape.

>I interpreted him as saying experiencing workplace sexism provided him with first-hand insight into sexual assault and rape.

Again, a terrible problem with text on a webpage. Someone will interpret your statements in an unexpected way and there's no face-to-face dialog to explain your reasoning or reword your statement to better explain it to your specific audience.

The next sentence is far worse, in that it explicitly says the situations are "equivalent".

>"To me, this was equivalent to videoing an assault or rape, doing nothing to stop it and later claiming you didn’t have a part in it."

He didn't say anything about equating them. He also didn't say he felt the same as those people. (You might be confusing empathy with sympathy?)

Edit: she -> he

I didn't confuse empathy with sympathy.

Hm, maybe. Anyway I don't think the empathy was for being raped, but for being ignored.

1. You should have confronted the CEO.

2. Since you did not do that, you should have at least posted the names involved.

As it is, I don't see the point of your post.

This article is incredibly badly written and lacks any real thought about the matter. So he had one interview with some douche CEO and now jumps to the conclusion that:

>"Sadly, sexism is alive and well in my industry. "

>"Now I really empathized with all the women who were victims of assault or rape."

Fucking really?

I've been a developer for now over 11 years and must have met thousands of other devs from countless conferences and meetups. Only once, ONCE, have I ever met someone who made a women-bashing comment similar to what he is talking about. This is both infront of women and behind their backs.

The only real sexism prevalent in the tech industry are the groups of militant feminists setting up endless, patronizing, segregated "coding for girls" meetups.

"The only real sexism prevalent in the tech industry are the groups of militant feminists setting up endless, patronizing, segregated "coding for girls" meetups."

ahahahahaha no try again

"The only real sexism prevalent in the tech industry are the groups of militant feminists setting up endless, patronizing, segregated "coding for girls" meetups."

It's easy for this kind of thing to be completely invisible when this is your attitude. Sexism in the tech industry is alive and well, and there are a lot of good reasons to have meet-ups for both girls and women.

When you immediately start lashing out about "militant feminists" the second someone suggests that sexism exists, you're saying that our experiences are invalid and that you know better than us how welcome we are in the industry. It should be completely unsurprising that this does not make us feel welcome.

I don't understand his post the same way. He said that the only sexism prevalent in this industry is the "girls code"-type sexism. Sure, sexism exists everywhere and always, as does racism and other -isms. Simply said, people will be jerks. However, it is unreasonable to draw conclusions for the whole industry based on the behaviour of one such jerk, that just happens to be a male sexist (I'm sure you'd find female sexists and black racists as well).

I don't need to base my opinion off of one guy's account of an incident in a blog post - I have a laundry list of my own very unpleasant experiences as a female developer to base my opinions on. I've also spoken to a great deal of other women who have a very similar list of very similar experiences. A lot of these experiences have aspects that are specific to the tech industry.

If you only have insight into industry sexism as far as one or two jerks, it's likely because you aren't a part of the affected demographic.

"A lot of these experiences have aspects that are specific to the tech industry."

Huh - how can the tech industry be more sexist than other industries? Please explain? I mean in what way can such an experience be tech specific? "Woman can't code" comments perhaps, but what else?

Apologies; I fat-fingered the down button when I meant to +1 your comment. Might someone reading along at home please help remedy that for me?

Only once, ONCE, have I ever met someone who made a women-bashing comment similar to what he is talking about.

I'm guessing you're not a woman. Now, I'm not trying to make judgement on the article either way, but I don't think you can really say "I've only ever seen sexism in tech once" when you aren't someone that actually experiences it.

Why not? That's like saying, "You have to have been shot by a gun to be able to say 'I've only seen someone get shot one time.'"

It's absolutely nothing like that. I'm not even sure where to start on breaking down how wrong that comparison is.

To attempt to mirror your example, it's actually like an Army general sitting in HQ saying "Well, I've only ever seen our guys get shot at once!" when his units are being decimated on the battlefield.

(Please don't read into that comparison. I am not actually attempting to compare women to battle-ready soldiers and men to lazy generals)

I get what you're trying to say now. My point is, if the OP has only seen it happen once, then they've only seen it once. You're denying that they've only observed it one time. That's what I have a problem with, not your sentiment.

You're trying to say, "just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen," right?

> Only once, ONCE, have I ever met someone who made a women-bashing comment […] The only real sexism prevalent in the tech industry are the groups of militant feminists

Next up, Hiram Wesley Evans explains he's only ever once seen a lynching as a child and how MLK is the real racist.

Jerks exist in the world. Frankly I don't see the big deal. It's clearly not a company he (or many other people) would like to work for. That happens a lot. Interviewing is a two sided process - the company has to like the candidate, and the candidate has to like the company. So it's a case of the candidate not liking the company. Surprisingly, even among men, not every man likes every other man.

While I don't agree with the CEOs statement, I think people should be allowed to hire whoever they want. If somebody doesn't want to hire women, so be it. There are companies that don't want to hire men, too.

While I don't agree with the CEOs statement, I think people should be allowed to hire whoever they want.

The trouble with this is that a set of biases can become near-universal.

I have the right to associate (or not) with whoever I choose. But if everyone (or nearly everyone) choose not to associate with people from a particular group, that is harmful to society[1].

So, there are exceptions made to your freedom of association. IIRC these exceptions only apply to companies with more than 50 employees, which seems a decent balance between "we're all friends here" small/family businesses (individual rights win) vs "you are a cog in a wheel" megacorps (the good of society wins).

[1] For example, I understand that people refusing to hire ex-convicts is a significant contributor to recidivism.

I know there are such laws - not sure if I agree with them, but OK (literally not sure - maybe it is good, maybe not - to be sure I wouldn't like it if it were my own company). But how are they being enforced, with so many possible candidates? Disabled people, women, different ethnic backgrounds, different schools, ex-convicts... One you go over 50, you have to have at least one of each of them? Or if you hire employee 51 and the candidate is an ex-convict, you have to hire him?

Economic theory would suggest a limit on this effect with regards to hiring.

This kind of silly shit is much easier to say when you're a member of that racial or gender group that more people want to hire.

The reverse exists, too, and I am pretty sure there are enough companies who want to hire women to give all women in IT sufficient choices.

What do you suggest - should the CEO be imprisoned? Disallowed from doing business? Go to brainwashing camp to set his brain right?

It's easy to get angry about such cases, but think about what you want to achieve.

Perhaps he had some bad experiences with women. It's unfortunate, but perhaps it should be respected if he doesn't want to work with women. The opposite way, women not wanting to work with men, is being cheered on by the "good people" all the time.

Also, in recent months I had lots of interviews where I didn't get hired. So what is it to me if certain groups are more likely to be hired? Even assuming it is true - it didn't help me that I am a man, the companies still didn't like me.

>I am pretty sure there are enough companies who want to hire women to give all women in IT sufficient choices.

Why are you sure of that? Is it because you have to be to overcome the cognitive dissonance of supporting the right to discriminate against women but not feeling like you yourself are a sexist, or because you have information that I'm not privy to?

edit: Maybe the "law of averages" tells you that for each group with an opinion, there's an equally large counterbalancing group with the opposite opinion?

I am sure because every week there are stories on HN about companies paying extra to lure women into IT. So apparently there are not enough IT women on the market to satisfy the demand of companies.

And even the companies who don't make a public announcement about it - many of them will probably also want to hire women, because it just seems slightly weird if an office is all-male. It's like a party without women.

This may not be about changing that particular CEO's attitudes but about sharing the experience with the rest of us, so that we all may extract something out of it. It's a statement that "this happened" - we make of it what we will.

OK - why not. As I said, I am not surprised that jerks exist in the world. The way to deal with them is to not join their company.

OK, bear with me for a moment, but why would a CEO who is so openly and blatantly sexist have accepted a women interviewee in the first place? I am inclined to thing that either he was either testing her, or this is fiction.

The interviewee appears to be a man.

Did anyone else think that this was a women? The title should not be My First Hand Experience With Sexism. Because first hand would have been if sexism was shown toward the author (because of his gender).

EXACTLY! I also read the blog on the assumption that the author was a woman up until he began mention of his wife etc. Does that make us sexist?

Do you think that speaking out to the CEO would have changed his mind? I think that if the author really wanted any chance at changing the CEO's mind about women - he should have accepted the job and planted some seeds of thought here and there directly or indirectly to the CEO.

Do you think that proceeding, he would be condoning sexism in some way? Perhaps in his own mind, but one person walking away from a job interview can hardly be considered a boycott.

If you are one person, your best bet to change something is to engage, not walk away.

>I then turned inward. I thought of the women in my life, my wife of almost 18yrs and my little 4.5 year old daughters. What would they think of their father for not saying anything and letting this jerk spew his sexist beliefs?

I am confused. Is she calling herself her child's father? Is she in a Female-Female marriage?

No, he is calling himself his child's father.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com